Madhya Pradesh Court January 2010 Judgments
Anjali Shukla (Smt.) Vs. Sunil Kumar Shukla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-2010
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT429
ORDERAlok Aradhe, J.1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant-wife has called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 15-5-2009 by which the objection to maintainability of the proceeding under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction has been turned down.2. In order to appreciate the challenge made to impugned order reference to few facts is necessary. Admittedly, applicant and non-applicant got married as per Hindu rites on 9-6-2006 at Bhopal. The non-applicant/husband has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage in the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Sehore. On receipt of notice of proceedings, the applicant-wife entered appearance and raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the proceeding on the ground of lack of ter...
Tag this Judgment!Sonu @ Shahazad Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2010
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT421
ORDERR.C. Mishra, J.1. Arguments heard.This is an application for extension of period of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant, vide order dated 17-9-09 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 9398/2009 in the wake of his apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No. 419/2009 registered a City Kotwali, Chhattarpur in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC.2. The relevant extract of the order reads:This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the Competent Court, which shall be considered by the Court in accordance with law.3. According to the applicant, his application for regular bail, though submitted on 10-11 -09, could not be considered on merits for want of case diary. For this, reference has been made to contents of corresponding order-sheets indicating that after obtaining repeated adjournments on the ground that it had n...
Tag this Judgment!Sundar Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2010
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT426
ORDERR.C. Mishra, J.1. Arguments heard.This is an application under proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 (for short 'the Proviso') read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity 'the Code').2. The applicant was arrested on 28-8-2009 in connection with Crime No. 25/2009 registered at P.S. Mohangarh, Distt. Tikamgarh, initially, in respect of the offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC.3. Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that on 28-8-2009 at 9 a.m., he and his brother Sunder were conjointly involved in a robbery, in the course of which, after putting complainant Rambihari under a fear of death by placing a katta on his chest, they had relieved him of a cash amount of Rs. 7,000/-and a gold chain.4. After expiry of 60 days, the applicant claimed compulsive release on bail under the Proviso by filing an application on 29-10-2009. However, the application was rejected by Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 30-10-2009 on the grou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›