Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Sunil Dadaji Katole Vs. Bismillah Abbas and anr.
Decided On : Aug-10-2011
Court : Mumbai Nagpur
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' => 'Sunil Dadaji Katole Vs. Bismillah Abbas and anr. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Indian Penal Code' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '3', (int) 3 => '4.', (int) 4 => '376', (int) 5 => '5', (int) 6 => '4', (int) 7 => '6.' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Anjali Joshi', (int) 1 => 'Dhiraj Bhoyar', (int) 2 => 'Adv', (int) 3 => 'Misc', (int) 4 => 'Seloo', (int) 5 => 'Sachin Sunil Katole', (int) 6 => 'Sachin', (int) 7 => 'Sessions Trial No.117', (int) 8 => 'no.2 Sachin', (int) 9 => 'Sunil', (int) 10 => 'Sachin' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'no.1', (int) 1 => 'no.1', (int) 2 => 'Respondent No.2' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Wardha', (int) 1 => 'Judicial Magistrate', (int) 2 => 'Criminal Revision Application No.51', (int) 3 => 'Sessions Court', (int) 4 => 'Wardha', (int) 5 => 'Sessions Court', (int) 6 => 'The Sessions Trial', (int) 7 => 'Criminal Revision Application No.51', (int) 8 => 'no.2', (int) 9 => 'no.2', (int) 10 => 'Civil Court', (int) 11 => 'Court', (int) 12 => 'no.2' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '2010', (int) 1 => '2008', (int) 2 => '2010', (int) 3 => '2000', (int) 4 => 'September, 2002', (int) 5 => '2010' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '9th' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Rs.1,500/-' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '922262', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CPC) - Section 482, 125, 127; Indian Penal Code. - Section 417 and 376 ', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.182 OF 2011', 'appellant' => 'Sunil Dadaji Katole', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Sunil Dadaji Katole Vs. Bismillah Abbas and anr.', 'casenote' => ' [A.P.BHANGALE, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482, 125 -- The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order allowed the application for maintenance for minor applicant Sachin Sunil Katole directing the applicant herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- p.m. towards maintenance of Sachin. However, the learned Sessions Court dismissed The learned Advocate for the applicant also disputed the quantum of maintenance payable to respondent no.2 from the date of application. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Mrs. Anjali Joshi, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Mumbai Nagpur', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2011-08-10', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'A.P.BHANGALE, J.', 'judgement' => '<div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Mrs.Anjali Joshi, Adv. for the applicant and Mr.Dhiraj Bhoyar, Adv. for respondent no.1.</p></div> <p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for to quash and set aside the order dt.8.2.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision No.51 of 2010.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that Misc. Criminal Application No.80 of 2008, u/s.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the respondents was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Seloo on 26.3.2010. The respondents had challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the said order in Criminal Revision Application No.51 of 2010 in Sessions Court, Wardha. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order allowed the application for maintenance for minor applicant Sachin Sunil Katole directing the applicant herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- p.m. towards maintenance of Sachin. However, the learned Sessions Court dismissed the application as far as grant of maintenance to respondent no.1 herein for herself is concerned.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that earlier the applicant herein was prosecuted for the alleged offence of rape in Sessions Trial No.117 of 2000, decided on 9th September, 2002. The Sessions Trial resulted in acquittal of the applicant on the ground that the prosecutrix was a consenting party for sexual intercourse by the applicant/accused on the promise of marriage. The learned Sessions Judge held that such a consensual intercourse cannot be called as misconception in absence of any evidence to show that the accused was not intending to marry her. Under such circumstances, the applicant was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sessions 417 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned Sessions Judge who disposed of Criminal Revision Application No.51 of 2010 by well reasoned reason and sound judgment considered the fact that respondent no.2 Sachin is the illegitimate son of the present applicant Sunil and since the applicant herein is a man of sufficient means, he was bound to maintain his illegitimate son. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the applicant do not admit that Sachin (respondent no.2) is his son begotten out of 4</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">blood relationship. In other words, the applicant is interested to avoid his liability to maintain respondent no.2 on the ground that there is no relationship at all between the applicant and Respondent No.2. This contention will have to be substantiated by the applicant by adopting appropriate remedy to prove the circumstances, if any, favourable to him by filing a suit in the competent Civil Court or by resorting to the remedy available for cancellation of maintenance granted u/s.127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court cannot use inherent powers to set aside the order granting maintenance which was passed after considering the facts and circumstances, by a reasoned and sound judgment. In the circumstances, no manifest injustice or any miscarriage of justice appears to have occurred.