Allowed

Milapraj Bhansali v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Dec 2016APL/1300/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed a Criminal Application to quash criminal complaints under Sections 498A and other IPC sections, subject to the husband fulfilling conditions for mutual consent divorce in the Family Court by returning to India and completing formalities under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing the criminal complaint is allowed, subject to the husband giving mutual consent and complying with the Consent Terms in the Family Court to complete divorce under Section 13(b

Milapraj Bhansali Vs the State of Maharashtra — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2016)

1/3

APL/1300/2016

BDPPS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1300 OF 2016

¶5

Mr. Milapraj Bhansali & Ors

¶6

….. Applicants.

¶7

V/s

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ….. Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Ashish B. Baraskar for the Applicant. Mr. Prathmesh Bhargude for Respondent No.2. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for Respondent No.1/State.

¶10

CORAM: V. M. KANADE &

¶11

Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.

¶12

DATE: 16^th December, 2016

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

1] Leave to amend granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

¶15

2] We have heard the learned Counsel for the Applicants and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2.

¶16

3] We have interviewed Respondent No.2 who is the original complainant. The complaint was filed by Respondent No.2 against the Applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Parties have amicably settled the dispute. Respondent No.2 has withdrawn the

¶17

2/3

¶18

APL/1300/2016

¶19

case filed by her under the Domestic Violence Act against her husband and in-laws. One of the conditions in the Consent Terms is that the husband should come to India and complete the process of obtaining divorce in the Family Court. The husband, at the moment, is in United States and he is likely to come back on 21/12/2016. The matter is posted before the Family Court on 07/01/2017.

¶20

4] When we interviewed Respondent No.2, she has expressed her apprehension about husband not giving his consent for divorce. We are satisfied that, prima facie, both the parties have amicably settled the dispute. We have recorded consent of Respondent No.2 which is conditional and it depends on husband coming to India and completing the formalities of getting divorce under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶21

5] Application for quashing the criminal complaint is allowed subject to husband giving his consent and acting as per Consent Terms filed in the Family Court. Family Court shall proceed to pass the order of divorce by consent of husband and Respondent No.2.

¶22

6] We therefore pass the conditional order. Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), subject to husband giving his mutual consent for divorce as per Consent Terms filed by the parities in the Family Court.

¶23

3/3

¶24

APL/1300/2016

¶25

7] In the event, the husband does not act as per the Consent Terms and refuse to give mutual consent for divorce then this order allowing the Criminal Application shall stand withdrawn without further reference to this Court.

¶26

(Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. ) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Milapraj Bhansali v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Milapraj Bhansali v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Usha Rupabhai Parmar Vs State of Maharashtra through Revenue Dept. and Anr.

Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Yogesh Pandurang Labhade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shashikant Anand Khatte and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Devendra Powertech through Proprietor Hemant Patil Vs the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Chetna Parag Agarwal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.