Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 370 views

    Criminal Revision

    Uploaded by

    Shashikant Bhosle
    This document is a revision petition filed in the Hon'ble Court of the Hon'ble Sessions Judge at Latur regarding an interim maintenance order. [1] The petitioners (two daughters) are challenging an order from the lower court directing them to pay interim maintenance to the respondent mother. [2] The petitioners argue that the lower court wrongly heard the matter before the scheduled date and passed the order without hearing from the petitioners. [3] The petitioners further argue that they do not have the means to pay separate maintenance to the mother and had always maintained her properly when she resided with them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Criminal Revision

    Uploaded by

    Shashikant Bhosle
    370 views6 pages
    This document is a revision petition filed in the Hon'ble Court of the Hon'ble Sessions Judge at Latur regarding an interim maintenance order. [1] The petitioners (two daughters) are challenging an order from the lower court directing them to pay interim maintenance to the respondent mother. [2] The petitioners argue that the lower court wrongly heard the matter before the scheduled date and passed the order without hearing from the petitioners. [3] The petitioners further argue that they do not have the means to pay separate maintenance to the mother and had always maintained her properly when she resided with them.

    Original Description:

    Criminal Revision

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a revision petition filed in the Hon'ble Court of the Hon'ble Sessions Judge at Latur regarding an interim maintenance order. [1] The petitioners (two daughters) are challenging an order from the lower court directing them to pay interim maintenance to the respondent mother. [2] The petitioners argue that the lower court wrongly heard the matter before the scheduled date and passed the order without hearing from the petitioners. [3] The petitioners further argue that they do not have the means to pay separate maintenance to the mother and had always maintained her properly when she resided with them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    370 views6 pages

    Criminal Revision

    Uploaded by

    Shashikant Bhosle
    This document is a revision petition filed in the Hon'ble Court of the Hon'ble Sessions Judge at Latur regarding an interim maintenance order. [1] The petitioners (two daughters) are challenging an order from the lower court directing them to pay interim maintenance to the respondent mother. [2] The petitioners argue that the lower court wrongly heard the matter before the scheduled date and passed the order without hearing from the petitioners. [3] The petitioners further argue that they do not have the means to pay separate maintenance to the mother and had always maintained her properly when she resided with them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 6

    Cri. Rev. No. /2019.

    IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE AT


    LATUR.

    1) Ratan W/o Subhash Ekurke

    Age: 65 Yrs. Occu : H.H.

    R/o. Ekurke Galli, Renapur Tq. Renapur Dist. Latur.

    2) Lalita W/o Balaji Jadhav

    Age: 55 Yrs. Occu : H.H.

    R/o. Om Nagar, Renapur Tq. Renapur Dist. Latur.

    … Rev. Petitioner

    Versus

    1) Kevalbai W/o Ranga Khune

    Age: 90 Yrs. Occu : H.H.

    R/o. Om Nagar, Renapur Tq. Renapur Dist. Latur.

    2) Chandrakala W/o Prakash Mane

    Age: 60 Yrs. Occu : H.H.

    R/o. Bramhwadi Tq. Renapur Dist. Latur.

    … Respondents

    Claim :- U/s. 125 of Cr.P.C.

    MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR

    This revision against the Order passed by Joint J.M.F.C. at

    Renapur in Cri. Misc. Application No. 17/2019 Dt. 17/08/2019,

    with the certified copy of the same, within the prescribed pe-

    riod of limitation, is submitted as under :-

    Facts of the case :-

    1) That, the respondent No. 1 is the mother of revision peti-

    tioner and respondent No. 2. It is alleged by the respondent No. 1 af-

    ter death of her husband she maintain to the revision petitioner and
    2

    respondent No. 2 and performed their marriages. It is also alleged by

    the respondent No. 1 she has sold out the ancestral land and out of

    amount she performed the marriages of the revision petitioner and re-

    spondent No. 2. It is also alleged by the respondent No. 1 the one plot

    situated at Renapur is transferred to the husband of the revision peti-

    tioner No. 2. In fact, the said plot is sold out by the original petitioner

    to the husband of the original respondent No. 3 for considerable

    amount. It is also falsely alleged by the original petitioner that, some

    land has been purchased in the name of revision petitioner and re-

    spondent No. 2. It is also falsely alleged by the respondent No. 1 she

    has supply some amount for the construction of house to all her

    daughters.

