Ushaben Ganpatsinh Barad Vs. Devendrasinh Ramsinh Raj and anr. Semantic Analysis

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Ushaben Ganpatsinh Barad Vs. Devendrasinh Ramsinh Raj and anr.

Decided On : Jan-21-1993

Court : Gujarat

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' => 'Ushaben Ganpatsinh Barad Vs. Devendrasinh Ramsinh Raj and anr. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'A.N. Divecha',
			(int) 1 => 'Misc',
			(int) 2 => 'Misc',
			(int) 3 => 'Arunaben T. Ramanuj v.',
			(int) 4 => 'Vasudev P. Nimavat',
			(int) 5 => 'Shri Yagnik',
			(int) 6 => 'Shri Rao'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.The'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Court',
			(int) 1 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 2 => 'Criminal Revision Application No',
			(int) 3 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 4 => 'Trial Magistrate',
			(int) 5 => 'Judicial Magistrate',
			(int) 6 => 'Trial Magistrate',
			(int) 7 => 'the Sessions Court',
			(int) 8 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 9 => 'Criminal Revision Application No',
			(int) 10 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 11 => 'Criminal Revision Application No',
			(int) 12 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 13 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 14 => 'Court',
			(int) 15 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 16 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 17 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 18 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 19 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 20 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 21 => 'Court',
			(int) 22 => 'the Revisional Court',
			(int) 23 => 'The Revisional Court',
			(int) 24 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 25 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 26 => 'Court',
			(int) 27 => 'Suffice',
			(int) 28 => 'Court',
			(int) 29 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 30 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 31 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 32 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 33 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 34 => 'Criminal Revisional Application No',
			(int) 35 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 36 => 'Criminal Revisional Application No'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '401',
			(int) 1 => 'one',
			(int) 2 => '3',
			(int) 3 => '2',
			(int) 4 => '2',
			(int) 5 => '1',
			(int) 6 => '1,000/-',
			(int) 7 => '1'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1973',
			(int) 1 => '10th July, 1992',
			(int) 2 => '62 of 1992',
			(int) 3 => '350/- per month',
			(int) 4 => '1989',
			(int) 5 => '10th January, 1992',
			(int) 6 => '455/- per month',
			(int) 7 => '62 of 1992',
			(int) 8 => '10th July, 1992',
			(int) 9 => '62 of 1992',
			(int) 10 => '455/- per month',
			(int) 11 => '339/- per month',
			(int) 12 => '455/- per month',
			(int) 13 => '1992',
			(int) 14 => '1487',
			(int) 15 => '1993',
			(int) 16 => '1232',
			(int) 17 => '10th July, 1992',
			(int) 18 => '62 of 1992',
			(int) 19 => '10th Jaunary, 1992',
			(int) 20 => '1989'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 1 => 'Vadodara',
			(int) 2 => 'J.D.',
			(int) 3 => 'Vadodara',
			(int) 4 => 'T.B.',
			(int) 5 => 'Gujarati',
			(int) 6 => 'T.B.',
			(int) 7 => 'T.B.',
			(int) 8 => 'T.B.'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '4th',
			(int) 1 => 'first'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '742304',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Revn. No. 302 of 1992',
			'appellant' => 'Ushaben Ganpatsinh Barad',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ushaben Ganpatsinh Barad Vs. Devendrasinh Ramsinh Raj and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  It is unfortunate that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has turned blind eyes to these hard realities of life on the part of a woman like the petitioner. It is better that the learned Additional Sessions Judge soon gets rid of such erroneous impression. The sooner he does the better it is for litigants who knock his doors of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Arunaben T. Ramanuj v. Vasudev P. Nimavat;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.J. Yagnik, Adv.; K.N. Valikarimwala, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent No. 2-State',
			'counseldef' => ' B.T. Rao, Adv. for the Respondent No. 1',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1993-01-21',
			'deposition' => 'Revision allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.N. Divecha, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.N. Divecha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The unfortunate deserted wife has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for brief) as the slice from her bread is sought to be cut away by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Vadodara by his judgment and order passed on 10th July, 1992 in Criminal Revision Application No. 62 of 1992. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the quantum of maintenance awarded to the present petitioner by the learned Trial Magistrate from Rs. 453/- per month to Rs. 350/- per month practically without assigning any reasons, much less any cogent or convincing reasons in that regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The facts giving rise to this revisional application are not many and not much in dispute. The petitioner was required to file one maintenance application before the appropriate Forum in Vadodara some time in 1989. It came to be registered as Misc. Criminal Application No. 45 of 1989. It appears to have been assigned to the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) of Vadodara. By his judgment and order passed on 10th January, 1992 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 45 of 1989, the learned Trial Magistrate accepted the maintenance application made by the petitioner and awarded to her the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 455/- per