REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.271 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2854 of 2010) Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade … Appellant Vs. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade & Ors. … Respondents J U D G M E N T ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5 th March, 2010, passed by the
2 Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in Crl. W.P. No.588 of 2009, inter alia , directing the Appellant to vacate her matrimonial house and confirming the order of the Sessions Judge deleting the names of the other Respondents from the proceedings. 3. The Appellant herein was married to the Respondent No.1 on 20 th January, 2005, and the marriage was registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. After her marriage, the Appellant began to reside with the Respondent No.1 at Khorej Colony, Amravati, where her widowed mother-in-law and sister-in-law, the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively, were residing. According to the Appellant, the marriage began to turn sour after about one year of the marriage and she was even assaulted by her husband and by the other respondents. It is her specific case that on 16 th June, 2007, she was mercilessly beaten by the Respondent No.1, which incident was reported to the
3 police and a case under Section 498-A I.P.C. came to be registered against him. 4. In addition to the above, the Appellant appears to have filed a complaint, being Misc. Crl. Application No.203 of 2007, on 16 th July, 2007, against all the Respondents under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as “the Domestic Violence Act, 2005”. An application filed by the Appellant before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati, under Section 23 of the above Act was allowed by the learned Magistrate, who by his order dated 16 th August, 2007, directed the Respondent No.1 husband to pay interim maintenance to the Appellant at the rate of 1,500/- per month from the date of the application till the final disposal of the main application and also restrained all the Respondents from dispossessing the Appellant from her
4 matrimonial home at Khorej Colony, Amravati, till the final disposal of the main application. 5. It further appears that the said order of the learned Magistrate dated 16 th August, 2007, was challenged by Respondent No.1 in Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007 before the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, who by his order dated 2 nd May, 2008, dismissed the said appeal. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the Respondent No.1 filed Criminal Application No.3034 of 2008 in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 16 th August, 2007 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati and the order dated 2 nd May, 2008 of the Sessions Judge, Amravati. The said application was dismissed by the High Court on 4 th September, 2009. 6. In the meanwhile, the Respondent No.2 filed an application in Misc. Crl. Application No.203 of 2007 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First
5 Class, Amravati, praying for modification of its order dated 16 th August, 2007 and a direction to the Appellant to leave the house of Respondent No.2. The said application for modification was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 14 th July, 2008 holding that it was not maintainable. Thereupon, the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed Crl. Appeal No.159 of 2008 on 11 th August, 2008, under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, questioning the orders passed by the learned Magistrate on 16 th August, 2007 and 14 th July, 2008, on the ground that being women they could not be made Respondents in the proceedings filed by the Appellant under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and that the matrimonial house of the Appellant at Khorej Colony, Amravati, belonged exclusively to Ramabai, the Respondent No.2 and mother-in-law of the Appellant and did not, therefore, come within the definition of “shared house”. The said Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2008 was allowed by the learned
6 Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 15 th July, 2009. The learned Sessions Judge allowed Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2008 and set aside the judgment and order dated 14 th July, 2008 and also modified the order dated 16 th August, 2007, to the extent of setting aside the injunction restraining the Respondents from dispossessing or evicting the Appellant from her matrimonial house at Khorej Colony, Amravati. The Respondent No.1 husband was directed to provide separate accommodation for the residence of the Appellant or to pay a sum of 1,000/- per month to the Appellant from the date of filing of the application till its final decision, in lieu of providing accommodation. 7. In Criminal Writ Petition No.588 of 2009, the Appellant herein challenged the judgment and order dated 15 th July, 2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Crl. Appeal No.159 of 2008, claiming that she had a right to stay in her
7 matrimonial house. Although, the question as to whether a female member of the husband’s family could be made a party to the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, had been raised in Crl. Appeal No.159 of 2008, the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 15 th July, 2009, did not decide the said question and did not absolve the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein in his order, but only observed that female members cannot be made parties in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as “females” are not included in the definition of “respondent” in Section 2(q) of the said Act. 8. The learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of the writ petition by his judgment and order dated 5 th March, 2010, with a direction to the Appellant to vacate her matrimonial house, which was in the name of the Respondent No.2, with a further direction to the Trial Court to expedite