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Advocate for the applicant also disputed the quantum of maintenance payable to respondent no.2 from the date of application. Considering the amount of maintenance granted per month in the sum of Rs.1,500/- for a minor illegitimate child, I think that there is no need to interfere with the quantum granted, particularly, considering the basic needs of the child like food, clothing, shelter and education etc. I have already observed that if at all the applicant wants to prove any change in circumstances regarding his income or otherwise, he is at liberty to apply for alteration of allowance of maintenance u/s.127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">With these observations, there being no reason to interfere with the impugned order, the application is dismissed.</p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Bismillah Abbas and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '922262' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sunil Dadaji Katole Vs. Bismillah Abbas and anr. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Indian Penal Code' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '3', (int) 3 => '4.', (int) 4 => '376', (int) 5 => '5', (int) 6 => '4', (int) 7 => '6.' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Anjali Joshi', (int) 1 => 'Dhiraj Bhoyar', (int) 2 => 'Adv', (int) 3 => 'Misc', (int) 4 => 'Seloo', (int) 5 => 'Sachin Sunil Katole', (int) 6 => 'Sachin', (int) 7 => 'Sessions Trial No.117', (int) 8 => 'no.2 Sachin', (int) 9 => 'Sunil', (int) 10 => 'Sachin' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'no.1', (int) 1 => 'no.1', (int) 2 => 'Respondent No.2' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Wardha', (int) 1 => 'Judicial Magistrate', (int) 2 => 'Criminal Revision Application No.51', (int) 3 => 'Sessions Court', (int) 4 => 'Wardha', (int) 5 => 'Sessions Court', (int) 6 => 'The Sessions Trial', (int) 7 => 'Criminal Revision Application No.51', (int) 8 => 'no.2', (int) 9 => 'no.2', (int) 10 => 'Civil Court', (int) 11 => 'Court', (int) 12 => 'no.2' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '2010', (int) 1 => '2008', (int) 2 => '2010', (int) 3 => '2000', (int) 4 => 'September, 2002', (int) 5 => '2010' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '9th' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Rs.1,500/-' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '922262', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CPC) - Section 482, 125, 127; Indian Penal Code. - Section 417 and 376 ', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.182 OF 2011', 'appellant' => 'Sunil Dadaji Katole', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Sunil Dadaji Katole Vs. Bismillah Abbas and anr.', 'casenote' => ' [A.P.BHANGALE, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482, 125 -- The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order allowed the application for maintenance for minor applicant Sachin Sunil Katole directing the applicant herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- p.m. towards maintenance of Sachin. However, the learned Sessions Court dismissed The learned Advocate for the applicant also disputed the quantum of maintenance payable to respondent no.2 from the date of application. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Mrs. Anjali Joshi, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Mumbai Nagpur', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2011-08-10', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'A.P.BHANGALE, J.', 'judgement' => '<div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Mrs.Anjali Joshi, Adv. for the applicant and Mr.Dhiraj Bhoyar, Adv. for respondent no.1.</p></div> <p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for to quash and set aside the order dt.8.2.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision No.51 of 2010.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that Misc. Criminal Application No.80 of 2008, u/s.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the respondents was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Seloo on 26.3.2010. The respondents had challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the said order in Criminal Revision Application No.51 of 2010 in Sessions Court, Wardha. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order allowed the application for maintenance for minor applicant Sachin Sunil Katole directing the applicant herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- p.m. towards maintenance of Sachin. However, the learned Sessions Court dismissed the application as far as grant of maintenance to respondent no.1 herein for herself is concerned.