| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/351923 |
| Subject | Criminal |
| Court | Mumbai High Court |
| Decided On | Dec-10-1986 |
| Case Number | Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985 |
| Judge | H.H. Kantharia, J. |
| Reported in | 1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258 |
| Acts | Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 125 and 127(2) |
| Appellant | Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane |
| Respondent | Arjun Keru Walekar and anr. |
| Appellant Advocate | P.M. Mengane, Adv. |
| Respondent Advocate | K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P. |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $args = array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/351923/rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]-Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $args = array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/351923/rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $args = array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/351923/rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]h.h. kantharia, j.1. the petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd additional sessions judge, solapur, on 25th december, 1984 in criminal revision application no. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent no. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the criminal procedure code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned judicial magistrate, first class, sangola.2. the short facts giving rise to this application are as under :the wife had filed criminal misc. application no. 20 of 1976 in the court of the learned judical magistrate, first class, sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the criminal procedure code. the learned trial magistrate, allowed her application.....Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $args = array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/351923/rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $args = array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/351923/rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :', (int) 3 => '<p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.', (int) 6 => '<p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;', (int) 7 => '<p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'', (int) 8 => '<p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p>', (int) 10 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 11 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
H.H. Kantharia, J.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $args = array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/351923/rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :', (int) 3 => '<p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.', (int) 6 => '<p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;', (int) 7 => '<p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'', (int) 8 => '<p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p>', (int) 10 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 11 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $args = array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/351923/rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :', (int) 3 => '<p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.', (int) 6 => '<p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;', (int) 7 => '<p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'', (int) 8 => '<p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p>', (int) 10 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 11 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $args = array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/351923/rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :', (int) 3 => '<p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.', (int) 6 => '<p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;', (int) 7 => '<p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'', (int) 8 => '<p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p>', (int) 10 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 11 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $args = array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/351923/rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :', (int) 3 => '<p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.', (int) 6 => '<p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;', (int) 7 => '<p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'', (int) 8 => '<p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p>', (int) 10 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 11 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $args = array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/351923/rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :', (int) 3 => '<p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.', (int) 6 => '<p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;', (int) 7 => '<p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'', (int) 8 => '<p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p>', (int) 10 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 11 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $args = array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/351923/rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :', (int) 3 => '<p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.', (int) 6 => '<p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;', (int) 7 => '<p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'', (int) 8 => '<p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p>', (int) 10 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 11 $i = (int) 6include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $args = array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/351923/rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :', (int) 3 => '<p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.', (int) 6 => '<p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;', (int) 7 => '<p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'', (int) 8 => '<p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p>', (int) 10 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 11 $i = (int) 7include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $args = array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/351923/rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :', (int) 3 => '<p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.', (int) 6 => '<p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;', (int) 7 => '<p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'', (int) 8 => '<p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p>', (int) 10 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 11 $i = (int) 8include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $args = array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/351923/rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :', (int) 3 => '<p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.', (int) 6 => '<p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;', (int) 7 => '<p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'', (int) 8 => '<p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p>', (int) 10 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 11 $i = (int) 9include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajabai Smt D O Nivrutti Mane Vs Arjun Keru Walekar and anr - Citation 351923 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '351923', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125 and 127(2)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.M. Mengane, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.H. Kelkar and ;J.M. Chitale, Advs. for respondent 1 (Absent) and ;P.M. Vyas, A.P.P.', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-12-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.H. Kantharia, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.</p><p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :</p><p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.</p><p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.</p><p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.</p><p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;</p><p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'</p><p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.</p><p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $args = array( (int) 0 => '351923', (int) 1 => 'rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/351923/rajabai-smt-d-o-nivrutti-mane-vs-arjun-walekar' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>H.H. Kantharia, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :', (int) 3 => '<p>The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session Court. Thereafter the husband filed a petition bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 1979 against the wife for divorce in the Civil Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Solapur. The matter was carried by the husband in appeal to the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1980. His appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1981 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband, he filed an application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of order of maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982. The learned Magistrate dismissed the husband's application. He, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 in the Sessions Court at Solapur.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the said Revision Application, came to the conclusion that there was a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial magistrate to have cancelled the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and by not doing so, he committed legal error. He accordingly allowed the husband's application and set aside the order or maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the learned trial Magistrate, by resorting to the provisions of section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by his judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. Being aggrieved, the wife filed the present application.', (int) 6 => '<p>5. Now, section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be very the same accordingly. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that a competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the husband dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband but that decision itself gives no right to the husband to get the maintenance order cancelled because the definition of 'wife' in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is;', (int) 7 => '<p>'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'', (int) 8 => '<p>In other words, as per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a divorced wife is also entitled to an order of maintenance till such time she gets remarried. In the instant case, it is nobody's catenation that after a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner-wife had remarried. Therefore, although she is a divorced wife, she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, is patently illegal. The same has to be set aside.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 25th December, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 1982 on 19th October, 1983 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.<p>', (int) 10 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 11 $i = (int) 10include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109