8 the hearing of the Misc. Crl. Application No.203 of 2007 filed by the Appellant herein and to decide the same within a period of six months. A further direction was given confirming the order relating to deletion of the names of the ‘other members’. 9. Questioning the said judgment and order of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, Mr. Garvesh Kabra, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant, submitted that the High Court had erred in confirming the order of the learned Sessions Judge in regard to deletion of names of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the proceedings, upon confirmation of the finding of the Sessions Judge that no female could be made a party to a petition under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, since the expression “female” had not been included in the definition of “respondent” in the said Act. Mr. Kabra submitted that it would be evident from a plain reading of the proviso to Section 2(q) of the
9 Domestic Violence Act, 2005, that a wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage can, not only file a complaint against her husband or male partner but also against relatives of the husband or male partner. The term “relative” not having been defined in the Act, it could not be said that it excluded females from its operation. 10. Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents, on the other hand, defended the orders passed by the Sessions Judge and the High Court and urged that the term “relative” must be deemed to include within its ambit only male members of the husband’s family or the family of the male partner. Learned counsel submitted that when the expression “female” had not been specifically included within the definition of “respondent” in Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it has to be held that it was
10 the intention of the legislature to exclude female members from the ambit thereof. 11. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are unable to sustain the decisions, both of the learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court, in relation to the interpretation of the expression “respondent” in Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. For the sake of reference, Section 2(q) of the above-said Act is extracted hereinbelow :- “2(q). "respondent" means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.”
11 12. From the above definition it would be apparent that although Section 2(q) defines a respondent to mean any adult male person, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person, the proviso widens the scope of the said definition by including a relative of the husband or male partner within the scope of a complaint, which may be filed by an aggrieved wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage. 13. It is true that the expression “female” has not been used in the proviso to Section 2(q) also, but, on the other hand, if the Legislature intended to exclude females from the ambit of the complaint, which can be filed by an aggrieved wife, females would have been specifically excluded, instead of it being provided in the proviso that a complaint could also be filed against a relative of the husband or the male partner. No restrictive meaning has been given to the expression
12 “relative”, nor has the said expression been specifically defined in the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to make it specific to males only. 14. In such circumstances, it is clear that the legislature never intended to exclude female relatives of the husband or male partner from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 15. In our view, both the Sessions Judge and the High Court went wrong in holding otherwise, possibly being influenced by the definition of the expression “respondent” in the main body of Section 2(q) of the aforesaid Act. 16. The Appeal, therefore, succeeds. The judgments and orders, both of the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, dated 15 th July, 2009 and the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 5 th March, 2010, in Crl. Writ Petition No.588 of 2009 are set
13 aside. Consequently, the trial Court shall also proceed against the said Respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the complaint filed by the Appellant. 17. The appeal is allowed accordingly. …………………………………………J. (ALTAMAS KABIR) …………………………………………J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH) New Delhi Dated:31.01.2011
Âo REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.271 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2854 of 2010)Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade ... Appellant Vs.Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade & Ors. ... Respondents J U D G M E N TALTAMAS KABIR, J.1. Leave granted.2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5 thMarch, 2010, passed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court inCrl. W.P. No.588 of 2009, inter alia, directing the Appellant tovacate her matrimonial house and confirming the order of theSessions Judge deleting the names of the other Respondents from theproceedings. 23. The Appellant herein was married to the Respondent No.1 on 20 thJanuary, 2005, and the marriage was registered under the provisionsof the Special Marriage Act, 1954. After her marriage, the Appellantbegan to reside with the Respondent No.1 at Khorej Colony, Amravati,where her widowed mother-in-law and sister-in-law, the RespondentNos.2 and 3 respectively, were residing. According to theAppellant, the marriage began to turn sour after about one year ofthe marriage and she was even assaulted by her husband and by theother respondents. It is her specific case that on 16th June, 2007,she was mercilessly beaten by the Respondent No.1, which incidentwas reported to the police and a case under Section 498-A I.P.C.
