advocate_pooja_pisal
Advocates and legal Advisors
Bcom.
LLB LLM
7767030551/7776910798
Office:Vinayak Arcade, Mama yenpure Nagar, Near trimurti chowk, Dhankawadi, Pune 411043
Criminal/Civil/Family/Consumer/Labour court Practice in India
IF YOU ARGUE RIGHT, YOU ARE NEVER WRONG.
Section 55 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act-
Tenancy agreement to be compulsorily registered
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any agreement for leave and license or letting of any premises, entered into between the landlord and the tenant or the licensee, as the case may be, after the commencement of this Act, shall be in writing and shall be registered under the Registration Act, 1908.
(2) The responsibility of getting such agreement registered shall be on the landlord and in the absence of the written registered agreement, the contention of the tenant about the terms and conditions subject to which a premises have been given to him by the landlord on leave and license or have been let to him, shall prevail, unless proved otherwise.
(3) Any landlord who contravenes the provisions of this section shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine not exceeding rupees five thousand or with both.
*मुलीच्या संसारात किती नाक खुपसायचं, हे कळायला हवं*…
"तू मला वेळीच समजावलं असतंस तर आज माझ्यावर एकटं पडण्याची वेळ आली नसती. आई म्हणून तुला काळजी होती पण त्यामुळे उठसुठ काही झालं की मला माहेरी यायला सांगायचीस.
आई तू कधीच आमचं भांडण सोडवायचा प्रयत्न केला नाहीस. मी जेव्हा जेव्हा तुला फोनवर आमच्यातील वाद सांगायचे तेव्हा तू माझ्या नवऱ्याला फैलावर घेऊन पोरीला कायमची घरी घेऊन जाईन अशी धमकी द्यायचीस.
शेवटी तू तेच केलंस.
आज दहा वर्षांनी मला या गोष्टीची सल जाणवतेय. कारण प्रत्येक जण आपल्या आयुष्यात सुखी आहे. तुम्ही दोघे सुना नातवंडांसोबत आनंदात आहात.
दादा वाहिनीचा छान संसार सुरु आहे. मी मात्र तुमच्या घरात आश्रितासारखी राहत आहे, असं मला वाटतंय." हे सगळं बोलताना मेघाच्या डोळ्यातलं पाणी थांबत नव्हतं.
"आमची पोरगी आम्हाला जड नाही." हे वाक्य लग्नानंतर अनेक पालकांच्या तोंडून ऐकायला मिळतं. मात्र सासरी मुलीचा छळ होतोय, सासरचे लोक किंवा नवरा तिला सतत त्रास देतोय असं मानून लगेच तडकीफड निर्णय घेणे चुकीचे आहे.
टाळी जशी एका हाताने वाजत नाही तसेच तुमच्या मुलीचा देखील थोडा फार दोष असू शकतो हे समजून घ्या. सासरचे लोक विनाकारण त्रास देत असतील तर मुलीला घटस्फोट घे म्हणून सांगणे योग्य आहे. मात्र छोट्या कारणाने तिला संसार मोडायला लावणे अजिबात बरोबर नाही.
तुम्ही सुद्धा नवरा बायको म्हणून संसार करताना चार गोष्टींवरून वाद तुमच्यातही झालेच असतील की. त्यामुळे लग्नानंतर नवरा बायकोत उडणारे खटके त्यांना सोडवू द्यात. लगेच मध्यस्थी करायला जाऊ नका.
लग्न ठरतानाच मुलीला सांगितले जाते, ‘सासरची माणसं खडूस असतात. सासू खाष्ट असते. नवऱ्याला मुठीत ठेवायचे.’ त्यामुळे मुलगी सासरी जातानाच डोक्यात पूर्वग्रह ठेवून जाते. सासू कितीही चांगली असली तरी तिच्याशी तुमची मुलगी फटकून वागू लागते.
नवऱ्याला आपल्या तालावर नाचवायला पाहते. असे जर झाले नाही तर त्यांच्यात वाद होऊ लागतात. तेव्हा पालक म्हणून तुम्ही जळत्या निखाऱ्यावर पाणी घालायचे सोडून त्यावर आणखी फुंकर घालून आग अधिकच चेतावता हे तुमच्या लक्षात येत नाही.