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that earlier the applicant herein was prosecuted for the alleged offence of rape in Sessions Trial No.117 of 2000, decided on 9th September, 2002. The Sessions Trial resulted in acquittal of the applicant on the ground that the prosecutrix was a consenting party for sexual intercourse by the applicant/accused on the promise of marriage. The learned Sessions Judge held that such a consensual intercourse cannot be called as misconception in absence of any evidence to show that the accused was not intending to marry her. Under such circumstances, the applicant was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sessions 417 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned Sessions Judge who disposed of Criminal Revision Application No.51 of 2010 by well reasoned reason and sound judgment considered the fact that respondent no.2 Sachin is the illegitimate son of the present applicant Sunil and since the applicant herein is a man of sufficient means, he was bound to maintain his illegitimate son. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the applicant do not admit that Sachin (respondent no.2) is his son begotten out of 4</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">blood relationship. In other words, the applicant is interested to avoid his liability to maintain respondent no.2 on the ground that there is no relationship at all between the applicant and Respondent No.2. This contention will have to be substantiated by the applicant by adopting appropriate remedy to prove the circumstances, if any, favourable to him by filing a suit in the competent Civil Court or by resorting to the remedy available for cancellation of maintenance granted u/s.127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court cannot use inherent powers to set aside the order granting maintenance which was passed after considering the facts and circumstances, by a reasoned and sound judgment. In the circumstances, no manifest injustice or any miscarriage of justice appears to have occurred.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Advocate for the applicant also disputed the quantum of maintenance payable to respondent no.2 from the date of application. Considering the amount of maintenance granted per month in the sum of Rs.1,500/- for a minor illegitimate child, I think that there is no need to interfere with the quantum granted, particularly, considering the basic needs of the child like food, clothing, shelter and education etc. I have already observed that if at all the applicant wants to prove any change in circumstances regarding his income or otherwise, he is at liberty to apply for alteration of allowance of maintenance u/s.127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">With these observations, there being no reason to interfere with the impugned order, the application is dismissed.</p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Bismillah Abbas and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '922262' ) $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' => 'Sunil Dadaji Katole Vs. Bismillah Abbas and anr. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Indian Penal Code' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '3', (int) 3 => '4.', (int) 4 => '376', (int) 5 => '5', (int) 6 => '4', (int) 7 => '6.' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Anjali Joshi', (int) 1 => 'Dhiraj Bhoyar', (int) 2 => 'Adv', (int) 3 => 'Misc', (int) 4 => 'Seloo', (int) 5 => 'Sachin Sunil Katole', (int) 6 => 'Sachin', (int) 7 => 'Sessions Trial No.117', (int) 8 => 'no.2 Sachin', (int) 9 => 'Sunil', (int) 10 => 'Sachin' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'no.1', (int) 1 => 'no.1', (int) 2 => 'Respondent No.2' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Wardha', (int) 1 => 'Judicial Magistrate', (int) 2 => 'Criminal Revision Application No.51', (int) 3 => 'Sessions Court', (int) 4 => 'Wardha', (int) 5 => 'Sessions Court', (int) 6 => 'The Sessions Trial', (int) 7 => 'Criminal Revision Application No.51', (int) 8 => 'no.2', (int) 9 => 'no.2', (int) 10 => 'Civil Court', (int) 11 => 'Court', (int) 12 => 'no.2' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '2010', (int) 1 => '2008', (int) 2 => '2010', (int) 3 => '2000', (int) 4 => 'September, 2002', (int) 5 => '2010' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '9th' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Rs.1,500/-' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '922262', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CPC) - Section 482, 125, 127; Indian Penal Code. - Section 417 and 376 ', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.182 OF 2011', 'appellant' => 'Sunil Dadaji Katole', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Sunil Dadaji Katole Vs. Bismillah Abbas and anr.', 'casenote' => ' [A.P.BHANGALE, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482, 125 -- The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order allowed the application for maintenance for minor applicant Sachin Sunil Katole directing the applicant herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- p.m. towards maintenance of Sachin. However, the learned Sessions Court dismissed The learned Advocate for the applicant also disputed the quantum of maintenance payable to respondent no.2 from the date of application. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Mrs. Anjali Joshi, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Mumbai Nagpur', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2011-08-10', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'A.P.BHANGALE, J.', 'judgement' => '<div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Mrs.Anjali Joshi, Adv. for the applicant and Mr.Dhiraj Bhoyar, Adv. for respondent no.1.</p></div> <p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for to quash and set aside the order dt.8.2.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision No.51 of 2010.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that Misc. Criminal Application No.80 of 2008, u/s.