came to be registered against him.4. In addition to the above, the Appellant appears to have filed acomplaint, being Misc. Crl. Application No.203 of 2007, on 16th July,2007, against all the Respondents under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,hereinafter referred to as "the Domestic Violence Act, 2005". Anapplication filed by the Appellant before the Judicial Magistrate,First Class, Amravati, under Section 23 of the above Act was allowedby the learned Magistrate, who by his order dated 16 th August, 2007,directed the Respondent No.1 husband to pay interim maintenance tothe Appellant at the rate of 1,500/- per month from the date of theapplication till the final disposal of the main application and also 3restrained all the Respondents from dispossessing the Appellant fromher matrimonial home at Khorej Colony, Amravati, till the finaldisposal of the main application.5. It further appears that the said order of the learnedMagistrate dated 16th August, 2007, was challenged by Respondent No.1in Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007 before the learned Sessions Judge,Amravati, who by his order dated 2nd May, 2008, dismissed the saidappeal. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned SessionsJudge, the Respondent No.1 filed Criminal Application No.3034 of2008 in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging theorder dated 16th August, 2007 of the Judicial Magistrate, FirstClass, Amravati and the order dated 2nd May, 2008 of the SessionsJudge, Amravati. The said application was dismissed by the HighCourt on 4th September, 2009.6. In the meanwhile, the Respondent No.2 filed an application inMisc. Crl. Application No.203 of 2007 in the Court of the JudicialMagistrate, First Class, Amravati, praying for modification of itsorder dated 16th August, 2007 and a direction to the Appellant toleave the house of Respondent No.2. The said application for
modification was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 14th July,2008 holding that it was not maintainable. Thereupon, the RespondentNos.2 and 3 filed Crl. Appeal No.159 of 2008 on 11th August, 2008, 4under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, questioning theorders passed by the learned Magistrate on 16th August, 2007 and 14thJuly, 2008, on the ground that being women they could not be madeRespondents in the proceedings filed by the Appellant under theprovisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and that thematrimonial house of the Appellant at Khorej Colony, Amravati,belonged exclusively to Ramabai, the Respondent No.2 and mother-in-law of the Appellant and did not, therefore, come within thedefinition of "shared house". The said Criminal Appeal No.159 of2008 was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge vide his judgmentdated 15th July, 2009. The learned Sessions Judge allowed CriminalAppeal No.159 of 2008 and set aside the judgment and order dated 14thJuly, 2008 and also modified the order dated 16th August, 2007, tothe extent of setting aside the injunction restraining theRespondents from dispossessing or evicting the Appellant from hermatrimonial house at Khorej Colony, Amravati. The Respondent No.1husband was directed to provide separate accommodation for theresidence of the Appellant or to pay a sum of 1,000/- per month tothe Appellant from the date of filing of the application till itsfinal decision, in lieu of providing accommodation.7. In Criminal Writ Petition No.588 of 2009, the Appellant hereinchallenged the judgment and order dated 15th July, 2009, passed bythe learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Crl. Appeal No.159 of 2008, 5claiming that she had a right to stay in her matrimonial house.
Although, the question as to whether a female member of thehusband's family could be made a party to the proceedings under theDomestic Violence Act, 2005, had been raised in Crl. Appeal No.159of 2008, the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 15th July,2009, did not decide the said question and did not absolve theRespondent Nos.2 and 3 herein in his order, but only observed thatfemale members cannot be made parties in proceedings under theDomestic Violence Act, 2005, as "females" are not included in thedefinition of "respondent" in Section 2(q) of the said Act.8. The learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of the writpetition by his judgment and order dated 5th March, 2010, with adirection to the Appellant to vacate her matrimonial house, whichwas in the name of the Respondent No.2, with a further direction tothe Trial Court to expedite the hearing of the Misc. Crl.Application No.203 of 2007 filed by the Appellant herein and todecide the same within a period of six months. A further directionwas given confirming the order relating to deletion of the names ofthe `other members'.9. Questioning the said judgment and order of the Nagpur Bench ofthe Bombay High Court, Mr. Garvesh Kabra, learned Advocate appearingfor the Appellant, submitted that the High Court had erred in 6confirming the order of the learned Sessions Judge in regard todeletion of names of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 from theproceedings, upon confirmation of the finding of the Sessions Judgethat no female could be made a party to a petition under theDomestic Violence Act, 2005, since the expression "female" had notbeen included in the definition of "respondent" in the said Act. Mr.Kabra submitted that it would be evident from a plain reading of theproviso to Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, that a
wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of marriagecan, not only file a complaint against her husband or male partnerbut also against relatives of the husband or male partner. The term"relative" not having been defined in the Act, it could not be saidthat it excluded females from its operation.10. Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, learned Advocate appearing for theRespondents, on the other hand, defended the orders passed by theSessions Judge and the High Court and urged that the term "relative"must be deemed to include within its ambit only male members of thehusband's family or the family of the male partner. Learned counselsubmitted that when the expression "female" had not beenspecifically included within the definition of "respondent" inSection 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it has to be heldthat it was the intention of the legislature to exclude femalemembers from the ambit thereof. 711. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf ofthe respective parties, we are unable to sustain the decisions, bothof the learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court, in relation tothe interpretation of the expression "respondent" in Section 2(q) ofthe Domestic Violence Act, 2005. For the sake of reference, Section2(q) of the above-said Act is extracted hereinbelow :- "2(q). "respondent" means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner."12. From the above definition it would be apparent that althoughSection 2(q) defines a respondent to mean any adult male person, whois or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person,
the proviso widens the scope of the said definition by including arelative of the husband or male partner within the scope of acomplaint, which may be filed by an aggrieved wife or a femaleliving in a relationship in the nature of a marriage.13. It is true that the expression "female" has not been used inthe proviso to Section 2(q) also, but, on the other hand, if theLegislature intended to exclude females from the ambit of the 8complaint, which can be filed by an aggrieved wife, females wouldhave been specifically excluded, instead of it being provided in theproviso that a complaint could also be filed against a relative ofthe husband or the male partner. No restrictive meaning has beengiven to the expression "relative", nor has the said expression beenspecifically defined in the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to make itspecific to males only.14. In such circumstances, it is clear that the legislature neverintended to exclude female relatives of the husband or male partnerfrom the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the provisionsof the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.15. In our view, both the Sessions Judge and the High Court wentwrong in holding otherwise, possibly being influenced by thedefinition of the expression "respondent" in the main body ofSection 2(q) of the aforesaid Act.16. The Appeal, therefore, succeeds. The judgments and orders,both of the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, dated 15 th July, 2009and the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 5th March, 2010,in Crl. Writ Petition No.588 of 2009 are set aside. Consequently,the trial Court shall also proceed against the said Respondent Nos.2and 3 on the complaint filed by the Appellant. 9
17. The appeal is allowed accordingly. ................................................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR) ................................................J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)New DelhiDated:31.01.2011 10ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.2 SECTION IIAFor Judgment S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCriminal Appeal No.271 of 2011 @Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2854/2010(From the judgement and order dated 05/03/2010 in CRLWP No.588/2009of the HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR)Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Petitioner (s) VERSUSManoj Bhimrao Wankhade & Ors. Respondent(s)Date: 31/01/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Adv. Mr. Nikita Kabra, Adv. Ms. Pooja Kabra, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv. Mr. Prashant R. Dahat, Adv. Mr. Somanath Padhan, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph. Leave granted. The Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed judgment. (Chetan Kumar) (Juginder Kaur) Court Master Court Master (Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
\200ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).2854/2010(From the judgement and order dated 05/03/2010 in CRLWP No.588/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR)SOU. SANDHYA MANOJ WANKHADE Petitioner(s) VERSUSMANOJ BHIMRAO WANKHADE & ORS Respondent(s)(with appln.(s) for stay)Date: 26/10/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPHFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Garvesh Kabra,Adv. Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Adv. Mrs. Nikita Kabra, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Harshvardhan, Adv. Mrs. Nikita Kabra, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Satyajit A.Desai, Adv. Ms. Anagha S.Desai,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Hearing concluded. Judgment reserved. (Sheetal Dhingra) (S.S.R.Krishna) Court Master Court Master