मुलीला कायमची माहेरी निघून ये असा सल्ला देता. यामध्ये तुमच्या मुलीचे आयुष्य पणाला लागलेले असते हे तेव्हा दिसत नाही. मुलीला सुद्धा त्या क्षणी आईवडिलांचा निर्णय योग्य वाटतो. कारण ती त्यावेळी मानसिक तणावातून जात असते.
काही वेळेस जावई माफी मागायला घरी आला तरी सुद्धा त्याला माफ केले जात नाही. ‘मी तिला घरी न्यायला आलोय, तिला माझ्यासोबत पाठवा,’ असे सांगितल्यावर त्याच्या समोर अटी ठेवल्या जातात. यामुळे जावयाचा अपमान होऊन या नात्यासाठी मी एकटाच पुढाकार का घेऊ असे त्याला वाटू लागते. प्रकरण चिघळले जाते आणि ते जावयाच्या अहंकारावर येते. मग तो सुद्धा नातं तोडण्याचाच विचार करू लागतो.
घटस्फोट झाल्यानंतर काही पुरुष दुसरा संसार थाटून आपले जीवन जगू लागतात. ज्या मुली आईकडे जाऊन राहतात त्यांना मात्र कालांतराने एकाकीपणा नकोसा होतो. ज्या आईने मुलीला साथ देऊन माहेरी आणले असते त्याच आईसोबत जेव्हा मुलीचे सुद्धा वाद होऊ लागतात.
तेव्हा मुलीला आपली चूक उमगते.
पालकांनी मुलीचा संसार तोडायचा नाही तर जोडण्याचा प्रयत्न करायला हवा. एकदा का मुलगी सासरी गेली की तिचे उगाचच कान फुंकणे बंद करायला पाहिजे. उठ सुठ फोनवर बोलणे टाळावे.
मुलगी नवऱ्याविषयी काही सांगू लागली तर छोटीशी गोष्ट आहे तुम्ही दोघे मिटवून घ्या असा सल्ला तिला द्या.
भांडण खूप विकोपाला गेले तरच तुम्ही मध्यस्थी करून त्यांच्यात समेट घडवा.
तुमच्या अहंकारामुळे मुलीचे आयुष्य उध्वस्त होईल अशी कोणतीच भूमिका घेऊ नका.
तिचे लाड करा चार दिवस माहेरपणाला आल्यावर हट्ट पुरवा. मात्र तिच्या संसारात नाक खुसण्याचा प्रयत्न करणे टाळा. पटतंय ना?
मग यावर तुमचं मत काय आहे तेही आम्हाला तुमची प्रतिक्रिया देऊन नक्की सांगा.
Happy International Justice Day
शिवाजी महाराजांचे कार्य लोकांपर्यंत पोहचावे यासाठी फुलेंनी इ. स. १८७० साली शिवजयंती सुरू केली,"जी पहिली शिवजयंती होती", आणि शिवजयंतीचा पहिला कार्यक्रम पुणे येथे पार पडला. त्यानंतर बाळ गंगाधर टिळक यांनी शिवजयंतीच्या माध्यमातून लोकांना एकजूट करण्याचे काम केले.
आदिशक्ती तू,
प्रभूची भक्ती तू,
झाशीची राणी तू,
मावळ्यांची भवानी तू,
प्रयत्नांना लाभलेली उन्नती तू,
आजच्या युगाची प्रगती तू,
जागतिक महिला दिनाच्या शुभेच्छा...
Divorce With Mutual Consent:
When husband and wife both agree to a divorce, the courts will consider a divorce with mutual consent. For the petition to be accepted, however, the couple should be separated for over a year or two years (as per the relevant act) and be able to prove that they have not been able to live together. Often, even when either husband or wife is reluctant, they still agree to such a divorce because it is relatively inexpensive and not as traumatic as a contested divorce. Matters such as children’s custody, maintenance and property rights could be agreed to mutually.
Let us know about your queries.