month. Even at that time this quantum of maintenance could not be said to be enough to keep her body and soul together keeping in mind that she was a T.B. patient and also keeping in mind soaring, spiralling and skyrocketing prices of essential commodities day in and day out. The aggrieved husband carried the matter in revision before the Sessions Court questioning the correctness of the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned trial Magistrate. His revisioaal application came to be registered as Criminal Revision Application No. 62 of 1992. It appears to have been assigned to the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Vadodara for hearing and disposal. By his judgment and order passed on 10th July, 1992 in Criminal Revision Application No. 62 of 1992, the learned Additional Sessions Judge practically without any ryhme or reason reduced the quantum of maintenance payable to the petitioner herein from Rs. 455/- per month to Rs. 339/- per month. That resulted in substantial cut in the otherwise meagre amount of maintenance which was awarded by the learned trial Magistrate. She has, therefore, been obliged to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by means of this revisional application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The impugned judgment and order is in Gujarati. The relevant paragraph containing the so-called reasoning for interfering with the quantum of maintenance is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... ... ... . '</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It becomes clear from bare perusal of the aforesaid so-called reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for interfering with the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned trial Magistrate that what has weighed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge in reducing the quantum of maintenance was the rising cost of living. It appears that the learned Judge thought that such rising cost of living would affect only the husband and not the wife, only the menfolk and not the womenfolk. Even after observing that she had no source of income and that she was a T.B. patient, it is surprising that the learned Additional Sessions Judge thought it fit to reduce the quantum of maintenance without realising that such rising trend of prices would affect the unfortunate wife more than the husband. As aforesaid, even she could not have been able to keep her body and soul together with the meagre amount of Rs. 455/- per month. To top it all, she is a T.B. patient. She would need all the more nourishing food to keep the process of recovery uninterrupted and unabated. She might have to spend a large chunk of the maintenance amount towards medicines and nourishing food while combating the disease of T.B. What would be left with her for keeping her body and soul together can be anybody's guess. In these circumstances, there was a case for enhancement of the quantum of maintenance rather than any curtailment or reduction therefrom. It is unfortunate that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has turned blind eyes to these hard realities of life on the part of a woman like the petitioner. The present petitioner might have heaved a sigh of relief and might have felt obliged to the learned Judge on noting that the finding in her favour recorded by the learned trial Magistrate as to her entitlement to the maintenance from her husband was not disturbed in the revisienal proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This Court has time and again emphasised and insisted upon the Revisional Court not to exercise revisional powers for mere asksng. The Revisional Court can interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate in any maintenance proceedings only if it is found that a finding recorded by the learned trial Magistrate is perverse. It is not, necessary to refer to various rulings of this Court in that regard. Suffice it to refer to the ruling of this Court in the case of Arunaben T. Ramanuj v. Vasudev P. Nimavat, reported in 1992 (2) GLH 1487 : (1993 (2) GLR 1232). It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was entertaining an erroneous impression that he was exercising original powers or at the most appellate powers and not revisional powers when he thought of interfering with the quantum of maintenance awarded to the present petitioner by the learned trial Magistrate. It is better that the learned Additional Sessions Judge soon gets rid of such erroneous impression. The sooner he does the better it is for litigants who knock his doors of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained in law for a moment. It has to be set aside in this revisional proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, this revisional application is accepted. The judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Vadodara on 10th July, 1992 in Criminal Revisional Application No. 62 of 1992 is quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 10th Jaunary, 1992 in Criminal Revisional Application No. 45 of 1989 is restored. Respondent No. 1-Husband shall pay the costs of this revisional procerding to the petitioner and the costs are quantified at Rs. 1,000/-. Rule is accordingly made absolute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Shri Yagnik for the petitioner has urged that respondent No. 1-Husband has not paid the maintenance amount regularly and that he is in arrears thereof. Shri Rao for the husband has disputed this statement. Be that as it may, if the maintenance amount is in arrears, I hope wiser Counsel would prevail over the husband and he would not hesitate in paying the arrears at the first available opportunity without her requiring to execute the order of maintenance by means of a coercive process.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'II(1994)DMC211; (1994)1GLR427',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Devendrasinh Ramsinh Raj and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Family;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '742304'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ushaben Ganpatsinh Barad Vs. Devendrasinh Ramsinh Raj and anr. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'A.N. Divecha',