äITEM NO.36 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIA(at 2.00 pm) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).2854/2010(From the judgement and order dated 05/03/2010 in CRLWP No.588/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR)SOU. SANDHYA MANOJ WANKHADE Petitioner(s) VERSUSMANOJ BHIMRAO WANKHADE & ORS Respondent(s)(with appln.(s) for stay)Date: 21/10/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIKFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Garvesh Kabra,Adv. Mrs. Nikita Kabra, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Satyajit A.Desai, Adv. Ms. Anagha S.Desai,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Let this matter be listed for consideration next Tuesday, as "first item". (Sheetal Dhingra) (Neelam Arora) Court Master Court Master
vITEM NO.10 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIA(mentioned) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).2854/2010(From the judgement and order dated 05/03/2010 in CRLWP No.588/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR)SOU. SANDHYA MANOJ WANKHADE Petitioner(s) VERSUSMANOJ BHIMRAO WANKHADE & ORS Respondent(s)(with appln.(s) for stay)Date: 19/10/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIKFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Garvesh Kabra,Adv. Mrs. Nikita Kabra, Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Anagha S.Desai,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on Thursday (21st October, 2010) at 2.00 p.m. (Sheetal Dhingra) (Veena Khera) Court Master Court Master
JITEM NO.MM-A COURT NO.2 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).2854/2010(From the judgement and order dated 05/03/2010 in CRLWP No.588/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR)SOU. SANDHYA MANOJ WANKHADE Petitioner(s) VERSUSMANOJ BHIMRAO WANKHADE & ORS Respondent(s)Date: 17/08/2010 This Petition was MENTIONED today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIKFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Garvesh Kabra,Adv. Mrs. Nikita Kabra, Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Anagha S.Desai,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On mentioning, let this matter be taken on board. Having regard to the fact that the matter was listed on 28th July, 2010, in terms of our direction of 22nd July, 2010, but it could not be taken up, let the date be preponed from the month of December, 2010, to 14th September, 2010, at the top, subject to part-heard matters. (Sheetal Dhingra) (Juginder Kaur) Court Master Court Master
ITEM NO.67 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).2854/2010(From the judgement and order dated 05/03/2010 in CRLWP No.588/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR)SOU. SANDHYA MANOJ WANKHADE Petitioner(s) VERSUSMANOJ BHIMRAO WANKHADE & ORS Respondent(s)(with appln.(s) for stay)Date: 13/08/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIKFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Garvesh Kabra,Adv. Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Adv. Mrs. Nikita Kabra, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv. Ms. Anagha S.Desai,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Not today. (Sheetal Dhingra) (Vinod Kulvi) Court Master Court Master
\214ITEM NO.61 Court No.2 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).2854/2010(From the judgement and order dated 05/03/2010 in CRLWP No. 588/2009of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR)SOU. SANDHYA MANOJ WANKHADE Petitioner(s) VERSUSMANOJ BHIMRAO WANKHADE & ORS Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for stayDate: 06/08/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIKFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Garvesh Kabra,Adv. Ms. Pooja Kabra,Adv. Ms. Nikita Kabra Jaju,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Satyajit A. Desai,Adv. Ms. Anagha S.Desai,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List next week. (Ganga Thakur) (Juginder Kaur) PS to Registrar Court Master
hITEM NO. MM-A COURT NO.2 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).2854/2010(From the judgement and order dated 05/03/2010 in CRLWP No.588/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR)SOU. SANDHYA MANOJ WANKHADE Petitioner(s) VERSUSMANOJ BHIMRAO WANKHADE & ORS Respondent(s)Date: 22/07/2010 This Petition was MENTIONED today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Garvesh Kabra,Adv. Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Adv. Mrs. Nikita Kabra, Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Anagha S.Desai,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Taken on board. On 7th April, 2010, while issuing notice, we had given directions for filing of counter affidavit and rejoinder and had directed that the matter be listed immediately after the pleadings are complete. Unfortunately, we are informed that the counter affidavit has not been filed in the matter. Having regard to the issue involved in the S.L.P., let this matter be listed next Wednesday (28th July, 2010), as a miscellaneous matter.(Sheetal Dhingra) (Juginder Kaur) Court Master Court Master
(ITEM NO.18(MM) COURT NO.3 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).2854/2010(From the judgement and order dated 05/03/2010 in CRLWP No.588/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR)SOU. SANDHYA MANOJ WANKHADE Petitioner(s) VERSUSMANOJ BHIMRAO WANKHADE & ORS Respondent(s) Date: 07/04/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Garvesh Kabra,Adv. Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Adv. Mrs. Nikita Kabra, Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Anagha S.Desai,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Since Ms. Desai has appeared for all the respondents, service of notice is dispensed with. The respondents will be entitled to file their counter affidavit to the SLP within two weeks; rejoinder, if any, be filed within a week thereafter. Let the matter be listed immediately after the pleadings are complete.(Sheetal Dhingra) (Juginder Kaur) Court Master Court Master