Pooja Dnyaneshwar Pisal
ADVOCATE
Office: Office No. 2, Sr. No. 35/10,
Shivajirao Kadam Nagar Part I,
Ambegaon Shiv Road, Pune-411043.
Mob. No. 7767030551
Divorce With Mutual Consent:
When husband and wife both agree to a divorce, the courts will consider a divorce with mutual consent. For the petition to be accepted, however, the couple should be separated for over a year or two years (as per the relevant act) and be able to prove that they have not been able to live together. Often, even when either husband or wife is reluctant, they still agree to such a divorce because it is relatively inexpensive and not as traumatic as a contested divorce. Matters such as children’s custody, maintenance and property rights could be agreed to mutually.
Let us know about your queries.
Pooja Dnyaneshwar Pisal
ADVOCATE
Office: Office No. 2, Sr. No. 35/10,
Shivajirao Kadam Nagar Part I,
Ambegaon Shiv Road, Pune-411043.
Mob. No. 7767030551
Whether lower court should not proceed with matter if proceeding is pending in high court?
Normally, when this Court is ceased of the matter, it is expected of the subordinate courts to stay their hands away. It is difficult to understand as to what was an alarming urgency to proceed further and dismiss the petition when the learned Judge of the Family Court was very well aware that the order dated 15th September 2006 was challenged before this Court by the present petitioner. No doubt, that the learned Family Court is right in observing that there was no stay by this Court. But as a matter of propriety and when the learned Judge was very much aware about pendency of the petition before this Court, the learned Judge ought to have stayed his hands away and waited till further orders to be passed by this Court
Bombay High Court
Vishwanath P Mahadeshwar vs Suryawanshi Balrup Thakur & Ors.
Date : 10 February, 2011
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 By way of the present Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Election Petition No.147 of 2007 thereby rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner for amendment to the written statement.
2 It is not in dispute that during pendency of the present Petition, the Election Petition has already been allowed vide order dated 7th February 2011. However the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the very approach of the learned Additional Chief Judge in deciding the said Election Petition during pendency of the present Petition is illegal. The learned counsel for the Petitioner, relying on the judgment delivered by me in the case of Kishor Bhikansingh Rajput v/s. Preeti Kishor Rajput reported in 2007(3) Bom.C.R. 279, submitted that once this Court is seized of the matter, the lower courts should stay their 2 WP 9411/10
hands away from the proceedings. It is submitted that in spite of this Judgment being brought to the notice of the learned Judge, the learned Judge has proceeded to decide the said Election petition which is not
permissible in law. 3 In so far as the present Petition is concerned, it is filed on 29/11/2010. It appears that in the said matter, circulation was granted for 1/12/2010. However, my learned brother Judge Shri. D B Bhosale, before whom the circulation was granted, directed the said matter to be filed before the appropriate Bench. On 13/12/2010 though the matter was not on board, production thereof was permitted at the request of the Petitioner. It will be relevant to reproduce the order passed by this Court on 13/12/2010 passed by my learned brother Judge Shri A S Oka which reads thus :- Not on board. Taken on board.
2] Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for ad- interim relief as the Election Petition filed by the first respondent is coming up tomorrow before the Court of Small Causes for pronouncement of judgment.
3] The challenge in this petition is to the order passed on application below exhibit 66. The application at exhibit 66 is made seeking permission to grant amendment to the
written statement. It is not in dispute that the application at exhibit 66 was made after the final arguments in writing were submitted. Moreover, tomorrow the matter is fixed for pronouncement of judgment before the Court of Small Causes.
4] Hence, no case for grant of ad-interim relief is made out. The prayer for grant of ad-interim relief is, therefore, rejected."
3 WP 9411/10
4 It can clearly be seen that this court has specifically refused the prayer for ad-interim relief on 13th December 2010. The Election Petition has been decided on 7th February 2011. As such when the said Election Petition was decided the position was very clear, that this Court had refused the ad-interim relief as prayed for by the Petitioner. As such there was no impediment in the way of the learned Additional Chief Judge to proceed further with the proceedings. 5 However, since the learned counsel for the Petitioner has pressed into service my own judgment (cited supra) I find it appropriate to consider the submissions made in that behalf as it has been noticed that the said judgment is widely being misused by the litigants.