		(int) 1 => 'Misc',
		(int) 2 => 'Misc',
		(int) 3 => 'Arunaben T. Ramanuj v.',
		(int) 4 => 'Vasudev P. Nimavat',
		(int) 5 => 'Shri Yagnik',
		(int) 6 => 'Shri Rao'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.The'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Court',
		(int) 1 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 2 => 'Criminal Revision Application No',
		(int) 3 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 4 => 'Trial Magistrate',
		(int) 5 => 'Judicial Magistrate',
		(int) 6 => 'Trial Magistrate',
		(int) 7 => 'the Sessions Court',
		(int) 8 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 9 => 'Criminal Revision Application No',
		(int) 10 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 11 => 'Criminal Revision Application No',
		(int) 12 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 13 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 14 => 'Court',
		(int) 15 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 16 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 17 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 18 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 19 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 20 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 21 => 'Court',
		(int) 22 => 'the Revisional Court',
		(int) 23 => 'The Revisional Court',
		(int) 24 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 25 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 26 => 'Court',
		(int) 27 => 'Suffice',
		(int) 28 => 'Court',
		(int) 29 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 30 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 31 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 32 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 33 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 34 => 'Criminal Revisional Application No',
		(int) 35 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 36 => 'Criminal Revisional Application No'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '401',
		(int) 1 => 'one',
		(int) 2 => '3',
		(int) 3 => '2',
		(int) 4 => '2',
		(int) 5 => '1',
		(int) 6 => '1,000/-',
		(int) 7 => '1'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1973',
		(int) 1 => '10th July, 1992',
		(int) 2 => '62 of 1992',
		(int) 3 => '350/- per month',
		(int) 4 => '1989',
		(int) 5 => '10th January, 1992',
		(int) 6 => '455/- per month',
		(int) 7 => '62 of 1992',
		(int) 8 => '10th July, 1992',
		(int) 9 => '62 of 1992',
		(int) 10 => '455/- per month',
		(int) 11 => '339/- per month',
		(int) 12 => '455/- per month',
		(int) 13 => '1992',
		(int) 14 => '1487',
		(int) 15 => '1993',
		(int) 16 => '1232',
		(int) 17 => '10th July, 1992',
		(int) 18 => '62 of 1992',
		(int) 19 => '10th Jaunary, 1992',
		(int) 20 => '1989'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 1 => 'Vadodara',
		(int) 2 => 'J.D.',
		(int) 3 => 'Vadodara',
		(int) 4 => 'T.B.',
		(int) 5 => 'Gujarati',
		(int) 6 => 'T.B.',
		(int) 7 => 'T.B.',
		(int) 8 => 'T.B.'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '4th',
		(int) 1 => 'first'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '742304',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Revn. No. 302 of 1992',
		'appellant' => 'Ushaben Ganpatsinh Barad',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ushaben Ganpatsinh Barad Vs. Devendrasinh Ramsinh Raj and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  It is unfortunate that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has turned blind eyes to these hard realities of life on the part of a woman like the petitioner. It is better that the learned Additional Sessions Judge soon gets rid of such erroneous impression. The sooner he does the better it is for litigants who knock his doors of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Arunaben T. Ramanuj v. Vasudev P. Nimavat;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.J. Yagnik, Adv.; K.N. Valikarimwala, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent No. 2-State',
		'counseldef' => ' B.T. Rao, Adv. for the Respondent No. 1',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1993-01-21',
		'deposition' => 'Revision allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.N. Divecha, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.N. Divecha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The unfortunate deserted wife has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for brief) as the slice from her bread is sought to be cut away by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Vadodara by his judgment and order passed on 10th July, 1992 in Criminal Revision Application No. 62 of 1992. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the quantum of maintenance awarded to the present petitioner by the learned Trial Magistrate from Rs. 453/- per month to Rs. 350/- per month practically without assigning any reasons, much less any cogent or convincing reasons in that regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The facts giving rise to this revisional application are not many and not much in dispute. The petitioner was required to file one maintenance application before the appropriate Forum in Vadodara some time in 1989. It came to be registered as Misc. Criminal Application No. 45 of 1989. It appears to have been assigned to the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) of Vadodara. By his judgment and order passed on 10th January, 1992 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 45 of 1989, the learned Trial Magistrate accepted the maintenance application made by the petitioner and awarded to her the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 455/- per month. Even at that time this quantum of maintenance could not be said to be enough to keep her body and soul together keeping in mind that she was a T.B. patient and also keeping in mind soaring, spiralling and skyrocketing prices of essential commodities day in and day out. The aggrieved husband carried the matter in revision before the Sessions Court questioning the correctness of the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned trial Magistrate. His revisioaal application came to be registered as Criminal Revision Application No. 62 of 1992. It appears to have been assigned to the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Vadodara for hearing and disposal. By his judgment and order passed on 10th July, 1992 in Criminal Revision Application No. 62 of 1992, the learned Additional Sessions Judge practically without any ryhme or reason reduced the quantum of maintenance payable to the petitioner herein from Rs. 455/- per month to Rs. 339/- per month. That resulted in substantial cut in the otherwise meagre amount of maintenance which was awarded by the learned trial Magistrate. She has, therefore, been obliged to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by means of this revisional application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The impugned judgment and order is in Gujarati. The relevant paragraph containing the so-called reasoning for interfering with the quantum of maintenance is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... ... ... . '</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It becomes clear from bare perusal of the aforesaid so-called reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for interfering with the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned trial Magistrate that what has weighed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge in reducing the quantum of maintenance was the rising cost of living. It appears that the learned Judge thought that such rising cost of living would affect only the husband and not the wife, only the menfolk and not the womenfolk. Even after observing that she had no source of income and that she was a T.B. patient, it is surprising that the learned Additional Sessions Judge thought it fit to reduce the quantum of maintenance without realising that such rising trend of prices would affect the unfortunate wife more than the husband. As aforesaid, even she could not have been able to keep her body and soul together with the meagre amount of Rs. 455/- per month. To top it all, she is a T.B. patient. She would need all the more nourishing food to keep the process of recovery uninterrupted and unabated. She might have to spend a large chunk of the maintenance amount towards medicines and nourishing food while combating the disease of T.B. What would be left with her for keeping her body and soul together can be anybody's guess. In these circumstances, there was a case for enhancement of the quantum of maintenance rather than any curtailment or reduction therefrom. It is unfortunate that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has turned blind eyes to these hard realities of life on the part of a woman like the petitioner. The present petitioner might have heaved a sigh of relief and might have felt obliged to the learned Judge on noting that the finding in her favour recorded by the learned trial Magistrate as to her entitlement to the maintenance from her husband was not disturbed in the revisienal proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This Court has time and again emphasised and insisted upon the Revisional Court not to exercise revisional powers for mere asksng. The Revisional Court can interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate in any maintenance proceedings only if it is found that a finding recorded by the learned trial Magistrate is perverse. It is not, necessary to refer to various rulings of this Court in that regard. Suffice it to refer to the ruling of this Court in the case of Arunaben T. Ramanuj v. Vasudev P. Nimavat, reported in 1992 (2) GLH 1487 : (1993 (2) GLR 1232). It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was entertaining an erroneous impression that he was exercising original powers or at the most appellate powers and not revisional powers when he thought of interfering with the quantum of maintenance awarded to the present petitioner by the learned trial Magistrate. It is better that the learned Additional Sessions Judge soon gets rid of such erroneous impression. The sooner he does the better it is for litigants who knock his doors of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained in law for a moment. It has to be set aside in this revisional proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, this revisional application is accepted. The judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Vadodara on 10th July, 1992 in Criminal Revisional Application No. 62 of 1992 is quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 10th Jaunary, 1992 in Criminal Revisional Application No. 45 of 1989 is restored. Respondent No. 1-Husband shall pay the costs of this revisional procerding to the petitioner and the costs are quantified at Rs. 1,000/-. Rule is accordingly made absolute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Shri Yagnik for the petitioner has urged that respondent No. 1-Husband has not paid the maintenance amount regularly and that he is in arrears thereof. Shri Rao for the husband has disputed this statement. Be that as it may, if the maintenance amount is in arrears, I hope wiser Counsel would prevail over the husband and he would not hesitate in paying the arrears at the first available opportunity without her requiring to execute the order of maintenance by means of a coercive process.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'II(1994)DMC211; (1994)1GLR427',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Devendrasinh Ramsinh Raj and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Family;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '742304'
)
$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' => 'Ushaben Ganpatsinh Barad Vs. Devendrasinh Ramsinh Raj and anr. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'A.N. Divecha',
			(int) 1 => 'Misc',
			(int) 2 => 'Misc',
			(int) 3 => 'Arunaben T. Ramanuj v.',
			(int) 4 => 'Vasudev P. Nimavat',
			(int) 5 => 'Shri Yagnik',
			(int) 6 => 'Shri Rao'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.The'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Court',
			(int) 1 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 2 => 'Criminal Revision Application No',
