✦ Bombay High Court · 13 Oct 2006

Revision v. April

Writ Petition No. 2843 of 2005ABHAY S OKA3 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
13 Oct 2006
Bench
ABHAY S OKA

Provisions considered

Judgment

1.

1st Rule. The learned A.P.P.waives service for the Respondent. The learned Advocate Respondent waives service. Considering circumstances of the case, taken up for hearing forthwith. 2nd 2, The Petitioner is a minor who is represented by mother. The allegation petitioner 2nd Respondent. The Petitioner through mother a Criminal Application section 125 Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 claiming maintenance 2nd Respondent. The application contested 2nd Respondent denying relationship. The application decided Judicial Magistrate

2 : ::: 2 : 2 : 17th March

2003. The application allowed holding Petitioner Respondent. A Revision Application 2nd 2nd Respondent allowed impugend 28th April

2005. The Sessions Court accepted case made out by the 2nd Respondent and dismissed the Application for maintenance filed by the Petitioner.

3.

It will not be necessary to give detailed reasons parties seeking consent. The parties agreed a remand Application maintenance Court learned Judicial Magistrate. The parties agreed having DNA Test conducted remand a paternity involved. It agreed between Petitioner 2nd Respondent expenses DNA Test shares mother Petitioner 2nd Respondent. Since issue is regarding paternity, the parties are free to lead further evidence.

4.

In view of this the following order is passed: i) The judgment 28th April 2005 passed Adhoc Additional Sessions Palghar Criminal Revision Application Judge, No.50 17th 2003 judgment May 2003 passed Misc. Application No.183 3 : ::: 3 : 3 : 1994 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasai quashed aside. Misc. Application No.183 1994 Petitioner restored file. The parties directed appear before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Vasai Monday 27th November 2006

11.00 a.m. The parties necessary application before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class for conduct of DNA Test. ii) The parties will be free to lead further evidence in the matter. iii) The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasai, decide Application expeditiously possible preferably within a period of four monts from the date of receipt of the report of DNA test. iv) All contentions of the parties are kept expressly open. v) The parties and the concerned Court to act on an authenticated copy of this order. Judge. Judge. Judge.

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 13 Oct 2006. The bench was ABHAY S OKA.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 2843 of 2005). ← Search more judgments