SAUROHINI PATIL Vs. SATISH S/O DASHRATH PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1.

(2.) APPLICANT is challenging the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nashik dated 28/1/2010 whereby process has been issued on the complaint filed by Respondent No.1 under sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Applicant is the ex-wife of the respondent No.1 - Complainant. Decree of divorce by mutual consent was passed under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and the consent terms were filed in the said Petition for divorce by mutual consent. In the consent terms, parties have agreed that the complainant be permitted to meet Aiket who is the son born out of the said marriage either at Nagpur or at Nashik in holidays. In the complaint, it is alleged that inspite of the said consent terms which were filed, the complainant was not allowed to meet his son. It is, therefore alleged that the complainant was induced to sign the consent terms and he gave his consent for divorce only because he was assured that he would be allowed to meet his son.

(3.) APPLICATION is allowed. The order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Nashik dated 28/1/2010 issuing the process in RCC No.977 of 2009 is quashed and set aside. It is, however, clarified that the complainant is always at liberty to take appropriate steps for the purpose of seeking access and if such an application is made it shall be considered on merits and in accordance with law.