			(int) 3 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 4 => 'Trial Magistrate',
			(int) 5 => 'Judicial Magistrate',
			(int) 6 => 'Trial Magistrate',
			(int) 7 => 'the Sessions Court',
			(int) 8 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 9 => 'Criminal Revision Application No',
			(int) 10 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 11 => 'Criminal Revision Application No',
			(int) 12 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 13 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 14 => 'Court',
			(int) 15 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 16 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 17 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 18 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 19 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 20 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 21 => 'Court',
			(int) 22 => 'the Revisional Court',
			(int) 23 => 'The Revisional Court',
			(int) 24 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 25 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 26 => 'Court',
			(int) 27 => 'Suffice',
			(int) 28 => 'Court',
			(int) 29 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 30 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 31 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 32 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 33 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 34 => 'Criminal Revisional Application No',
			(int) 35 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 36 => 'Criminal Revisional Application No'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '401',
			(int) 1 => 'one',
			(int) 2 => '3',
			(int) 3 => '2',
			(int) 4 => '2',
			(int) 5 => '1',
			(int) 6 => '1,000/-',
			(int) 7 => '1'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1973',
			(int) 1 => '10th July, 1992',
			(int) 2 => '62 of 1992',
			(int) 3 => '350/- per month',
			(int) 4 => '1989',
			(int) 5 => '10th January, 1992',
			(int) 6 => '455/- per month',
			(int) 7 => '62 of 1992',
			(int) 8 => '10th July, 1992',
			(int) 9 => '62 of 1992',
			(int) 10 => '455/- per month',
			(int) 11 => '339/- per month',
			(int) 12 => '455/- per month',
			(int) 13 => '1992',
			(int) 14 => '1487',
			(int) 15 => '1993',
			(int) 16 => '1232',
			(int) 17 => '10th July, 1992',
			(int) 18 => '62 of 1992',
			(int) 19 => '10th Jaunary, 1992',
			(int) 20 => '1989'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 1 => 'Vadodara',
			(int) 2 => 'J.D.',
			(int) 3 => 'Vadodara',
			(int) 4 => 'T.B.',
			(int) 5 => 'Gujarati',
			(int) 6 => 'T.B.',
			(int) 7 => 'T.B.',
			(int) 8 => 'T.B.'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '4th',
			(int) 1 => 'first'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '742304',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Revn. No. 302 of 1992',
			'appellant' => 'Ushaben Ganpatsinh Barad',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ushaben Ganpatsinh Barad Vs. Devendrasinh Ramsinh Raj and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  It is unfortunate that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has turned blind eyes to these hard realities of life on the part of a woman like the petitioner. It is better that the learned Additional Sessions Judge soon gets rid of such erroneous impression. The sooner he does the better it is for litigants who knock his doors of justice.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Arunaben T. Ramanuj v. Vasudev P. Nimavat;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.J. Yagnik, Adv.; K.N. Valikarimwala, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent No. 2-State',
			'counseldef' => ' B.T. Rao, Adv. for the Respondent No. 1',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1993-01-21',
			'deposition' => 'Revision allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.N. Divecha, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.N. Divecha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The unfortunate deserted wife has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for brief) as the slice from her bread is sought to be cut away by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Vadodara by his judgment and order passed on 10th July, 1992 in Criminal Revision Application No. 62 of 1992. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the quantum of maintenance awarded to the present petitioner by the learned Trial Magistrate from Rs. 453/- per month to Rs. 350/- per month practically without assigning any reasons, much less any cogent or convincing reasons in that regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The facts giving rise to this revisional application are not many and not much in dispute. The petitioner was required to file one maintenance application before the appropriate Forum in Vadodara some time in 1989. It came to be registered as Misc. Criminal Application No. 45 of 1989. It appears to have been assigned to the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) of Vadodara. By his judgment and order passed on 10th January, 1992 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 45 of 1989, the learned Trial Magistrate accepted the maintenance application made by the petitioner and awarded to her the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 455/- per month. Even at that time this quantum of maintenance could not be said to be enough to keep her body and soul together keeping in mind that she was a T.B. patient and also keeping in mind soaring, spiralling and skyrocketing prices of essential commodities day in and day out. The aggrieved husband carried the matter in revision before the Sessions Court questioning the correctness of the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned trial Magistrate. His revisioaal application came to be registered as Criminal Revision Application No. 62 of 1992. It appears to have been assigned to the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Vadodara for hearing and disposal. By his judgment and order passed on 10th July, 1992 in Criminal Revision Application No. 62 of 1992, the learned