Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1995CriLJ1509
ORDER1. Heard both sides. 2. The order Impugned is dated 22nd April, 1994 which only allows the application of the respondent-State for permission to record the statement of the prosecutrix Chaitrali under sub-sec. (8) of S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The brief facts of the case are as under : 3. On 10th September 1993, the prosecutrix Chaitrali is alleged to have been raped by the petitioner-accused. Chaitrali was admittedly about five years of age at that time. Chaitrali narrated the incident to her mother. The statement of the mother of Chaitrali was recorded. Unfortunately, however, it is stated that because of the incident, Chaitrali's mother suffered a shock and died on 1st January 1994. The petitioner-accused is on bail. 4. The death of the mother of Chaitrali has occurred during the course of the trial. As a result of this unfortunate event, the prosecution thought it fit to now supply to the Court for permission to record the statement of Chaitrali herself. Obvious...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996CriLJ172
1. Heard Shri A. D. Vyawahare, the learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Shri Vyawahare, the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that there is no evidence of non-applicant No. 1 wife that the applicant husband has neglected to maintain her and the child Devendra and, therefore, the courts below were not justified in awarding the maintenance to the wife and the son. Shri Vyawahare also contends that the amount of maintenance awarded by the courts below to the wife at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month and to the child at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month is excessive and beyond the financial capacity of the applicant and, therefore, the orders passed by courts below deserve to be set aside. 3. There is no dispute that the applicant Tejram (for short 'the husband') married non-applicant No. 1 Sunanda (for short 'the wife') in the year 1985 and out of the wedlock, non-applicant No. 2 Devendra minor son was born. The husband and the wife cohabited for about six years and thereafter the w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1992(2)BomCR194
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Petitioner and respondent No. 1 married each other in the year 1982. But as the destiny would have it, this happy wedlock was not to last long. Though on 14th August 1984, Swapna - a daughter was given by God to both, parties wanted to separate and on 2-1-1990 a divorce by the mutual consent was effected. In the deed of divorce, it was agreed that father - petitioner in this revision application - would be responsible for maintenance, education and marriage of Sapana, and the child was given in custody of the father. But it was agreed that on the occasion of festivals and after each two months father will bring the minor to mother and if father ill-treats Sapana, then mother will take her custody by legal means. It appears that even this arrangement did not work. It is alleged that in May 1990, the respondent mother took away Sapana and did not return her to the father. Therefore, father was constrained to file an application bearing Misc. Criminal Application ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : II(1993)DMC470
A.D. Mane, J.1. These three Criminal Writ Petitions arise out of proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated by the wife-petitioner in Writ Petition No. 56 of 1993 against her husband, who is also petitioner in companion Writ Petition Nos. 395 and 396 of 1992.2. There involves a common question of facts and law and, therefore, these petitions can be disposed of by common judgment. The material facts giving rise to these writ petitions may be stated as follows :The petitioner-wife married the respondent-husband on May 5, 1981 according to Hindu rites and customs. She stayed with the respondent-husband till September 9, 1984. She was, however, said to have been driven out of her matrimonial home. She, therefore, filed an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure on April 22, 1985 claiming maintenance from the respondent-husband at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. The acts and accusation of the petitioner-wife against the husband-respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994(4)BomCR454
.R. Dhanuka, J.1. For the reasons discussed in later part of this judgment, the petition is dismissed and rule is discharged with a direction to respondent No. 1 to deposit in Court or pay amount equivalent to six months' salary last drawn to each of the petitioner in full and final settlement of the petitioners' claims whatsoever (ex-gratia) on the conditions set out in the last paragraph of this judgment. The above referred direction is issued with consent of respondent No. 1 conveyed to this Court through its learned Counsel.2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India. By this petition, the petitioners have impugned award dated 31st August, 1987, made by Shri R.M. Pathare, Presiding Officer, Eighth Labour Court, Bombay in reference (IDA) No. 378 of 1982. By letters dated 21st September, 1981, issued by respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 terminated the services of petitioners 1 to 7 on the ground that the petitioners had lost confidence in the said workme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR79
1. The above criminal application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment, dated April 16, 1975, passed by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, in case No. 6 of 1974, in which the petitioner is prosecuted for an offence under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, on the allegation that while the petitioner was functioning as Income-tax Officer in the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax at Bombay and Nagpur, during the period between February 1, 1958 and November 27, 1971, he was found to be in possession of pecuniary resources or properties both in his name and in the name of his dependent wife and his dependent children, like bank balances, fixed deposits, National Savings Certificates, National Defence Certificates, plots of land, costly household articles, jewellery and motor car, worth Rs. 4,00,687.32, while his known income was Rs. 2,89,986 and his known expenditure was Rs. 1,53,181, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(4)BomCR251
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This order will dispose of Notice of Motion Nos. 2023/97 and 2167 of 1997.These two Notices of Motion have been taken out for setting aside the ex parte decrees dated 20th July, 1995 against defendant No. 1 and 18th October, 1995 against defendant No. 2. The plaintiff is carrying on business in the name and style of 'Oriental Finance Company'. On 23rd August, 1991 the plaintiff had advanced a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the firm of Dayal Dosabhai & Co. The firm had given post dated cheques in favour of the plaintiff dated 25th November, 1991. The firm also handed over three other post dated cheques for interest for Rs. 1500/- Rs. 1500/- and Rs. 1700/- which covered the interest for the period upto 25th November, 1991. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 guaranteed the repayment of the amount. Two guarantees were given in writing by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 dated 23rd August, 1991. On presentation of the post dated cheques by the plaintiff to the bank, it was dishonoured with the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1992(1)BomCR398
M.F. Saldanha J.1. This criminal writ petition is directed against the common judgment and order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 120 of 1989 and Criminal Revision Application No. 204 of 1989. This order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, dated 3/4 July, 1991 disposes of the two Criminal Revision Applications that were filed before him in respect of a dispute concerning a small tailoring shop situate at CTS 269, Ganesh peth, Pune. Briefly stated, the premises originally stood in the name of Tukaram Shankar Kalbare, and it is also relevant to mention that the licence in respect of the disputed premises stood in his name. Tukaram died on 6-5-1985, after which on 13-6-1985 the licence was transferred to the name of his widow Sundrabai. It is more or less common ground that the widow Sundrabai is advanced in years and her age as shown in the proceeding is 85 years. It is unnecessary for me to recount the genesis of the dispute that has ultimately culminated in this ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1985(2)BomCR469
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. The whole foundation of ventilating the grievance by the petitioner claiming privilege for not being examined as prosecution witness in a criminal case is obviously misconceived having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Magistrate while negativing the said contention has assigned cogent reasons on application of mind. All the facts considered in proper perspective make it clear that there is no reason whatsoever to upset the impugned order in this proceeding initiated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as also the revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. On the basis of a report by the Investigating Officer, the Company Law Board, Bombay a formal complaint came to be lodged by the Regional Director, Company Law Board, Bombay, one Shri Rajagopalan, in September 1972 under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : I(2004)DMC224
P.S. Brahme, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Applicant Mehboobkhan Babarkhan has filed the present application questioning validity and legality of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Revision Application No. 12 of 1997 whereunder the applicant was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 200/- to each non-applicant i.e., non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2. It is not disputed that initially non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 had filed an application for maintenance Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the present applicant and the learned Magistrate passed the order directing the applicant to pay maintenance. Against that order, Criminal Revision Application No. 200 of 1991 was filed by the non-applicant wherein the Sessions Judge had directed the applicant to pay maintenance @ Rs. 300/- p.m. to each of his parents. Thereafter, the present applicant filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 991 of 1995, Under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!