6 The facts in the said case were that the Petitioner-husband, who had filed matrimonial petition, had filed an application for amendment. The same was allowed by the learned Judge of the Family Court vide order dated 3rd March 2006. The consequential amendment was also carried out by the Respondent-wife to her written statement. In view of the amended pleadings, an application for framing additional issues was filed by the Petitioner husband which was rejected vide order dated 15th September 2006. While dismissing the said application the learned Judge of the Family Court also disallowed the application for amendment which was already granted earlier. Within a short period, i.e. when the matter was fixed on 25th September 2006, the Petitioner had filed an application for adjournment on the ground that the Petitioner had 4 WP 9411/10
already filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 15th September 2006 before this Court. However, the learned trial Judge rejected the application on the very same day. Not only that the marriage petition filed by the Petitioner was also dismissed on the very same day. In this factual background I observed in Paras 7 and 8 thus :-
7. Perusal of the record would reveal that the procedure adopted by the learned Family Court is totally unknown to law. Once amendment was allowed, it is difficult to understand under what provision the learned Family Court has disallowed the said amendment by a subsequent order while considering the application of the present petitioner for framing additional issue. The approach adopted is totally perverse. From the perusal of the pleadings, it can also be seen that the additional issue which was sought to be framed was necessary in view of the amended pleadings.
8 Normally, when this Court is ceased of the matter, it is expected of the subordinate courts to stay their hands away. It is difficult to understand as to what was an alarming urgency to proceed further and dismiss the petition when the learned Judge of the Family Court was very well aware that the order dated 15th September 2006 was challenged before this Court by the present petitioner. No doubt, that the learned Family Court is right in observing that there was no stay by this Court. But as a matter of propriety and when the learned Judge was very much aware about pendency of the petition before this Court, the learned Judge ought to have stayed his hands away and waited till further orders to be passed by this Court. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the petition.
6 Noticing that the approach adopted by the learned Family Court in disallowing the amendment which was already granted, when there was no occasion to pass such order, I expressed that normally, when this Court is seized 5 WP 9411/10
of the matter, it is expected of the subordinate courts to stay their hands away from the proceedings. While passing the said judgment I had taken into consideration the haste shown by the learned Judge of the Family Court in dismissing the marriage Petition itself, on the very same day when the learned Judge was aware that the order dated 15th September 2006 was challenged before this Court. It is to be noted that I had specifically observed that there was no stay by this Court but as a matter of propriety and when the learned Judge was very much aware of the pendency of the petition before this Court, the learned Judge ought to have stayed his hands away and waited till further orders passed by this Court.
7 It can therefore be seen that in the peculiar facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the conduct of the learned Judge in proceeding with the matter in haste and dismissing the marriage petition itself, though informed about the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, I was required to make the aforesaid observations.
8 However, it has come to notice that in several matters, the Petitions are filed before this Court challenging the interlocutory orders passed in the suits or other proceedings and after the Petitions are filed, by pointing out stamp number and even without circulating the matter before this Court, adjournments are sought before the lower courts by pointing out to them my aforesaid judgment in Kishor Rajput's case, it is urged that since the matter is pending 6 WP 9411/10
before this High Court, the trial Court should not proceed further with the matter. I am at pains to say that the aforesaid judgment in Kishor Rajput's case is being used as a tool to protract the proceedings by the litigants not interested to proceed with the matters before the lower courts. No doubt that if the order of the subordinate court is challenged before this Court and the subordinate court is informed about the pendency of the matter before this Court, it would be expected of the trial Court to stay its hands away for a period of a week or two, so as to enable the parties to get circulation before this Court and obtain appropriate orders. However, merely by filing the proceedings before this Court, the proceedings before the lower courts cannot be permitted to be protracted for months together at the interest of the litigants who neither circulate the matters before this Court nor get the interim order staying the proceedings. 9 In so far as the present Petition is concerned, even the said judgment would not be applicable to the Petitioner inasmuch as my learned brother Justice Shri A S Oka vide order dated 13th December 2010 had specifically reufsed the ad interim relief.
