Client Testimonials

"By far the best legal document drafting expert! I’ve been struggling with a false 498/406 and DV case from last 2 years and so far met 20+ Different lawyers from lower court to high court, but the major difference I see in Sahil is his intentions of making me out of this situation so that I can be a free man. Only a 30 min discussion with Sahil was an eye opener to me. Now I'm feeling more confident that such cases can also be defended and law can be moved from women-centric to men-centric. I have asked Sahil for a ‘bayan’ for my DV case which he, after analyzing 50+ documents, has made it in a lightning speed time of 24 hours. I would also say I was surprised that he didn’t forget to mention even a single nook of any statement that could be in my favor. I would highly recommend anyone for a free 30 min call that can give a new hopeful direction; without losing anything."

"Sahil is one of the best brains to help someone to fight these kinds of cases. His grasping power is awesome to understand your case quickly and provide a solution. Sahil knows very well which point he has to highlight in the draft so people like us get the clarity on our own case and get the best result in the court. His knowledge is admirable as he has a good grip on different IPCs and Cr.P.C from our law system. I worked with him on my 498a petition and feeling quite confident after working with him. I will recommend everyone to talk to Sahil once to get the best result from your case. Now he is my good friend too. Thanks Sahil."

"I got in connect with Sahil sir few months back to seek his guidance for 125 CrPC, DV, and 498A. I must say it's really helpful and Sahil sir had drafted a strong WS for me. It was under the sheer guidance of Sahil sir that I could tackle my mediation in a positive manner."

"I am very thankful to Apaizers Mens Rights in supporting and helping me in my case and saved my lakhs of rupees. Sir also motivates time to time, also advises how to maintain your health first which is NECESSARY in this critical condition. It's clear that no more people from our side help or motivate during this time of false cases. In this time, we require a good or best adviser. Really, Sir IS ALL IN ONE. I repeat that unnumbered thanks to Apaizers Men's Right for the best advice to false cases."

"I got my DV interim maintenance appeal prepared from Apaizers Mens Rights for the session court. It is so nicely drafted and prepared with relevant case reference due to which the session court dismissed the interim maintenance order passed by the lower court. Then in my DV case, the opposite party filed for execution petition for the arrears of the maintenance amount 1.2 lakhs, the objections drafted by Sahil Sir with the relevant facts and case reference got accepted by the court and the court dismissed the OP execution petition."

Home 125 CRPC DV Act Maintenance denied 12.02.2020 – Filing RCR on Right Time & Favourable Decision on it can help the husbands to Free from paying Maintenance and Get the Maintenance Order Cancelled.

Maintenance denied 12.02.2020 – Filing RCR on Right Time & Favourable Decision on it can help the husbands to Free from paying Maintenance and Get the Maintenance Order Cancelled.

,
Maintenance Denied, No Maintenance to Wife, 125 CrPC
Maintenance Denied, No Maintenance to Wife, 125 CrPC

Maintenance denied 12.02.2020 – Filing RCR on Right Time & Favourable Decision on it can help the husbands to Free from paying Maintenance and Get the Maintenance Order Cancelled.


 Koppadi Bakta Markandeyulu vs Koppadi Sri Lakshmi on 12 February, 2020

 In this decision the High Court held that despite the order passed in OP. filed by the husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the wife had not joined with him and got a divorce order. As such, she voluntarily desert the petitioner and refused to live with him, without any sufficient cause. Such being the factual position, the wife is not entitled for maintenance, in terms of Section 125(5) Cr.P.C.

Section 125(5) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – “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, the Magistrate shall cancel the order”.



You can contact for consultation or advice Contact now


The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. Due to a matrimonial dispute between the parties, they got separated. The respondent filed a petition for maintenance in MC, which was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Yanam, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month. She preferred a revision petition in Crl.MP before the II Additional District Judge, Puducherry and the said petition was allowed, enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per month. Thereafter, she filed a petition in Cr.MP. in MC. seeking further enhancement of the maintenance amount to Rs.10,000/- per month. By order dated 02.04.2018, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Yanam, directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision before this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed before this Court. There is no representation for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner filed OP. for restitution of conjugal rights, which was allowed vide order dated 21.12.2009. However, the respondent did not join with the petitioner and she filed OP seeking divorce, which was allowed vide order dated 19.07.2012. Since the respondent, without any sufficient reason, refused to live with her husband, she is not entitled for maintenance as per Section 125(5) Cr.P.C

4. On 08.06.2018, this Court, while admitting this Criminal Revision, has granted an order of interim stay on condition that the petitioner shall continue to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/ to the respondent on or before 5th of every succeeding English calender month.

5. On a careful perusal of the materials available on record, it is evident that despite the order passed in OP. filed by the petitioner seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent had not joined with him and got a divorce order. As such, she voluntarily desert the petitioner and refused to live with him, without any sufficient cause. Such being the factual position, the respondent is not entitled for maintenance, in terms of Section 125(5) Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the order impugned herein.


You can contact for consultation or advice Contact now


6. Accordingly, the High Court held that Criminal Revision stands allowed by setting aside the order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Yanam. 
Note: Filling RCR is a critical decision, using this provision without proper guidance can back fire. Need to analyze the case scenarios and only can be implemented on case to case basis.

 Queries can be asked in Comment section below.
WhatsApp




    Blogger Comment
    Facebook Comment