The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application. The court held that the impugned order allowing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was based on sufficient reasons and did not call for interference.
Criminal Revision Application dismissed; Rule discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1) Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 339 of 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Criminal Revision Application No. 339 of 2002
Sangita w/o. Indersing Charwande, Age : 21 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Kingaon, Taluka : Ambad, District : Jalna.
.. Applicant.
versus
Indersing s/o. Kachru Charwande, Age : 28 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Kingaon, Taluka : Ambad, District : Jalna.
.. Respondent.
Mr. S.Y. Mahajan, Advocate, for the applicant.
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.
DATE : 17TH MARCH 2015
PER COURT :
(2) Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 339 of 2002
Revision Application has been listed for final hearing. Adv. Mr. Mahajan submits that he has not received any instructions from the applicant. He further submits that he cannot proceed with the matter for want of instructions and inference could be drawn that the applicant does not wish to prosecute the Revision Application any further either for the reason that she has accepted the decree for restitution of conjugal rights or for the reason that she does not need maintenance.
(3) Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 339 of 2002
reason. The learned revisional court had rightly considered that the applicant herein had deposed before the court, that she was willing to cohabit with her husband even after the last incident. The allegations levelled by the respondent were not substantiated nor specified. The respondent had substantiated his case by filing a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights and, therefore, it could not be construed that the respondent herein had neglected or denied to maintain the present applicant. In view of this, the petition filed by the respondent was allowed. The learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, has recorded just reasons for allowing the petition. The judgment delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, does not call for any interference.
( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV ) JUDGE
puranik / CRIREVN339.02
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision application filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the order allowing the respondent’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights warrants interference.
Sangita w/o. Indersing Charwande
Indersing s/o. Kachru Charwande
Sadhana S. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
