The petitioner challenged interim orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The court held the petition is not maintainable due to the availability of a statutory alternate and efficacious remedy and rejected it.
The writ petition stands rejected.
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.
28-WP-3205-2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3205 OF 2019
PUSHPA DNYANESHWAR VHATKAR)...PETITIONER
V/s.
VINAYAK DNYANESHWAR VHATKAR & ORS.)...RESPONDENTS
Mr.Vijay Rajdev, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms.Rita Rajani, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr.A.R.Patil, APP for the Respondent – State.
CORAM:A. M. BADAR, J.
DATE:9th JANUARY 2020
P.C.:
1By this petition, interim orders dated 10th September
2014 and 12th September 2014 passed by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivali, Mumbai, in a proceeding under
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act are being
challenged. In view of availability of statutory alternate and
efficacious remedy, the petition stands rejected.
(A. M. BADAR, J.)
avk 1/1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a criminal writ petition challenging interim domestic violence interim orders is maintainable when a statutory alternate remedy is available.
PUSHPA DNYANESHWAR VHATKAR
VINAYAK DNYANESHWAR VHATKAR
A. M. BADAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court