Additional Sessions Judge practically without any ryhme or reason reduced the quantum of maintenance payable to the petitioner herein from Rs. 455/- per month to Rs. 339/- per month. That resulted in substantial cut in the otherwise meagre amount of maintenance which was awarded by the learned trial Magistrate. She has, therefore, been obliged to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by means of this revisional application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The impugned judgment and order is in Gujarati. The relevant paragraph containing the so-called reasoning for interfering with the quantum of maintenance is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... ... ... . '</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It becomes clear from bare perusal of the aforesaid so-called reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for interfering with the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned trial Magistrate that what has weighed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge in reducing the quantum of maintenance was the rising cost of living. It appears that the learned Judge thought that such rising cost of living would affect only the husband and not the wife, only the menfolk and not the womenfolk. Even after observing that she had no source of income and that she was a T.B. patient, it is surprising that the learned Additional Sessions Judge thought it fit to reduce the quantum of maintenance without realising that such rising trend of prices would affect the unfortunate wife more than the husband. As aforesaid, even she could not have been able to keep her body and soul together with the meagre amount of Rs. 455/- per month. To top it all, she is a T.B. patient. She would need all the more nourishing food to keep the process of recovery uninterrupted and unabated. She might have to spend a large chunk of the maintenance amount towards medicines and nourishing food while combating the disease of T.B. What would be left with her for keeping her body and soul together can be anybody's guess. In these circumstances, there was a case for enhancement of the quantum of maintenance rather than any curtailment or reduction therefrom. It is unfortunate that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has turned blind eyes to these hard realities of life on the part of a woman like the petitioner. The present petitioner might have heaved a sigh of relief and might have felt obliged to the learned Judge on noting that the finding in her favour recorded by the learned trial Magistrate as to her entitlement to the maintenance from her husband was not disturbed in the revisienal proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This Court has time and again emphasised and insisted upon the Revisional Court not to exercise revisional powers for mere asksng. The Revisional Court can interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate in any maintenance proceedings only if it is found that a finding recorded by the learned trial Magistrate is perverse. It is not, necessary to refer to various rulings of this Court in that regard. Suffice it to refer to the ruling of this Court in the case of Arunaben T. Ramanuj v. Vasudev P. Nimavat, reported in 1992 (2) GLH 1487 : (1993 (2) GLR 1232). It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was entertaining an erroneous impression that he was exercising original powers or at the most appellate powers and not revisional powers when he thought of interfering with the quantum of maintenance awarded to the present petitioner by the learned trial Magistrate. It is better that the learned Additional Sessions Judge soon gets rid of such erroneous impression. The sooner he does the better it is for litigants who knock his doors of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained in law for a moment. It has to be set aside in this revisional proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, this revisional application is accepted. The judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Vadodara on 10th July, 1992 in Criminal Revisional Application No. 62 of 1992 is quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 10th Jaunary, 1992 in Criminal Revisional Application No. 45 of 1989 is restored. Respondent No. 1-Husband shall pay the costs of this revisional procerding to the petitioner and the costs are quantified at Rs. 1,000/-. Rule is accordingly made absolute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Shri Yagnik for the petitioner has urged that respondent No. 1-Husband has not paid the maintenance amount regularly and that he is in arrears thereof. Shri Rao for the husband has disputed this statement. Be that as it may, if the maintenance amount is in arrears, I hope wiser Counsel would prevail over the husband and he would not hesitate in paying the arrears at the first available opportunity without her requiring to execute the order of maintenance by means of a coercive process.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'II(1994)DMC211; (1994)1GLR427',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Devendrasinh Ramsinh Raj and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Family;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '742304'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ushaben Ganpatsinh Barad Vs. Devendrasinh Ramsinh Raj and anr. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'A.N. Divecha',
		(int) 1 => 'Misc',
		(int) 2 => 'Misc',
		(int) 3 => 'Arunaben T. Ramanuj v.',
		(int) 4 => 'Vasudev P. Nimavat',
		(int) 5 => 'Shri Yagnik',
		(int) 6 => 'Shri Rao'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.The'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Court',
		(int) 1 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 2 => 'Criminal Revision Application No',
		(int) 3 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 4 => 'Trial Magistrate',
		(int) 5 => 'Judicial Magistrate',
		(int) 6 => 'Trial Magistrate',
		(int) 7 => 'the Sessions Court',
		(int) 8 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 9 => 'Criminal Revision Application No',
		(int) 10 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 11 => 'Criminal Revision Application No',
