The Ultimate Goal oF     

The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court comparising of Justice Nitin M Sambre and Abhay J Mantri has directed the Judicial Magistrate First class, Bhadrawati to decide the application of interim maintenance within a period of 08 weeks. One Rupali Sandeep Petkar filed the petition before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court alleging there in that though the hearing on the application for grant of Interim Maintenance was conducted on 30th March 2022, however the orders of interim maintenance could not be passed. The petitioner Rupali Petkar filed the Misc. Application No. 35/2019 under section 12 of the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and also filed an application at Exhibit 5 for grant of Interim maintenance. Though, the non-applicant husband is serving in M.S.R.T.C and admitting that petitioner-wife has no source of income. However, the husband has not provided any maintenance to the petitioner Rupali Petkar or her daughter. The petitioner alleges in the petition that though the protection of women from the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act came to be enacted with a view to grant speedy relief to the victims of Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act and section 12(5) specifically stipulates the time of 60 days for deciding the application file under the provisions of Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act. However, keeping the interim maintenance pending for such a long period is nothing but the travesty of justice. That, the petitioner Rupali Petkar also prayed for the framing of guidelines to decide the applications for interim maintenance within a stipulated period and also prayed for the directions to the respondents ministry of women and child development, New Delhi and Secretary , Ministry of Law and Judiciary , Government of Maharashtra to take appropriate steps including the appointment of Judicial officers for specially deciding the cases instituted under the provision of the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act. Adv. I.S. Charlewar and Adv. Kadambini Meshram appeared for the Petitioner. .

Read more

The Bombay High Court invalidated the Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued by the CBI against Rhea Chakraborty and her family concerning the investigation into actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s death, emphasizing that the mere registration of an FIR does not warrant the issuance of an LOC. "The court emphasized that the Look Out Circular (LOC) cannot linger indefinitely, particularly in this instance, where it extended for over 3½ years. Despite the petitioners' cooperation with the investigation, a fact undisputed, the court highlighted that the fundamental right to travel cannot be restricted except through a due process established by law." Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Manjusha Deshpande, presiding over a division bench, granted the petitions submitted by Rhea Chakraborty, her brother Showik, and their parents, Indrajit and Sandhya, to annul the LOCs issued against them in 2020. The court acknowledged the Chakrabortys' cooperation with the CBI's investigation, highlighting their prompt attendance at the CBI office whenever summoned, and found no evidence of attempts to evade arrest or summons on their part. CORAM: REVATI MOHITE DERE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. .

Read more

The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court directed the Sessions Court not to proceed in the matter till the next date of hearing. The Applicant Chandrashekhar .S. Jhadav a retired chief fire officer of NMC has approached the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court by filing criminal application challenging the session court order of rejecting the application for discharge. The offense under section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of corruption act, came to be registered in Crime No.3520 of 2013 against the applicant Chandrashekhar Jhadav and other co-accused, on the pretext that by issuing the Fire NOC to one Pratibha Khandelwal to the tune of Rs.1,13,75,500/- The Session Court rejected the applicant for discharge filed by the applicant/accused Shri Chandrashekhar Jhadav. The matter came before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court, comprising of Justice M.W. Chandwani. The Counsel for Applicant Adv. Ishwar.S. Charlewar along with Adv. Kadambini Meshram and Adv. Swapnil Bharti contended before the court that there are no allegations about the accepting any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage which is a condition precedent of attracting Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. Adv. Ishwar .S. Charlewar, Adv. Kadambini Meshram and Adv. Swapnil Bharti appeared for the applicant and APP N.B. Jawade represented the state. .

Read more