10 In any case, the Petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the order impugned in the present Petition in the proceedings that would be required to be taken by him, in view of the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1A of the CPC. The Petition is therefore dismissed except, what has been observed herein above. (B.R. GAVAI, J)
Whether Magistrate can refuse to accept a charge sheet if the police present it without the accused's presence?
I must say at this stage that the refusal by criminal Courts either through the learned Magistrate or through their office staff to accep...
Whether Non examination of Doctor and investigating officer is fatal to prosecution case?
The trial court as well as the High Court should have appreciated the evidence on record with regard to delay and not giving proper explan...
Whether defendant can apply for injunction against plaintiff under Order 39 of CPC?
It was also argued that the defendant cannot make an application for injunction against the plaintiff. It was held in Sivakami Achi v. Nar...
Supreme court: Civil / criminal cases can not be stayed for more than six months
In view of above, situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy is required not on...
Notes on Civil appeal
APPEALS FROM ORIGINAL DECREE: S 96-99A .Order 41 of CPC. The word appeal has not been defined in the code. The term refers to the...
Powered by Blogger.
SharesWhatsAppFacebook SendTwitterLinkedInFacebookSumoMe
Plaintiff Need Not Undergo Second Agnipariksha In Suit For Malicious Prosecution; Defendant Must Discharge Onus Once Shifted To Him: Madras High Court
In a significant judgment pertaining 'burden of proof' in proceedings against malicious prosecution, the Madras High Court has held that the Plaintiff need undergo a 'second agnipariksha' and it is the defendant who must discharge the onus once it is shifted to him.
A Single Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan observed,
"He (plaintiff) can only depose that the allegation against him was false. A plaintiff in a suit for malicious prosecution need not demonstrate that he was innocent of the charge upon which he was tried."
Also Read - FB Post Against Smriti Irani- 'Post May Promote Ill-Will/Hatred Between Different Communities': Allahabad High Court Denies Pre Arrest Bail To...
The Judge observed that there is no doubt that the initial burden of proof lay only on the Plaintiff. Mere acquittal in the alleged false case by itself is not sufficient and he is obliged to prove that the prosecution was without any "reasonable and probable cause" and that it was instituted with a malicious intention and that he suffered damage.
However, the plaintiff cannot be called upon to prove the negative. It observed,
"As regards the non-existence of reasonable and probable cause, the onus will shift to the defendant after the plaintiff asserts in the witness box that the complaint against him was false and after he adduces evidence demonstrating the existence of malice on the part of the defendant."
Reliance was placed on Satdeo Prasad v. Ram Narayan, AIR 1969 Pat 102, where it was held that when the accusation against the plaintiff was in respect of an offence which the defendant claimed to have seen him commit and the trial ends in an acquittal on merits, the presumption will be that there was no reasonable and probable cause for the accusation.
*(2019) 13 SCC 1*
*Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh*
Observed that if an accused from the very beginning has given a promise of marriage without any intention to fulfil that promise and in lieu of such promise that the accused will marry her, she gave her consent for sexual in*******se with the accused, then such consent would not amount to valid consent. It shall come within the ambit of the misconception of fact under Section 90 of IPC. Thus, such consent shall not excuse the accused from the charges for the offence of r**e under Section 375 of IPC.
The Court however observed that the law is well settled that consent obtained on a false promise to marry is not a valid consent. Since the framers of the law have specifically provided the circumstances when ‘consent’ amounts to ‘no consent’ in terms of Section 375 of IPC, consent for the sexual act on the pretext of marriage is not one of the circumstances mentioned under Section 375 of IPC. Hence, the automatic extension of provisions of Section 90 of IPC to determine the effect of consent under Section 375 of IPC deserves a serious relook. The law holding that false promise to marriage amounts to r**e appears to be erroneous, however, the plight of the victim and the probability of the accused tarnishing the dignity of the victim and her family need to be looked at while deliberating on the question of bail.
The Court thus held “The possibility of coercion of victim’s family, repetition of similar type of offence and flee from justice cannot be ruled out in the present case. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be granted bail.”
