Author: Advocate Paresh M Modi

As a law firm, Advocate Paresh M Modi is having a team of expert Advocates who provide expert advice and guide the clients on the complicated issues of court proceedings in India. Our law firm has been advising clients to adopt a systematic approach as per the provisions of the law and the requirements of the statute. Being the Best Advocate in Ahmedabad, Advocate Paresh M Modi has been serving the clients according to the provisions of law as Advocate Paresh M Modi is an Experienced Lawyer in Gujarat.Paresh M Modi and his associates have been rendering excellent work owing to their experience in Gujarat High Court for more than 7 years together and having established themselves as a seasoned advocate in the High Court of Gujarat by dealing with various matters in a different fields. It has been made possible to see that the client in any corner of the State of Gujarat could get genuine legal advice and the presence of a lawyer on account of the association with Advocates in various cities of the State of Gujarat.

Categories Cheque Bounce Lawyer, Legal Disputes

Negotiable Instruments act 1881 : Section 141

Judgement:

Harshendra Kumar D.v Rebatilata Koley Etc., 2011 (1) Bank Cas 685:2011 (1) Crimes 280: 2011 (3) SCC 351: 2011 (1) SCC (Cri) 1139: 2011 Cri LJ 1626:2011 (2) JT 586:2011 (5) SCJ 394: AIR 2011 SC 1090.

Negotiable Instruments act, 1881-Section 141 – Liability of Director-A director’s resignation accepted by company,he cannot be held accountable and fastened with liability for anything done by company after acceptance of his res-ignation-words every person at time of offence was committed must be deter-mined on date of offence to have been committed.

વટાઉખત અધિનિયમ 1881-કલમ 141-ડાયરેકટરની જવાબદારી-ડાયરેકટરનું રાજીનામું કંપની દ્રારા સ્વીકારાયુ-તેના રાજીનામા સ્વીકાર્યા બાદના વ્યવહાર માટે તે જવાબદાર નવી-શબ્દ “કોઇ પણ વયકિત”-ગુનો થયો ત્યારે તે તારીખે જે વ્યકિત હોય તે જવાબદાર.

Harshendra Kumar D.v Rebatilata Koley Etc., 2011 (1) Bank Cas 685:2011 (1) Crimes 280: 2011 (3) SCC 351: 2011 (1) SCC (Cri) 1139: 2011 Cri LJ 1626:2011 (2) JT 586:2011 (5) SCJ 394: AIR 2011 SC 1090.

Negotiable Instruments Act,1881-S.141-Offience by Company Complaint against Managing Director-At the relevant time the accused director was in no way connected with the affairs of the Company-He ceased to be a director when cheques alleged to have been signed-Held, in the absence of specific averment as to the role of the consent director and particularly in view of the materials that at the relevant time the consent director was in no way con-nected with the affairs of the Company, the Quashing of process was proper-Principles for creating a liability under the Section stated.

વટાઉખત અધિનિયમ 1881-કલમ 141-કંપની દ્રારા ગુંહો-મેનેજીંગ ડિરેકટર વિરુધ્ધ ફરીયાદ-પ્રસ્તુત સમયે આરોપી ડિરેકટર કંપનીના કામકાજ સાથે સંકળાયેલા ન હતા-જયારે ચેકમાં સહી કરવામાં આવેલ હોવાનો આક્ષેપ કરવામાં આવ્યો ત્યારે તેઓનો ડિરેકટર તરીકે અંત આવેલ-ઠરાવ્યું કે, સંબધિત ડિરેકટરના પાઠ માટે વિશિષ્ટ અનુમાનના અભાવે અને ખાસ કરીને તે બાબતોનો ધ્યાનમાં લઇને કે પ્રસ્તુત સમયે ડિરેકટર કંપનીના કામકાજ સાથે કોઇ પણ રીતે સંકળાયેલા હતા નહિં ત્યારે પ્રકિયા રદ કરવાનું યોગ્ય હતું-કલમ હેઠળ જવાબદારી ઉભી કરવાના સિદ્રાંતો જણાવવામાં આવ્યા.

Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly regarded advocate based in Ahmedabad, known for his expertise in criminal law. As a distinguished lawyer at the Gujarat High Court, he specializes in a wide range of legal matters, making him a sought-after professional in various areas of law. Some of his notable specializations include handling cases related to cheque bounce, property disputes, cybercrime, court marriages, divorces, debt recovery tribunals (DRT), FIR quashing, land revenue disputes, anticipatory bail, PASA (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act), family law, civil law, and more. Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly skilled lawyer practicing at the Gujarat High Court Lawyer in Ahmedabad. With his extensive experience and expertise, He has established himself as a renowned advocate in the region. Stay connected with him on social media for updates:

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube

Follow Advocate Paresh M Modi, the esteemed lawyer, for valuable insights, legal analysis, and engaging discussions. Stay informed about the law and legal developments through his informative content. In the meantime, check out other Information from Home Page, or call us at Landline No: +91-79-48001468 or Phone & WhatsApp No: +91 99250 02031.

Categories Legal Disputes

Section 18 : The Indian Evidence Act 1872

Section 18 : Admission by party to proceeding or his agent —

Statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make them, are admissions.

By suitor in representative character — Statements made by parties to suits, suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they were made while the party making them held that character. Statements made by—

(1) Party interested in subject-matter — persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding, and who make the statement in their character of persons so interested, or

(2) Person from whom interest derived — persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit, are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements.

धारा 18 -स्वीकृति-कार्यवाही के पक्षकार या उसके अभिकर्ता द्वारा-

वे कथन स्वीकृतियां हैं, जिन्हें कार्यवाही के किसी पक्षकार ने किया हो, या ऐसे किसी पक्षकार के ऐसे किसी अभिकर्ता ने किया हो, जिसे मामले कि परिस्थितियों में न्यायालय उन कथनों को करने के लिए उस पक्षकार द्वारा अभिव्यक्त या विवक्षित रूप से प्रधिकृत किया हुआ मानता है।

प््रतिनिधिक रूप से वादकर्ता द्वारा- वाद के ऐसे पद्वाकारों द्वारा, जो प्रतिनिधिक हैसियत में वाद ला रहे हो, किए गए कथन, जब तक िकवे उस समय न किए गए हो जबकि उनको काने वाला पक्षकार वैसी हैसियत धारण करता था, स्वीकृतियां नहीं है।

(1) विषयवस्तु में हितबद्ध पक्षकार द्वारा– ऐसे व्यक्तियों द्वारा किए गए हैं, जिनका कार्यवाही की विषयवस्तु में कोई साम्प्रत्तिक या धन संबंधी हित है और जो इस प्रकार हितबद्ध व्यक्तियों की हैसियत में वह कथन करते है, अथवा

(2) उस व्यक्ति द्वारा जिससे व्युत्पन्न हुआ हो– ऐस व्यक्तियों द्वारा किए गए है।, जिनसे वाद के पक्षकारों का वाद की विषय-वस्तु में अपना हित व्युत्पन्न हुआ है,यदि वे कथन उन्हें करने वाले व्यक्तियों के हित के चालू रहने के दौरान में किए गए है।

Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly regarded advocate based in Ahmedabad, known for his expertise in criminal law. As a distinguished lawyer at the Gujarat High Court, he specializes in a wide range of legal matters, making him a sought-after professional in various areas of law. Some of his notable specializations include handling cases related to cheque bounce, property disputes, cybercrime, court marriages, divorces, debt recovery tribunals (DRT), FIR quashing, land revenue disputes, anticipatory bail, PASA (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act), family law, civil law, and more. Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly skilled lawyer practicing at the Gujarat High Court Lawyer in Ahmedabad. With his extensive experience and expertise, He has established himself as a renowned advocate in the region. Stay connected with him on social media for updates:

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube

Follow Advocate Paresh M Modi, the esteemed lawyer, for valuable insights, legal analysis, and engaging discussions. Stay informed about the law and legal developments through his informative content. In the meantime, check out other Information from Home Page, or call us at Landline No: +91-79-48001468 or Phone & WhatsApp No: +91 99250 02031.

