Allowed

Supriya W/O Umesh Maske v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC6 Jan 2016APPLN/2980/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application to dispense with the personal appearance of the accused in a transferred matrimonial-related criminal case, directing theLower Court not to insist on attendance since identity is not questioned. (Thin order)

What did the court decide?

The application was allowed. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class shall not insist on the personal appearance of respondents no. 2 to 5 during the trial.

Supriya W/O Umesh Maske Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

criapln2980-2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2980 OF 2015
(Supriya W/o. Umesh Maske Vs. The State of Maharashtra
and others)

¶5

Mr. G.R. Syed, Advocate for the applicant
Mr.R.B. Bagul, A.P.P. for the respondent-State
Mr. S.P. Salgar, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 5

¶6

 CORAM: M.T. JOSHI, J.
 DATE : 06/01/2016

¶7

ORAL ORDER :

¶8

1. Heard both sides.

¶9

2.It is an admitted fact that the petition for

¶10

dissolution of marriage is already transferred from Beed
to Aurangabad. According to the applicant, there was

¶11

incident of threatening to her relatives at Parali-
Vaijinath and the photo copy of the non-cognizable case
registered is filed on record. Besides this, the
applicant is also residing at Aurangabad.

¶12

3.The dispute has arisen out of the matrimonial

¶13

problems. Mr. G.R. Syed, learned counsel for the
applicant submits that the applicant would not press for
personal appearance of the accused i.e. present
respondent nos. 2 to 5 in the present Regular Criminal

¶14

2 criapln2980-2015

¶15

Case No.177 of 2014 upon its transfer to Aurangabad, as
they are residing at Beed.

¶16

4.Mr. S.P. Salgar, learned counsel for respondent

¶17

nos. 2 to 5 opposed the application. He submits that the
Regular Criminal Case is fixed for evidence.

¶18

5.Considering all the material on record and
finding that the other proceedings are already
transferred to Aurangabad, the present application is
allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) of the present
application.

¶19

.The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class to

¶20

whom the present proceeding would be allotted, shall not
insist on the personal appearance of respondent nos. 2

¶21

to 5 during trial since the identity of these
respondents is not in question.

¶22

.The present application is accordingly allowed

¶23

and disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶24

npj/criapln2980-2015

Supriya W/O Umesh Maske v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Supriya W/O Umesh Maske v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ismail S/O Anwar Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Radhyesham Gopikishan and Company Vs M/S Kashmirilal Manojkumar Jalna and Ors.

Radhyesham Gopikishan and Company Vs M/S Kashmirilal Manojkumar and Ors.

Devidas Diwanrao Shelke Vs Y.Malla Reddi, Anantram Reddi

The State of Maharashtra Vs Santosh Ramdas Wabale and Others

Bombay Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Shamsunnissa Begum Jafar Hussain and Another