Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Shilpa Singh W/O. Abhinav Singh vs Abhinav S/O. Rajeshkumar Singh on 9 April, 2018

Author: S.B. Shukre

Bench: S.B. Shukre

        J-apl526.17.odt                                                                                               1/3     


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.526 OF 2017


        Shilpa Singh w/o. Abhinav Singh,
        Aged about 31 years,
        Occupation : Housewife,
        R/o. C/o. A.S. Singh, Flat No.305,
        Chapru Chowk, Honey Lisha Appt.
        Lakadganj, Nagpur.                                                          :      PETITIONER/
                                                                                           APPLICANT.
                           ...VERSUS...

        Abhinav s/o. Rajeshkumar Singh,
        Aged about 32 years,
        Occupation : Service,
        R/o. C/o. Vinayak Rokde, 3A-302,
        New Sankalp Society, Sector No.5,
        Plot No.38, Behind D-Mart Store,
        New Palvel, Navi Mumbai,
        Distt. Raigad.

        Office Address :
        Senior Operation Analyst,
        SID No.R548683, 2nd Floor,
        JP Moorgan Tower, CST Road,
        Kalina Santacruz (E),
        Mumbai-400 098.                                                              :      RESPONDENT    

        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Shri M.P. Kariya, Advocate for the Petitioner/Applicant.
        Shri Shyam Dewani, Advocate for the Respondent.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                      CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.
                                                                      th
                                                      DATE      :   9
                                                                         APRIL, 2018.
        ORAL JUDGMENT   :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2018 01:45:55 ::: J-apl526.17.odt 2/3 consent.

2. The order dated 27.3.2017 modifying the order dated 10.5.2016, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur is under challenge in this revision application.

3. By the order passed on 10.5.2016 in a proceeding initiated under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., learned Judge of the Family Court granted interim maintenance to the applicant. It was at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month. This order was passed in the absence of the respondent-husband. Therefore, respondent-husband sought a recall of this order. However, the recall was not allowed, but the order was modified and the total interim maintenance granted to the applicant and her son was reduced to Rs.5,000/- in total. This was done after taking into consideration the fact that previously or to be precise on 27.1.2016 in an application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( in short, "D.V. Act"), the concerned Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class had granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the applicant and that this fact was not brought to the notice of the Family Court by the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no statutory obligation cast upon the non-applicant to disclose such a fact which takes place in a proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act and rather the obligation is to bring to the notice of the concerned Judicial ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2018 01:45:55 ::: J-apl526.17.odt 3/3 Magistrate, First Class exercising jurisdiction under the D.V. Act any such fact which occurs in some proceeding other than the proceeding under the D.V. Act. This may be so under the provision of Section 26(3) of the D.V. Act. However, one cannot be oblivious to the general principle of burden of proof which requires that in order to shift the burden of proof, a party must establish and bring on record the relevant facts which unrebutted, would entitle the party to get the relief sought by him or her. Passing of an order granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month to the applicant on 27.1.2016 in a proceeding initiated under the D.V. Act much before the interim maintenance order was passed by the Family Court was certainly a relevant fact which would have had a bearing upon the decision of the Court. So, it was the duty of the applicant to bring this fact to the notice of the Family Court, but the duty was not performed by the applicant. The learned Judge of the Family Court has rightly considered failure of such duty on the part of the applicant while passing the impugned order dated 27.3.2017. I do not see any perversity or illegality in the same. The revision application deserves to be dismissed.

5. The revision application stands dismissed.

JUDGE okMksns ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2018 01:45:55 :::