Categories Legal Disputes

Section 15 : The Indian Evidence Act 1872

Section 15 : Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional. — When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, 1[or done with a particular knowledge or intention,] the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.—When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, 1[or done with a particular knowledge or intention,] the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.”

Illustrations :

(a) A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for which it is insured. The facts that A lived in several houses successively, each of which he insured, in each of which a fire occurred, and after each of which fires A received payment from a different insurance office, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.

(b) A is employed to receive money from the debtors of B. It is A’s duty to make entries in a book showing the amounts received by him. He makes an entry showing that on a particular occasion he received less than he really did receive. The question is, whether this false entry was accidental or intentional. The facts that other entries made by A in the same book are false, and that the false entry is in each case in favour of A, are relevant.

(c) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to B a counterfeit rupee. The question is, whether the delivery of the rupee was accidental. The facts that, soon before or soon after the delivery to B, A delivered counterfeit rupees to C, D and E are relevant, as showing that the delivery to B, was not accidental.

धारा 15 :- कार्य आकस्मिक या साशय था इस प्रश्न पर प्रकाश डालने वाले तथ्य – जबकि प्रष्न यह है कि कार्य आकस्मिक या साशय था या किसी विशिष्ट ज्ञान या आशय से किया गया था, तब यह तथ्य कि ऐसा कार्य समरूप घटनाओं की आवली का भाग था जिनमें से हर एक घटनाके साथ वह ािर्य करने वाला व्यक्ति संपृक्त था, सुसंगत है।

दृष्टान्त-

(क) क पर यह अभियोग है कि अपने गृह के बीमे का धन अभिप्राप्त करने के लिए असने उसे जला दिया।ये तथ्य कि क कई गृहों में एक के पश्चात् दूसरे में रहा, जिनमें से हर एक का उसने बीमा कराया, जिनमें से हर एक में आग लगी और जिन अग्निकांडों में से हर एक के उनपरान्त क को किसी भिन्न बीमा-कार्यालय से बीमा-धन मिला, इस नाते सुसंगत है कि उनसे यह दर्शित होता है कि वे अग्निकांड आकस्मिक नहीं थे।

(ख) ख के ऋणियों से धन प्राप्त करने के लिए क नियोजित है। क का यह कर्तव्य है कि बही में अपने द्वारा प्राप्त राशियां दर्शित प्रविष्टियां करे। वह एक प्रविष्टि करता है निससे यह दर्शित होता है कि किसी विशिष्ट अवसर पर उसे वपास्तव में प्राप्त राशि से कम राशि प्राप्त हुई।प्रश्न यह है कि क्या यह मिथ्या प्रविष्टि आकस्मिक थी या साशय।ये तथ्य की उसी बही में क द्वारा की हुई अन्य प्रविष्टियां मिथ्या हैं और हर एक अवस्था में मिथ्या प्रविष्टि क के पक्ष में है, सुसंगत है।

(ग) ख को कपटपूर्वक कूटकृत रुपया परिदान करने का क अभियुक्त है। प््रश्न यह है कि क्या रुपए का परिदान आकस्मिक था।यह तथ्य कि ख को परिदान के तुरन्त पहले या पीछे क ने ग, घ और ड़ को कूटकृत रुपए परिदान किये थे इस नाते सुसंगत है कि उनसे यह दर्शित होता है कि ख को किया गया परिदान आकस्मिक नहीं था।

Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly regarded advocate based in Ahmedabad, known for his expertise in criminal law. As a distinguished lawyer at the Gujarat High Court, he specializes in a wide range of legal matters, making him a sought-after professional in various areas of law. Some of his notable specializations include handling cases related to cheque bounce, property disputes, cybercrime, court marriages, divorces, debt recovery tribunals (DRT), FIR quashing, land revenue disputes, anticipatory bail, PASA (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act), family law, civil law, and more. Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly skilled lawyer practicing at the Gujarat High Court Lawyer in Ahmedabad. With his extensive experience and expertise, He has established himself as a renowned advocate in the region. Stay connected with him on social media for updates:

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube

Follow Advocate Paresh M Modi, the esteemed lawyer, for valuable insights, legal analysis, and engaging discussions. Stay informed about the law and legal developments through his informative content. In the meantime, check out other Information from Home Page, or call us at Landline No: +91-79-48001468 or Phone & WhatsApp No: +91 99250 02031.

Categories Criminal Cases, Criminal Lawyer

Section 302 : Punishment for Murder

Section 302. Punishment for murder.

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or 1 [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

भारत कोड: अनुभाग विवरण। जो कोई भी हत्या करता है उसे मौत की सजा या 1 [आजीवन कारावास] दिया जाएगा, और जुर्माना भी लगाया जाएगा।

Section 303. Punishment for murder by life-convict

Whoever, being under sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder, shall be punished with death.

जो भी कोई आजीवन कारावास के दण्डादेश के अधीन होते हुए हत्या करेगा, तो उसे मॄत्युदण्ड से दण्डित किया जाएगा।

Section 304: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder

Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;

Or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

हत्या की कोटि में न आने वाले आपराधिक मानव वध के लिए दण्ड

जो कोई ऐसा आपराधिक मानव वध करेगा, जो हत्या की कोटि में नहीं आता है, यदि वह कार्य जिसके द्वारा मृत्यु कारित की गई है, मृत्यु या ऐसी शारीरिक क्षति, जिससे मृत्यु होना सम्भाव्य है, कारित करने के आशय से किया जाए, तो वह आजीवन कारावास से, या दोनों में से किसी भांति के कारावास से, जिसकी अवधि दस वर्ष तक की हो सकेगी, दण्डित किया जाएगा और जुर्माने से भी दण्डनीय होगा;

अथवा यदि वह कार्य इस ज्ञान के साथ कि उससे मत्य कारित करना सम्भाव्य है, किन्तु मृत्यु या एसा शारारिका जिससे मत्य कारित करना सम्भाव्य है, कारित करने के किसी आशय के बिना किया जाए, तो वह दाना मस के कारावास से, जिसकी अवधि दस वर्ष तक की हो सकेगी, या जुर्माने से, या दोनों से, दण्डित किया जायेगा।

Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly regarded advocate based in Ahmedabad, known for his expertise in criminal law. As a distinguished lawyer at the Gujarat High Court, he specializes in a wide range of legal matters, making him a sought-after professional in various areas of law. Some of his notable specializations include handling cases related to cheque bounce, property disputes, cybercrime, court marriages, divorces, debt recovery tribunals (DRT), FIR quashing, land revenue disputes, anticipatory bail, PASA (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act), family law, civil law, and more. Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly skilled lawyer practicing at the Gujarat High Court Lawyer in Ahmedabad. With his extensive experience and expertise, He has established himself as a renowned advocate in the region. Stay connected with him on social media for updates:

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube

Follow Advocate Paresh M Modi, the esteemed lawyer, for valuable insights, legal analysis, and engaging discussions. Stay informed about the law and legal developments through his informative content. In the meantime, check out other Information from Home Page, or call us at Landline No: +91-79-48001468 or Phone & WhatsApp No: +91 99250 02031.

Categories Criminal Cases, Criminal Lawyer

Section 125 : The Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973

Section 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.-

(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means. Explanation – For the purposes of this Chapter,-

(a) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875 ); is deemed not to have attained his majority;

(b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.

(2) Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance.

(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month’ s allowances remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due:

Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.

Explanation.- If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife’ s refusal to live with him.

(4) No Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent.