		(int) 12 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 13 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 14 => 'Court',
		(int) 15 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 16 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 17 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 18 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 19 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 20 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 21 => 'Court',
		(int) 22 => 'the Revisional Court',
		(int) 23 => 'The Revisional Court',
		(int) 24 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 25 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 26 => 'Court',
		(int) 27 => 'Suffice',
		(int) 28 => 'Court',
		(int) 29 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 30 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 31 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 32 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 33 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 34 => 'Criminal Revisional Application No',
		(int) 35 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 36 => 'Criminal Revisional Application No'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '401',
		(int) 1 => 'one',
		(int) 2 => '3',
		(int) 3 => '2',
		(int) 4 => '2',
		(int) 5 => '1',
		(int) 6 => '1,000/-',
		(int) 7 => '1'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1973',
		(int) 1 => '10th July, 1992',
		(int) 2 => '62 of 1992',
		(int) 3 => '350/- per month',
		(int) 4 => '1989',
		(int) 5 => '10th January, 1992',
		(int) 6 => '455/- per month',
		(int) 7 => '62 of 1992',
		(int) 8 => '10th July, 1992',
		(int) 9 => '62 of 1992',
		(int) 10 => '455/- per month',
		(int) 11 => '339/- per month',
		(int) 12 => '455/- per month',
		(int) 13 => '1992',
		(int) 14 => '1487',
		(int) 15 => '1993',
		(int) 16 => '1232',
		(int) 17 => '10th July, 1992',
		(int) 18 => '62 of 1992',
		(int) 19 => '10th Jaunary, 1992',
		(int) 20 => '1989'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 1 => 'Vadodara',
		(int) 2 => 'J.D.',
		(int) 3 => 'Vadodara',
		(int) 4 => 'T.B.',
		(int) 5 => 'Gujarati',
		(int) 6 => 'T.B.',
		(int) 7 => 'T.B.',
		(int) 8 => 'T.B.'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '4th',
		(int) 1 => 'first'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '742304',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Revn. No. 302 of 1992',
		'appellant' => 'Ushaben Ganpatsinh Barad',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ushaben Ganpatsinh Barad Vs. Devendrasinh Ramsinh Raj and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  It is unfortunate that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has turned blind eyes to these hard realities of life on the part of a woman like the petitioner. It is better that the learned Additional Sessions Judge soon gets rid of such erroneous impression. The sooner he does the better it is for litigants who knock his doors of justice.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Arunaben T. Ramanuj v. Vasudev P. Nimavat;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.J. Yagnik, Adv.; K.N. Valikarimwala, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent No. 2-State',
		'counseldef' => ' B.T. Rao, Adv. for the Respondent No. 1',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1993-01-21',
		'deposition' => 'Revision allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.N. Divecha, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.N. Divecha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The unfortunate deserted wife has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for brief) as the slice from her bread is sought to be cut away by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Vadodara by his judgment and order passed on 10th July, 1992 in Criminal Revision Application No. 62 of 1992. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the quantum of maintenance awarded to the present petitioner by the learned Trial Magistrate from Rs. 453/- per month to Rs. 350/- per month practically without assigning any reasons, much less any cogent or convincing reasons in that regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The facts giving rise to this revisional application are not many and not much in dispute. The petitioner was required to file one maintenance application before the appropriate Forum in Vadodara some time in 1989. It came to be registered as Misc. Criminal Application No. 45 of 1989. It appears to have been assigned to the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) of Vadodara. By his judgment and order passed on 10th January, 1992 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 45 of 1989, the learned Trial Magistrate accepted the maintenance application made by the petitioner and awarded to her the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 455/- per month. Even at that time this quantum of maintenance could not be said to be enough to keep her body and soul together keeping in mind that she was a T.B. patient and also keeping in mind soaring, spiralling and skyrocketing prices of essential commodities day in and day out. The aggrieved husband carried the matter in revision before the Sessions Court questioning the correctness of the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned trial Magistrate. His revisioaal application came to be registered as Criminal Revision Application No. 62 of 1992. It appears to have been assigned to the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Vadodara for hearing and disposal. By his judgment and order passed on 10th July, 1992 in Criminal Revision Application No. 62 of 1992, the learned Additional Sessions Judge practically without any ryhme or reason reduced the quantum of maintenance payable to the petitioner herein from Rs. 455/- per month to Rs. 339/- per month. That resulted in substantial cut in the otherwise meagre amount of maintenance which was awarded by the learned trial Magistrate. She has, therefore, been obliged to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by means of this revisional