Criminal writ petition challenged issuance of summons in a section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance petition before the Family Court, Nashik. The petitioner disputed paternity of respondent no.2, who had applied for a DNA test. The court found the petitioner was avoiding appearance and dismissed the writ petition.
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.
KVM
902 - WP 614 OF 2023.doc
1/3
KANCHAN Digitally signed byKANCHAN VINOD VINOD MAYEKAR MAYEKAR Date: 2024.03.1118:31:58 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 614 OF 2023
Gokul Anandrao Pingale
….. Petitioner
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra & Anr.….. Respondents
Mr.Aniket Nikam i/b. Mr.Amit Icham for the Petitioner.
Mr.Raghavendra S. Mehrotra (Legal Aid Counsel) a/w.
Ms.Samruddhi Gholap for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. S.S.Pednekar, A.P.P. for the State.
CORAM: RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 7 MARCH, 2024
P.C. :-
The present criminal writ petition is filed challenging
issuance of the summons, under a petition filed before the Family
Court, Nashik, under section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
2.Mr. Nikam submits that the present respondent no.2, claims
to be the daughter of the petitioner, who is about 17 years old.
He submits that there is no relationship between the petitioner
KVM
2/3
902 - WP 614 OF 2023.doc
and the respondent no.2. He submits that the petitioner is
innocent and falsely implicated in this case.
3.Mr. Raghavendra S. Mehrotra, learned counsel submits that
he has instructions to appear for the original respondent no.2 as
an appointed advocate through the Legal Aid. He submits that
the present respondent no.2 is the daughter of the original
respondent no.2 and the petitioner. He submits that as the said
fact is disputed by the petitioner, she has preferred an application
for conduct of ‘DNA Test’ before the D. V. Court and he further
submits that as the petitioner has avoided to appear before the
D.V.Court. He submits that whatever will be the outcome of the
DNA Test will have the bearing of the entire proceedings.
4.Before the Family Court, petition under section 125 of the
Cr.P.C. is filed against the petitioner herein. The petitioner is not
appearing before the Family Court, and has doubted his
relationship with the respondent no.2. Before the Family Court,
the respondent no.2 has already preferred an application for DNA
KVM
3/3
902 - WP 614 OF 2023.doc
Test. The petitioner is not ready to appear before the Family
Court. I am not impressed with the submissions of Mr.Nikam.
5. No case is made out by the petitioner. Writ petition is
dismissed.
[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition lies to quash summons issued under section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings in the Family Court when paternity is disputed and a DNA test application is pending.
Should the writ petition be entertained given the petitioner's non-appearance before the Family Court?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gokul Anandrao Pingale
State Of Maharashtra
Respondent No.2
Rajesh S. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court