Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr. Semantic Analysis

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.

Decided On : Dec-10-1986

Court : Mumbai

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context

$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'section 127(2',
			(int) 1 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 2 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 3 => 'section 127(2',
			(int) 4 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 5 => 'section 127(2',
			(int) 6 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 7 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 8 => 'section 125',
			(int) 9 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 10 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 11 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'H.H. Kantharia',
			(int) 1 => 'Criminal Misc',
			(int) 2 => 'Solapur',
			(int) 3 => 'Solapur',
			(int) 4 => 'Solapur'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'Extra'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2nd',
			(int) 1 => '2nd',
			(int) 2 => '7th',
			(int) 3 => '2nd',
			(int) 4 => '2nd'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Solapur'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '25th December, 1984',
			(int) 1 => '1983',
			(int) 2 => '19th June, 1979',
			(int) 3 => '35/- per month',
			(int) 4 => '1978',
			(int) 5 => '1979',
			(int) 6 => '1980',
			(int) 7 => 'August',
			(int) 8 => '1981',
			(int) 9 => '1983',
			(int) 10 => '25th December',
			(int) 11 => '25th December, 1984',
			(int) 12 => '1983',
			(int) 13 => '1982',
			(int) 14 => '19th October, 1983'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Criminal Revision Application',
			(int) 1 => 'Judicial Magistrate',
			(int) 2 => 'the Court of the',
			(int) 3 => 'Judical Magistrate',
			(int) 4 => 'Sangola',
			(int) 5 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 6 => 'Criminal Revision Application No',
			(int) 7 => 'the Session Court',
			(int) 8 => 'Hindu Marriage Petition No',
			(int) 9 => 'the Civil Court',
			(int) 10 => 'the District Court',
			(int) 11 => 'the Court of the',
			(int) 12 => 'Judicial Magistrate F.C.',
			(int) 13 => 'Sangola',
			(int) 14 => 'Criminal Misc',
			(int) 15 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 16 => 'Criminal Revision Application No',
			(int) 17 => 'the Sessions Court',
			(int) 18 => '2nd Additional Sessions',
			(int) 19 => 'Revision Application',
			(int) 20 => 'Civil Court',
			(int) 21 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 22 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 23 => 'Civil Court',
			(int) 24 => 'Civil Court',
			(int) 25 => 'the Civil Court',
			(int) 26 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 27 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 28 => 'Criminal Revision Application',
			(int) 29 => 'Judicial Magistrate',
			(int) 30 => 'Sangola',
			(int) 31 => 'Criminal Misc'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '251',
			(int) 1 => '1',
			(int) 2 => '55',
			(int) 3 => '349',
			(int) 4 => '1',
			(int) 5 => '251',
			(int) 6 => '1984.4',
			(int) 7 => '251'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Civil Appeal No'
		)
	),
	'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
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '351923'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'section 127(2',
		(int) 1 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 2 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 3 => 'section 127(2',
		(int) 4 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 5 => 'section 127(2',
		(int) 6 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 7 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 8 => 'section 125',
		(int) 9 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 10 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 11 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'H.H. Kantharia',
		(int) 1 => 'Criminal Misc',
		(int) 2 => 'Solapur',
		(int) 3 => 'Solapur',
		(int) 4 => 'Solapur'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'Extra'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2nd',
		(int) 1 => '2nd',
		(int) 2 => '7th',
		(int) 3 => '2nd',
		(int) 4 => '2nd'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Solapur'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '25th December, 1984',
		(int) 1 => '1983',
		(int) 2 => '19th June, 1979',
		(int) 3 => '35/- per month',
		(int) 4 => '1978',
		(int) 5 => '1979',
		(int) 6 => '1980',
		(int) 7 => 'August',
		(int) 8 => '1981',
		(int) 9 => '1983',
		(int) 10 => '25th December',
		(int) 11 => '25th December, 1984',
		(int) 12 => '1983',
		(int) 13 => '1982',
		(int) 14 => '19th October, 1983'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Criminal Revision Application',
		(int) 1 => 'Judicial Magistrate',
		(int) 2 => 'the Court of the',
		(int) 3 => 'Judical Magistrate',
		(int) 4 => 'Sangola',
		(int) 5 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 6 => 'Criminal Revision Application No',
		(int) 7 => 'the Session Court',
		(int) 8 => 'Hindu Marriage Petition No',
		(int) 9 => 'the Civil Court',
		(int) 10 => 'the District Court',
		(int) 11 => 'the Court of the',
		(int) 12 => 'Judicial Magistrate F.C.',
		(int) 13 => 'Sangola',
		(int) 14 => 'Criminal Misc',
		(int) 15 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 16 => 'Criminal Revision Application No',
		(int) 17 => 'the Sessions Court',
		(int) 18 => '2nd Additional Sessions',
		(int) 19 => 'Revision Application',
		(int) 20 => 'Civil Court',
		(int) 21 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 22 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 23 => 'Civil Court',
		(int) 24 => 'Civil Court',
		(int) 25 => 'the Civil Court',
		(int) 26 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 27 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 28 => 'Criminal Revision Application',
		(int) 29 => 'Judicial Magistrate',
		(int) 30 => 'Sangola',
		(int) 31 => 'Criminal Misc'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '251',
		(int) 1 => '1',
		(int) 2 => '55',
		(int) 3 => '349',
		(int) 4 => '1',
		(int) 5 => '251',
		(int) 6 => '1984.4',
		(int) 7 => '251'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Civil Appeal No'
	)
)
$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
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '351923'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
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