    2) That, the respondent No. 1 has resided with the revision

    petitioner No. 2 till January 2019. The revision petitioner No. 2 has

    maintain properly to the respondent No. 1. But, suddenly the respon-

    dent No. 1 left the house of the revision petitioner No. 2 and file the

    application U/s. 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class

    at Renapur against the revision petitioner and respondent No. 2. After

    receipt of the notice of the said application the revision petitioners

    have requested to the respondent No. 1 came with them and reside

    with them. But, the respondent No. 1 has flatly refuse the request of

    the revision petitioner.

    3) That, the revision petitioner No. 1 and 2 have filed their

    details say to the application filed by the respondent No. 1 U/s. 125 of
    3

    Cr.P.C. The respondent No. 1 has also filed interim application for in-

    terim maintenance against the revision petitioner and respondent No.

    2 their say also filed by the revision petitioners. The respondent No. 2

    has remained absent to the Lower proceeding. Therefore, she has

    made respondent to the present proceeding as a necessary party. The

    respondent No. 1 is receiving the monthly amount from the Govt. un-

    der the Niradhar Yojana. It means she is having something amount for

    her maintenance. The revision petitioners are ready to maintain the

    respondent No. 1 at their house. But, the respondent No. 1 is not

    ready to reside with them. The revision petitioner has never neglected

    towards the respondent No. 1. As well as the revision petitioners are

    not having sufficient means to provide the separate maintenance to

    the respondent No. 1.

    4) That, after filing of say by the revision petitioner the mat-

    ter was kept for hearing of interim application on 12/07/2019. But, on

    that day the matter is adjourn and kept on 25/08/2019. But, the mat-

    ter is wrongly taken on 17/08/2019 for hearing of interim application.

    The date was already posted on 25/08/2019. Therefore, the revision

    petitioner and their advocate could not appear before the Court on

    17/08/2019. The Hon’ble Lower Court without hearing passed the or-

    der under revision and original respondent has directed to pay the in-

    terim maintenance which is wrong, erroneous and against the facts

    and law of the case. Therefore, the present revision petition is filing on

    the following grounds.


    4

    GROUNDS OF REVISION PETITIONER :-

    1) That, the order under revision is wrong, erroneous and

    against the facts and law of the case. Therefore, it is liable to be set

    aside.

    2) That, the Ld. Judge of the Lower Court without hearing by

    wrongly taking the matter on 17/08/2019 instead of 25/08/2019

    passed the impugned order. The Ld. Judge has also not considered

    properly the fact mentioned by the revision petitioner in their say and

    pass the wrong order in the revision.

    3) That, the revision petitioners are also old womens and

    they are also unable to maintain themselves and they are not having

    any sufficient means to provide the separate maintenance to the re-

    spondent No. 1. This fact is also not considered by the Lower Court

    and passed the wrong order which is liable to be set aside.

    4) That, there is no any evidence regarding neglecting by

    the revision petitioner towards the maintain to the respondent No. 1

    and there is also not any evidence having sufficient means by the revi-

    sion petitioner to provide separate maintenance to the respondent No.

    1. This fact also not considered by the Lower Court and passed the law

    and order which is liable to be set aside.


    5

    5) That, any other grounds will raise at the time of final

    hearing of the present revision petition with the prior permission of

    this Hon’ble Court.

    HENCE IT IS PRAYED

    This revision petition may kindly be allowed

    by calling R & P and order passed by the Ju-

    dicial Magistrate First Class IInd Renapur in

    Misc. Application No. 17/2019 Dt.

    17/08/2019 may kindly be set aside.

    Date : /09/2019 Rev. Petitioners

    Through,
    1)

    2)
    Adv. B.P. Mane
    Latur.
    6

    You might also like