Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2000Guj277; I(2001)DMC164; (2000)3GLR2456
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J. 1. The respondent filed Misc. Civil Application 66 of 1999 under Section 18 and 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Junagadh. The relationship of parties are as under : The respondent is the mother of the petitioner No. 2 and wife of petitioner No. 1. 2. The respondent has also filed Criminal Misc. Application under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Porbandar being Misc. Criminal Application No. 84 of 1992. The petitioner filed civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) under Section 14 of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. In the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 125 of Cr. P.C., the maintenance has been awarded initially at the rate of Rs. 400/-p.m. but later on, on application for enhancement thereof it was enhanced to Rs. 500/-p.m. In the proceedings under Section 18 and 21 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the respondent prays for grant of Interim ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1992)2GLR1530
A.N. Divecha, J.1. Would Revisional Courts have to keep in mind while hearing revisional applications more particularly arising from maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('the Cr. P.C.' for brief) is the main question arising in this revisional application preferred by the unfortunate wife against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Bulsar at Navsari on 17th May, 1991 in Criminal Revision Application No. 34 of 1990. Thereby the learned Sessions Judge accepted the revisional application of respondent No. 2 herein and upset the order of maintenance passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Gandevi on 28th February 1990 in Maintenance Application No. 9 of 1987. It may be mentioned that the learned trial Magistrate accepted the Maintenance Application preferred by the present petitioner and awarded to her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month.2. The facts giving rise to this revisional applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. This application is filed by the respondent of the First Appeal seeking enhancement in the alimony from that of Rs.1,500/per month fixed by the Family Court in the Family Suit to Rs.10,000/per month. 2. Brief facts are as under: 3. Applicant is wife of present opponent. The husband had filed Family Suit No.50 of 2007 before the Family Court, Ahmedabad, seeking decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act for short) on various grounds. The Family Court disposed of such suit by judgment dated 7th June 2011. Husband's Family Suit was allowed in part. Prayer for decree of divorce was not accepted. However, the learned Judge ordered judicial separation between the couple from the date of the judgment and decree. While doing so, the husband was ordered to pay permanent alimony at the rate of Rs.1,500/per month to the wife from 1st June 2009. 4. The husband has filed present First Appeal No.2254 of 2011 challenging the judgment of the Family Court. Such a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1982)2GLR359
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner husband has filed this application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter called 'the Code') requesting this Court to stay further proceedings in criminal Misc. application no. 106 of 1982 filed by the respondent No. 1. wife in the court of the Chief J.M.F.C., Rajkot under Section 125 of the Code.2. It must be pointed out at the outset that this revision application as such is not maintainable as it is directed against an interlocutory order passed by the learned trial Magistrate refusing to stay further proceedings in an application under Section 125 of the Code which is pending in his court. When this hurdle was realised by Mr. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner, he made an oral request to permit him to convert this revision application into a special criminal application. 1 have granted him the said permission and accordingly this application is ordered to be treated as a special criminal application unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : II(1993)DMC551; (1992)2GLR1520
A.N. Divecha, J.The husband has invoked to revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the Cr. P.C. for brief) for questioning the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 2) of the City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad on 27th March, 1990 in Criminal Revision Application No. 40 of 1990. Thereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has accepted the wife's revisional application against the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Court No. 10) at Ahmedabad keeping her application for interim maintenance along with the main matter. It may be mentioned that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has under his impugned judgment and order awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month to the wife.1. The facts giving to this revisional application are not many and not much in dispute. Respondent No. 1 herein preferred one application under Section 125 of the Cr. P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: 1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1908 and Guardians and Wards Act, 1980, on the grounds stated in the petition for the following prayers: œ10.(A) the Honble Court may be pleased to admit this petition; (B) the Honble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent no.2, dated 30.11.2011; (C) the Honble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to publish the name of the petitioner as œNeha Bina Ramani? in place of œNeha Manohar Tahilramani?; (D) the Honble Court may be pleased to grant any other or further relief looking to the facts and circumstances of the present petition;? 2. Heard learned Advocate Shri K.B. Paneri for the petitioner and learned AGP Shri Bipin Bhatt for Respondent No.1 and 2. 3. The factual background has stated are that the parents of the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1964)5GLR417
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. This is a revision petition made under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code and it is directed against an order, dated 13th December 1962, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajkot, in Civil Suit No. 601 of 1961 whilst exercising the jurisdiction conferred upon him by the Hindu Marriage Act (No. XXV of 1955) (hereafter called 'the Act'). Two questions fall to be decided in this petition The first, which is raised by Mr. Vyas, the learned advocate for the opponent, is (i) whether a revision petition lies to this Court and the second, raised by Mr. Shukla, the learned advocate for the petitioner (ii) whether the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) had jurisdiction to make the impugned order and if so, whether the order suffers from the infirmity that it was illegally or irregularly made in the exercise of that jurisdiction.2. The facts are as follows:Petitioner is the husband and opponent is the wife. The parties were married on or about 3rd of Decembe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1971Guj188
Mehta, J.1. This appeal arises out of the suit for declaration filed by the respondent plaintiff against the appellant defendant that the defendant is not the adopted son of deceased Maharaj Purshottamlalji Raghnathji of Junagadh. The suit was filed in the court of the Civil Judge. (S.D.) at Junagadh, where it was registered as long Civil Suit No. 115 of 1958. The learned trial Judge has decreed the suit and, therefore, the original defendant, who claims that he is adopted son to the deceased Maharaj Purshottamlalji Raghunathji, has preferred this appeal.2. Short facts of the case are as under. The parties to this suit are the descendants of Shri Vallabhacharya Maharaj, the original founder of Suddh Adwit Pushti Marg. He flourished in Vikram Samvat 1535 which is equivalent to 1479 A.D. The family of the parties is called Vallabhkul. It is an admitted position that the descendants of Shri Vallabhacharya Maharai are working as Acharyas of various temples and Shrines in Gujarat and other ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The present controversy relates to an important question `whether an intra-court appeal (Letters Patent Appeal) under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the same High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while exercising such power in its criminal jurisdiction'.2. There being conflicting views of two Division Benches of this Court, and some ambiguity whether there can be separate civil and criminal jurisdiction with regard to the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, cases were referred to Larger Bench for its decision.3. The facts giving rise to these appeals in brief are as follows: L.P.A. NO.335/2010: The State of Gujarat preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in Special Criminal Application No. 989 of 2009 before this Court against one Nitinbhai Shantilal Bhagat and another (appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 335 of 2001) challenging the judgement and order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1966)7GLR807
N.K. Vakil, J.1. The petitioner in Civil Revision Application No. 13 of 1962 and Civil Revision Application No. 26 of 1962 was the original plaintiff ii Regular Civil Suit No. 16 of 1959. He had filed a suit against the presen opponent in both these revision applications for possession on the ground that, it was required bona fide for the personal use of starting a bookseller's business in the suit premises. The suit premises were a part of whole building which the petitioner had purchased sometime before he started the proceedings. After the suit was filed, the respondent had also filed a miscellaneous application to determine the standard rent. In the sui also the defendant-respondent had raised the contention that the agreed rent which was Rs. 22/- was not the standard rent. In the suit, on merit the trial Court decided in favour of the plaintiff. As regards the standard rent, the trial Court held that the standard rent was Rs. 8/- inclusive o all taxes. As regards the standard rent...
Tag this Judgment!