धारा 125 पत्नियों, बच्चों और माता-पिता के भरण-पोषण का आदेश।

(1) यदि पर्याप्त साधनों वाला कोई व्यक्ति –

(क) अपनी पत्नी का, जो अपना भरणपोषण करने में असमर्थ है, या

(ख) अपनी धर्मज या अधर्मज अवयस्क संतार का, चाहे विवाहित हो न हो, जो अपना भरणपोषण करने में असमर्थ है, या

(ग) अपनी धर्मज या अधर्मज संतान का (जो विवाहित पुत्री नहीं है) जिसने वयस्कता प्राप्त कर ली है, जहंा ऐसी संतान किसी शरीरिक या मानसिक असामान्यता या क्षति के कारण अपना भरणपोषण करने में असमर्थ है, या

(घ) अपने पिता या माता का, जो अपना भरणपोषण करने में असमर्थ है,भरणपोषण करने में उपेक्षा करता है या भरणपोषण करने से इंकार करता है तो प्रथम वर्ग मजिस्ट्रेट, ऐसी उपेक्षा या इंकार के साबित हो जाने पर, ऐसे व्यक्ति को यह निदेश दे सकता है कि वह अपनी पत्नी या ऐसी संतान, पिता या माता के भरणपोषण के लिए ऐसी मासिक दर पर, जिसे मजिस्ट्रेट ठीक समझे, मासिक भत्ता दे और उस भत्ते का संदाय ऐसे व्यक्ति को करे जिसको संदाय करने का मजिस्ट्रेट समय पर निर्देश दे:

परंतु मजिस्ट्रेट खण्ड (ख) निर्दिष्ट अवयस्क पुत्री के पिता को ऐसा भत्ता दे जब तक वह वयस्क नहीं हो जाती है यदि मजिस्ट्रेट का समाधान हो जाता है कि ऐसी अवयस्क पुत्री के, यदि वह विवाहित हो, पति के पास पर्याप्त साधन नहीं है।

परंतु यह और कि इस उपधारा के अधीन मासिक भत्ते से संबंधित भरण-पोषण की कार्यवाही के दौरान मजिस्ट्रेट ऐसे व्यक्ति को आदेश दे सकता है कि वह अपनी पत्नी या ऐसी संतान, पिता या माता, को अंतरिम भरण-पोषण और ऐसी कार्यवाही के खर्चे, का मासिक भत्ता दे जिसे मजिस्ट्रेट उचित समझे और उसका संदाय ऐसे व्यक्ति को करे जिसके लिए वह समय≤ पर निर्देश दे।

परंतु यह और भी कि इस द्वितीय परंतुक के अधीन अंतरिम भरण-पोषण और कार्यवाही के खर्चे का मासिक भत्ता के लिए का आवेदन को यथा सम्भव आवेदन की सूचना ऐसे व्यक्ति पर तामील से 60 दिन में निपटा दिया जाय।

स्पष्टीकरण – इस अध्याय के प्रयोजनों के लिए –

(क) ‘अवयस्क’ से ऐसा व्यक्ति अभिप्रेत है जिसके बारे में भारतीय वयस्कता अधिनियम, 1875 (1875 का 9) के उपबंधों के अधीन यह समझा जाता है कि उसने व्यस्कता प्राप्त नहीं की है।

(ख) ‘पत्नी’ के अंतर्गत ऐसी स्त्री भी है जिसके पति ने उससे विवाह-विच्छेद कर लिया है जिसने अपने पति से विवार-विच्छेद कर लिया है और जिसने पुनर्विवाह नही किया है।

(2) भरण-पोषण या अंतरिम भरण-पोषण के लिए ऐसा कोई भत्ता या कार्यवाही के खर्चे आदेश की तारीख से, या यदि ऐसा आदेश दिया जाता है तो भरण-पोषण या अंतरिम भरण-पोषण और कार्यवाही के खर्चे, जैसी भी स्थिति हो आवेदन की तारीख से संदेय होगा।