application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The impugned judgment and order is in Gujarati. The relevant paragraph containing the so-called reasoning for interfering with the quantum of maintenance is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... ... ... . '</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It becomes clear from bare perusal of the aforesaid so-called reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for interfering with the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned trial Magistrate that what has weighed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge in reducing the quantum of maintenance was the rising cost of living. It appears that the learned Judge thought that such rising cost of living would affect only the husband and not the wife, only the menfolk and not the womenfolk. Even after observing that she had no source of income and that she was a T.B. patient, it is surprising that the learned Additional Sessions Judge thought it fit to reduce the quantum of maintenance without realising that such rising trend of prices would affect the unfortunate wife more than the husband. As aforesaid, even she could not have been able to keep her body and soul together with the meagre amount of Rs. 455/- per month. To top it all, she is a T.B. patient. She would need all the more nourishing food to keep the process of recovery uninterrupted and unabated. She might have to spend a large chunk of the maintenance amount towards medicines and nourishing food while combating the disease of T.B. What would be left with her for keeping her body and soul together can be anybody's guess. In these circumstances, there was a case for enhancement of the quantum of maintenance rather than any curtailment or reduction therefrom. It is unfortunate that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has turned blind eyes to these hard realities of life on the part of a woman like the petitioner. The present petitioner might have heaved a sigh of relief and might have felt obliged to the learned Judge on noting that the finding in her favour recorded by the learned trial Magistrate as to her entitlement to the maintenance from her husband was not disturbed in the revisienal proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This Court has time and again emphasised and insisted upon the Revisional Court not to exercise revisional powers for mere asksng. The Revisional Court can interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate in any maintenance proceedings only if it is found that a finding recorded by the learned trial Magistrate is perverse. It is not, necessary to refer to various rulings of this Court in that regard. Suffice it to refer to the ruling of this Court in the case of Arunaben T. Ramanuj v. Vasudev P. Nimavat, reported in 1992 (2) GLH 1487 : (1993 (2) GLR 1232). It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was entertaining an erroneous impression that he was exercising original powers or at the most appellate powers and not revisional powers when he thought of interfering with the quantum of maintenance awarded to the present petitioner by the learned trial Magistrate. It is better that the learned Additional Sessions Judge soon gets rid of such erroneous impression. The sooner he does the better it is for litigants who knock his doors of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained in law for a moment. It has to be set aside in this revisional proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, this revisional application is accepted. The judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Vadodara on 10th July, 1992 in Criminal Revisional Application No. 62 of 1992 is quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 10th Jaunary, 1992 in Criminal Revisional Application No. 45 of 1989 is restored. Respondent No. 1-Husband shall pay the costs of this revisional procerding to the petitioner and the costs are quantified at Rs. 1,000/-. Rule is accordingly made absolute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Shri Yagnik for the petitioner has urged that respondent No. 1-Husband has not paid the maintenance amount regularly and that he is in arrears thereof. Shri Rao for the husband has disputed this statement. Be that as it may, if the maintenance amount is in arrears, I hope wiser Counsel would prevail over the husband and he would not hesitate in paying the arrears at the first available opportunity without her requiring to execute the order of maintenance by means of a coercive process.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'II(1994)DMC211; (1994)1GLR427',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Devendrasinh Ramsinh Raj and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Family;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '742304'
)
$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: the Criminal Procedure Code

PERSON: A.N. Divecha, Misc, Misc, Arunaben T. Ramanuj v., Vasudev P. Nimavat, Shri Yagnik, Shri Rao

NORP: J.The

ORG: Court, Additional Sessions, Criminal Revision Application No, Additional Sessions, Trial Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate, Trial Magistrate, the Sessions Court, Magistrate, Criminal Revision Application No, Additional Sessions, Criminal Revision Application No, Additional Sessions, Magistrate, Court, Additional Sessions, Magistrate, Additional Sessions, Additional Sessions, Additional Sessions, Magistrate, Court, the Revisional Court, The Revisional Court, Magistrate, Magistrate, Court, Suffice, Court, Additional Sessions, Magistrate, Additional Sessions, Additional Sessions, Additional Sessions, Criminal Revisional Application No, Magistrate, Criminal Revisional Application No

CARDINAL: 401, one, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1,000/-, 1

DATE: 1973, 10th July, 1992, 62 of 1992, 350/- per month, 1989, 10th January, 1992, 455/- per month, 62 of 1992, 10th July, 1992, 62 of 1992, 455/- per month, 339/- per month, 455/- per month, 1992, 1487, 1993, 1232, 10th July, 1992, 62 of 1992, 10th Jaunary, 1992, 1989

GPE: P.C., Vadodara, J.D., Vadodara, T.B., Gujarati, T.B., T.B., T.B.

ORDINAL: 4th, first