🦠🦠🦠🦠🦠🦠🦠🦠
*कोरोना आजारा संदर्भाने पोलीस स्टेशन ला विविध कलमान्वये गुन्हे दाखल होत आहे, त्या संदर्भाने केलेला हा कलमांचा उहापोह* _
*कायदा क्रं.1*
*IPC*
*१८८ -आदेशाची अवज्ञा*
*269 -संसर्ग पसरायची हयगयीची कृती*
*270- घातक कृती*
*271_ संसर्गजन्य आजार पसरवू नये म्हणुन दळणवळणची साधने याबाबत शासनाने दिलेल्या आदेशाचे उल्लंघन करणे*
*290- सार्वजनिक उपद्रव*
*505(२) -अफवा पसरविणे*
*कायदा क्रं.2*
*राष्ट्रीय आपत्ती व्यवस्थापन कायदा 2005*
*कलम 51 ब - दिलेले आदेश न पाळणे उदा.दुकान, पान टपरी, हॉटेल, आस्थापना उघडे ठेवणे.*
*कलम - 52, 54 अफवा पसरविणे.*
*कायदा क्रं.3*
*महाराष्ट्र पोलीस कायदा*
*कलम- 37 (3) 135* *जमावबंदी आदेश उल्लंघन*
*कायदा क्रं.4*
*औषध द्रव्ये तीलस्ती* *(आक्षेपार्ह जाहिराती)1954*
*कलम - 3,4,5*
*- एखाद्या औषधाने कोरोना बरा होतो अशी जाहिरात करणे.*
*(यासोबत महाराष्ट्र कोविड 19 उपाययोजना नियम 2020 चे नियम 11 व साथीचे रोग प्रतिबंध* *अधिनियम 1897 चे कलम 2,3,4 लागतील, याबाबतीत पुस्तक, नियमावली जिल्हाधिकारी कार्यालयात मिळेल.)*
Justice given lately is equals to injustice.
You can conquer your rights only when you exercise your responsibilities
Counselling is the better option before you take end decision - Advocate Pooja Pisal
Check bounce case..... No worries .... You can claim your money through legal process
Click here to claim your Sponsored Listing.
Videos (show all)
Category
Contact the practice
Telephone
Website
Address
Pune
411043
Opening Hours
Monday | 9am - 8pm |
Tuesday | 9am - 8pm |
Wednesday | 9am - 8pm |
Thursday | 9am - 8pm |
Friday | 9am - 8pm |
SK Chambers, 256, Tukaram Buaa Navle Path, Sadashiv Peth
Pune, 411030
Divorce Lawyers in Pune, Divorce Advocates in Pune
Pune
This page is about all Indian Law and Latest judgment of civil+criminal cases of High court & Suprem
Pune, 411001
Syndicate of Winning Lawyers 1. Free Legal Advice 2. No Lumpsum Payment 3. No One Time Advance 4. Flexible Fees Structure 5. You Pay as We Progress 6. Quick Appoint...
Picasso Plaza, Above Jyoti Restaurant, NIBM/Kondhwa And Nakoda Court, Shivaji Nagar
Pune, 411048
Pune
I have been successfully dealing in handling court matters. That I expertise in handling matters rel
Plot No 14, Lane No 6, Yogishri Arbindo Society, Tulshibaugwale Colony Sahakarnagar No 2
Pune, 411009
Am Practicing Lawyer and handle all types of Family Matters, Matters before National Green Tribunal,
Pune, 412112
#Divorce, domestic violence, civil law, criminal law, motor accidents cases, we provide legal servic
Office No. 403, Vanai Bhavan, Shivaji Nagar
Pune, 411005
We envisions providing potential clients with excellent legal advice that suits their needs.
FLAT NO. 1302 , KUMAR SURBHI , PUNE SATARA Road , NEAR LAXMINARAYAN TALKIES , SWARGATE
Pune, 411009
Adv M P Salunke and Legal Associates dealing with disputes coming out of family relations, matrimoni
Pune
divorce lawyer family lawyer divorce by mutual consent child custody maintenance & alimony domestic violence 498 A