(3) यदि कोई व्यक्ति जिसे आदेश दिया गया हो, उस आदेश का अनुपालन करने में पर्याप्त कारण के बिना असफल रहता है तो उस आदेश के प्रत्येक भंग के लिए ऐसा कोई मजिस्ट्रेट देय रकम के ऐसी रीति से उदगृहीत किए जाने के लिए वारण्ट जारी कर सकता है जैसी रीति जुर्माने उदगृहीत करने के लिए उपबंधित है और उस वारण्ट के निष्पादन के पश्चात प्रत्येक मास के न चुकाए गए भरण-पोषण या अंतरिम भरण-पोषण का भत्ता और कार्यवाही के खर्चे जैसी भी स्थिति हो या उसके किसी भाग के लिए ऐसे व्यक्ति को एक मास तक की अवधि के लिए अथवा यदि वह उससे पूर्व चुका दिया जाता है तो चुका देने के समय तक के लिए कारावास का दण्डादेश दे सकता है परंतु इस धारा के अधीन देय किसी रकम की वसूली के लिए कोई वारण्ट तब तक जारी न किया जाएगा जब तक उस रकम को उदगृहीत करने के लिए, उस तारीख से जिसको वह देय हुई एक वर्ष की अवधि के अंदर न्यायालय से आवेदन नहीं किया गया है:

परंतु यह और कि यदि ऐसा व्यक्ति इस शर्त पर भरणपोषण करने की प्रस्थापना करता है कि उसकी पत्नी उसके साथ रहे और वह पति के साथ रहने से इंकार करती है तो ऐसा मजिस्ट्रेट उसके द्वारा कथित इंकार के किन्हीं आधारों पर विचार कर सकता है और ऐसी प्रस्थापना के किए जाने पर भी वह इस धारा के अधीन आदेश दे सकता है यदि उसका सामाधान हो जाता है कि ऐसा आदेश देने के लिए न्यायसंगत आधार है।

स्पष्टीकरण – यदि पति ने अन्य स्त्री से विवाह कर लिया है या वह रखेल रखता है तो यह उसकी पत्नी द्वारा उसके साथ रहने से इंकार का न्यायसंगत आधार माना जाएगा।

(4) कोई पत्नी अपने पति से इस धारा के अधीन भरण-पोषण का भत्ता और कार्यवाही के खर्चे के जैसी भी स्थिति हो प्राप्त करने की हकदार न होगी यदि वह जारता की दशा में रह रही है अथवा यदि वह पर्याप्त कारण के बिना अपने पति के साथ रहने से इंकार करती है अथवा यदि वे पारस्परिक सम्मति से पृथक रह रहे है।

(5) मजिस्ट्रेट यह साबित होने पर आदेश को रदद कर सकता है कि कोई पत्नी, जिसके पक्ष में इस धारा के अधीन आदेश दिया गया है जारता की दशा में रह रही है अथवा पर्याप्त कारण के बिना अपने पति के साथ रहने से इंकार करती है अथवा वे पारस्परिक सम्मति से पृथक रह रहे है।

Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly regarded advocate based in Ahmedabad, known for his expertise in criminal law. As a distinguished lawyer at the Gujarat High Court, he specializes in a wide range of legal matters, making him a sought-after professional in various areas of law. Some of his notable specializations include handling cases related to cheque bounce, property disputes, cybercrime, court marriages, divorces, debt recovery tribunals (DRT), FIR quashing, land revenue disputes, anticipatory bail, PASA (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act), family law, civil law, and more. Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly skilled lawyer practicing at the Gujarat High Court Lawyer in Ahmedabad. With his extensive experience and expertise, He has established himself as a renowned advocate in the region. Stay connected with him on social media for updates:

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube

Follow Advocate Paresh M Modi, the esteemed lawyer, for valuable insights, legal analysis, and engaging discussions. Stay informed about the law and legal developments through his informative content. In the meantime, check out other Information from Home Page, or call us at Landline No: +91-79-48001468 or Phone & WhatsApp No: +91 99250 02031.