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'section 127(2',
			(int) 1 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 2 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 3 => 'section 127(2',
			(int) 4 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 5 => 'section 127(2',
			(int) 6 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 7 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 8 => 'section 125',
			(int) 9 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 10 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 11 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'H.H. Kantharia',
			(int) 1 => 'Criminal Misc',
			(int) 2 => 'Solapur',
			(int) 3 => 'Solapur',
			(int) 4 => 'Solapur'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'Extra'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2nd',
			(int) 1 => '2nd',
			(int) 2 => '7th',
			(int) 3 => '2nd',
			(int) 4 => '2nd'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Solapur'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '25th December, 1984',
			(int) 1 => '1983',
			(int) 2 => '19th June, 1979',
			(int) 3 => '35/- per month',
			(int) 4 => '1978',
			(int) 5 => '1979',
			(int) 6 => '1980',
			(int) 7 => 'August',
			(int) 8 => '1981',
			(int) 9 => '1983',
			(int) 10 => '25th December',
			(int) 11 => '25th December, 1984',
			(int) 12 => '1983',
			(int) 13 => '1982',
			(int) 14 => '19th October, 1983'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Criminal Revision Application',
			(int) 1 => 'Judicial Magistrate',
			(int) 2 => 'the Court of the',
			(int) 3 => 'Judical Magistrate',
			(int) 4 => 'Sangola',
			(int) 5 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 6 => 'Criminal Revision Application No',
			(int) 7 => 'the Session Court',
			(int) 8 => 'Hindu Marriage Petition No',
			(int) 9 => 'the Civil Court',
			(int) 10 => 'the District Court',
			(int) 11 => 'the Court of the',
			(int) 12 => 'Judicial Magistrate F.C.',
			(int) 13 => 'Sangola',
			(int) 14 => 'Criminal Misc',
			(int) 15 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 16 => 'Criminal Revision Application No',
			(int) 17 => 'the Sessions Court',
			(int) 18 => '2nd Additional Sessions',
			(int) 19 => 'Revision Application',
			(int) 20 => 'Civil Court',
			(int) 21 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 22 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 23 => 'Civil Court',
			(int) 24 => 'Civil Court',
			(int) 25 => 'the Civil Court',
			(int) 26 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 27 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 28 => 'Criminal Revision Application',
			(int) 29 => 'Judicial Magistrate',
			(int) 30 => 'Sangola',
			(int) 31 => 'Criminal Misc'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '251',
			(int) 1 => '1',
			(int) 2 => '55',
			(int) 3 => '349',
			(int) 4 => '1',
			(int) 5 => '251',
			(int) 6 => '1984.4',
			(int) 7 => '251'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Civil Appeal No'
		)
	),
	'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
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '351923'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'section 127(2',
		(int) 1 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 2 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 3 => 'section 127(2',
		(int) 4 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 5 => 'section 127(2',
		(int) 6 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 7 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 8 => 'section 125',
		(int) 9 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 10 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 11 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'H.H. Kantharia',
		(int) 1 => 'Criminal Misc',
		(int) 2 => 'Solapur',
		(int) 3 => 'Solapur',
		(int) 4 => 'Solapur'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'Extra'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2nd',
		(int) 1 => '2nd',
		(int) 2 => '7th',
		(int) 3 => '2nd',
		(int) 4 => '2nd'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Solapur'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '25th December, 1984',
		(int) 1 => '1983',
		(int) 2 => '19th June, 1979',
		(int) 3 => '35/- per month',
		(int) 4 => '1978',
		(int) 5 => '1979',
		(int) 6 => '1980',
		(int) 7 => 'August',
		(int) 8 => '1981',
		(int) 9 => '1983',
		(int) 10 => '25th December',
		(int) 11 => '25th December, 1984',
		(int) 12 => '1983',
		(int) 13 => '1982',
		(int) 14 => '19th October, 1983'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Criminal Revision Application',
		(int) 1 => 'Judicial Magistrate',
		(int) 2 => 'the Court of the',
		(int) 3 => 'Judical Magistrate',
		(int) 4 => 'Sangola',
		(int) 5 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 6 => 'Criminal Revision Application No',
		(int) 7 => 'the Session Court',
		(int) 8 => 'Hindu Marriage Petition No',
		(int) 9 => 'the Civil Court',
		(int) 10 => 'the District Court',
		(int) 11 => 'the Court of the',
		(int) 12 => 'Judicial Magistrate F.C.',
		(int) 13 => 'Sangola',
		(int) 14 => 'Criminal Misc',
		(int) 15 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 16 => 'Criminal Revision Application No',
		(int) 17 => 'the Sessions Court',
		(int) 18 => '2nd Additional Sessions',
		(int) 19 => 'Revision Application',
		(int) 20 => 'Civil Court',
		(int) 21 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 22 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 23 => 'Civil Court',
		(int) 24 => 'Civil Court',
		(int) 25 => 'the Civil Court',
		(int) 26 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 27 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 28 => 'Criminal Revision Application',
		(int) 29 => 'Judicial Magistrate',
		(int) 30 => 'Sangola',
		(int) 31 => 'Criminal Misc'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '251',
		(int) 1 => '1',
		(int) 2 => '55',
		(int) 3 => '349',
		(int) 4 => '1',
		(int) 5 => '251',
		(int) 6 => '1984.4',
		(int) 7 => '251'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Civil Appeal No'
	)
)
$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
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '351923'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
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

