NEETA NITIN NHANUSHALI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a lady who, at the time of filing of this writ petition in the year 2000, was 35 years old. The petitioner married one Nitin Khimji Bhanushali (hereinafter referred to as "the husband of the petitioner" for the sake of brevity) in the year 1981 and three children are born out of this wedlock.

(2.) The present petition pertains to following immovable properties viz. :-

(3.) The aforesaid incident of 11th January, 1994 resulted into registration of an offence under C. R. No. 7 of 1994. Though the offence was registered under one Crime Register, being CR No. 7 of 1994, it gave rise to three separate cases being tried by a Court under the said Act. These cases were as under :-Special Case No. Name of parties against whom filed 72 of 1994 Husband of petitioner (accused No. 7)121 of 1994 Husband of petitioner and five others 150 of 1994 Husband of petitioner and Iqbal Mirchi though the husband of the petitioner was accused No. 7 in the aforesaid Case no. 72 of 1994, his case was separated and was separately thereafter numbered, as aforesaid being Special Case No. 150 of 1994, as at the time of the trial of the case No 72 of 1994 the husband of the petitioner was not traceable. The evidence in Case No. 72 of 1994 was recorded and the accused therein were acquitted. It appears that thereafter the husband of the petitioner was arrested and hence the aforesaid Special Case No. 150 of 1994 also started. Thereafter, by consent of the Advocate of the husband of the petitioner, the evidence in that case was considered as evidence in the aforesaid Special Case no. 150 of 1994. In addition thereto the some evidence was recorded separately in Special Case No. 150 of 1994 and it appears that the husband of the petitioner was convicted. However, ultimately, in Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2000, this court by its judgment and order dated 13th August, 2004 was pleased to set aside the conviction of the husband of petitioner, by allowing his appeal. The husband of the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges and was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.