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the respondents was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Seloo on 26.3.2010. The respondents had challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the said order in Criminal Revision Application No.51 of 2010 in Sessions Court, Wardha. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order allowed the application for maintenance for minor applicant Sachin Sunil Katole directing the applicant herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- p.m. towards maintenance of Sachin. However, the learned Sessions Court dismissed the application as far as grant of maintenance to respondent no.1 herein for herself is concerned.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that earlier the applicant herein was prosecuted for the alleged offence of rape in Sessions Trial No.117 of 2000, decided on 9th September, 2002. The Sessions Trial resulted in acquittal of the applicant on the ground that the prosecutrix was a consenting party for sexual intercourse by the applicant/accused on the promise of marriage. The learned Sessions Judge held that such a consensual intercourse cannot be called as misconception in absence of any evidence to show that the accused was not intending to marry her. Under such circumstances, the applicant was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sessions 417 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned Sessions Judge who disposed of Criminal Revision Application No.51 of 2010 by well reasoned reason and sound judgment considered the fact that respondent no.2 Sachin is the illegitimate son of the present applicant Sunil and since the applicant herein is a man of sufficient means, he was bound to maintain his illegitimate son. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the applicant do not admit that Sachin (respondent no.2) is his son begotten out of 4</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">blood relationship. In other words, the applicant is interested to avoid his liability to maintain respondent no.2 on the ground that there is no relationship at all between the applicant and Respondent No.2. This contention will have to be substantiated by the applicant by adopting appropriate remedy to prove the circumstances, if any, favourable to him by filing a suit in the competent Civil Court or by resorting to the remedy available for cancellation of maintenance granted u/s.127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court cannot use inherent powers to set aside the order granting maintenance which was passed after considering the facts and circumstances, by a reasoned and sound judgment. In the circumstances, no manifest injustice or any miscarriage of justice appears to have occurred.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Advocate for the applicant also disputed the quantum of maintenance payable to respondent no.2 from the date of application. Considering the amount of maintenance granted per month in the sum of Rs.1,500/- for a minor illegitimate child, I think that there is no need to interfere with the quantum granted, particularly, considering the basic needs of the child like food, clothing, shelter and education etc. I have already observed that if at all the applicant wants to prove any change in circumstances regarding his income or otherwise, he is at liberty to apply for alteration of allowance of maintenance u/s.127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">With these observations, there being no reason to interfere with the impugned order, the application is dismissed.</p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Bismillah Abbas and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '922262' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sunil Dadaji Katole Vs. Bismillah Abbas and anr. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Indian Penal Code' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '3', (int) 3 => '4.', (int) 4 => '376', (int) 5 => '5', (int) 6 => '4', (int) 7 => '6.' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Anjali Joshi', (int) 1 => 'Dhiraj Bhoyar', (int) 2 => 'Adv', (int) 3 => 'Misc', (int) 4 => 'Seloo', (int) 5 => 'Sachin Sunil Katole', (int) 6 => 'Sachin', (int) 7 => 'Sessions Trial No.117', (int) 8 => 'no.2 Sachin', (int) 9 => 'Sunil', (int) 10 => 'Sachin' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'no.1', (int) 1 => 'no.1', (int) 2 => 'Respondent No.2' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Wardha', (int) 1 => 'Judicial Magistrate', (int) 2 => 'Criminal Revision Application No.51', (int) 3 => 'Sessions Court', (int) 4 => 'Wardha', (int) 5 => 'Sessions Court', (int) 6 => 'The Sessions Trial', (int) 7 => 'Criminal Revision Application No.51', (int) 8 => 'no.2', (int) 9 => 'no.2', (int) 10 => 'Civil Court', (int) 11 => 'Court', (int) 12 => 'no.2' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '2010', (int) 1 => '2008', (int) 2 => '2010', (int) 3 => '2000', (int) 4 => 'September, 2002', (int) 5 => '2010' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '9th' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Rs.1,500/-' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '922262', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CPC) - Section 482, 125, 127; Indian Penal Code. - Section 417 and 376 ', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.182 OF 2011', 'appellant' => 'Sunil Dadaji Katole', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Sunil Dadaji Katole Vs. Bismillah Abbas and anr.', 'casenote' => ' [A.P.BHANGALE, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482, 125 -- The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order allowed the application for maintenance for minor applicant Sachin Sunil Katole directing the applicant herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- p.m. towards maintenance of Sachin. However, the learned Sessions Court dismissed The learned Advocate for the applicant also disputed the quantum of maintenance payable to respondent no.2 from the date of application. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Mrs. Anjali Joshi, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Mumbai Nagpur', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2011-08-10', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'A.P.BHANGALE, J.', 'judgement' => '<div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Mrs.Anjali Joshi, Adv. for the applicant and Mr.Dhiraj Bhoyar, Adv. for respondent no.1.</p></div> <p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for to quash and set aside the order dt.8.2.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision No.51 of 2010.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that Misc. Criminal Application No.80 of 2008, u/s.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the respondents was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Seloo on 26.3.2010. The respondents had challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the said order in Criminal Revision Application No.51 of 2010 in Sessions Court, Wardha. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order allowed the application for maintenance for minor applicant Sachin Sunil Katole directing the applicant herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- p.m. towards maintenance of Sachin. However, the learned Sessions Court dismissed the application as far as grant of maintenance to respondent no.1 herein for herself is concerned.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that earlier the applicant herein was prosecuted for the alleged offence of rape in Sessions Trial No.117 of 2000, decided on 9th September, 2002. The Sessions Trial resulted in acquittal of the applicant on the ground that the prosecutrix was a consenting party for sexual intercourse by the applicant/accused on the promise of marriage. The learned Sessions Judge held that such a consensual intercourse cannot be called as misconception in absence of any evidence to show that the accused was not intending to marry her. Under such circumstances, the applicant was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sessions 417 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned Sessions Judge who disposed of Criminal Revision Application No.51 of 2010 by well reasoned reason and sound judgment considered the fact that respondent no.2 Sachin is the illegitimate son of the present applicant Sunil and since the applicant herein is a man of sufficient means, he was bound to maintain his illegitimate son. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the applicant do not admit that Sachin (respondent no.2) is his son begotten out of 4</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">blood relationship. In other words, the applicant is interested to avoid his liability to maintain respondent no.2 on the ground that there is no relationship at all between the applicant and Respondent No.2. This contention will have to be substantiated by the applicant by adopting appropriate remedy to prove the circumstances, if any, favourable to him by filing a suit in the competent Civil Court or by resorting to the remedy available for cancellation of maintenance granted u/s.127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court cannot use inherent powers to set aside the order granting maintenance which was passed after considering the facts and circumstances, by a reasoned and sound judgment. In the circumstances, no manifest injustice or any miscarriage of justice appears to have occurred.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Advocate for the applicant also disputed the quantum of maintenance payable to respondent no.2 from the date of application. Considering the amount of maintenance granted per month in the sum of Rs.1,500/- for a minor illegitimate child, I think that there is no need to interfere with the quantum granted, particularly, considering the basic needs of the child like food, clothing, shelter and education etc. I have already observed that if at all the applicant wants to prove any change in circumstances regarding his income or otherwise, he is at liberty to apply for alteration of allowance of maintenance u/s.127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">With these observations, there being no reason to interfere with the impugned order, the application is dismissed.</p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Bismillah Abbas and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '922262' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - 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 Indian Penal Code
CARDINAL: 1, 2, 3, 4., 376, 5, 4, 6.
PERSON: Anjali Joshi, Dhiraj Bhoyar, Adv, Misc, Seloo, Sachin Sunil Katole, Sachin, Sessions Trial No.117, no.2 Sachin, Sunil, Sachin
PRODUCT: no.1, no.1, Respondent No.2
ORG: Wardha, Judicial Magistrate, Criminal Revision Application No.51, Sessions Court, Wardha, Sessions Court, The Sessions Trial, Criminal Revision Application No.51, no.2, no.2, Civil Court, Court, no.2
DATE: 2010, 2008, 2010, 2000, September, 2002, 2010
ORDINAL: 9th
GPE: Rs.1,500/-