Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)Manik Son Of Sitaram Jibhkate vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 July, 2011
5. The non-applicants strenuously argued that
the proceeding under Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code, cannot be equated with matrimonial
proceedings and thus, mere inconvenience of wife is
not a ground. On the other hand, he has submitted
that non-applicant no. 2 i.e. the mother-in-law of the
3 17 appln 105.2021
applicant, is taking cardiac treatment at Jagjivanram
Hospital, Mumbai of which documents are produced.
More particularly, it is submitted that non-applicant
no. 3 sister-in-law of the applicant, who is widow is
suffering from Cancer for which she is taking
treatment at Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai of which
documents are produced. The learned Counsel for the
non-applicants also relied on the decision of this Court
in Criminal Application No. 75 of 2021 (Smt. Shital
w/o Aditya Jibhkate vs. State of Maharashtra) dated
03.03.2022, wherein this Court has declined to
transfer the case similarly under Section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code.
Sagar Yashwant Mahanur vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 February, 2022
In support of said contention,
the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of
this Court in Criminal Application No.57 of 2021
(Ruplakshmi w/o Tushar Bhagat vs. State of
Maharashtra and ors.) dated12.07.2022, wherein this
Court has acceded the request for transfer the similar
case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code on
account of inconvenience of wife.
1