LAW: section 127(2, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, section 127(2, the Criminal Procedure Code, section 127(2, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, section 125, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Criminal Procedure Code

PERSON: H.H. Kantharia, Criminal Misc, Solapur, Solapur, Solapur

NORP: J.1, Extra

ORDINAL: 2nd, 2nd, 7th, 2nd, 2nd

GPE: Solapur

DATE: 25th December, 1984, 1983, 19th June, 1979, 35/- per month, 1978, 1979, 1980, August, 1981, 1983, 25th December, 25th December, 1984, 1983, 1982, 19th October, 1983

ORG: Criminal Revision Application, Judicial Magistrate, the Court of the, Judical Magistrate, Sangola, Magistrate, Criminal Revision Application No, the Session Court, Hindu Marriage Petition No, the Civil Court, the District Court, the Court of the, Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sangola, Criminal Misc, Magistrate, Criminal Revision Application No, the Sessions Court, 2nd Additional Sessions, Revision Application, Civil Court, Magistrate, Magistrate, Civil Court, Civil Court, the Civil Court, Additional Sessions, Additional Sessions, Criminal Revision Application, Judicial Magistrate, Sangola, Criminal Misc

CARDINAL: 251, 1, 55, 349, 1, 251, 1984.4, 251

WORK_OF_ART: Civil Appeal No