Jabalpur high court ke maha chutiya judges ka maha chutiyapa ka ek prachand karnama:
isme unhone petitioner ko bola ki wife ne ek baar sec9 ki decree complince ki aur wo chali gayee to dubara sec09 dalo jabki petitioner ne execution ka case lagaya tha jisme court ke decree ki avhelna karne par property attachment ki karwahi ki maang ki gayee to lower court ka chutiya judge bola wife naukri karti hai aap uske paas jakar raho fir iski revision HC jabalpurt me ki to waha ke chutiyao ne maha chutiyape ka decision diya jise aap is link
https://mphc.gov.in/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2014/CR/44/CR_44_2014_Order_13-Oct-2016.pdf
per pad sakte hai
is citaiton ko aap dusre case me use kar sakte hai jaise agar pati ke khilaf 125 ka order hua to wo ek maaah ka paisa bhare yane decree execute kare fir paise dena band kar de agar judge kahe to kahna is citation ke adhar per decree execute ho gayee ab naye paise ke liye wife ko naya case karne ko bolo.....
waise ye judgment mere favor ka hi hai......................ye sirf wife ko pareshan karne ke liye lagaya tha court ko ye batana tha ki mai to usko rakhan chahta hu isliye case dala hai.......isme usne jhute kathan kiye to perjury me uske khilaf jayaenge.. so it is useful to me also for others so stop paying money to wife after paying one or two times
judgement is attachere here
CR-44-2014
(ANEESH TIRVEDI Vs SMT. KAVITA TRIVEDI)
13-10-2016
Shri I.D. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None appears for the respondent, though represented.
Today, this civil revision is listed for admission.
Present counsel for the petitioner heard on the point of admission
and the challenged order passed by the District Judge, Damoh in Execution
Case No. 67A/2009 dated 23.10.2013 is perused.
Present counsel for the petitioner submits that a decree for restitution
of conjugal rights was passed in Execution Case No. 67A/2009 in favour
of the present petitioner and against his wife Smt. Kavita Trivedi
(respondent).
It appears that after passing of decree, the respondent lived with the
petitioner from June 2010 to 08.06.2011 and in the meanwhile, a daughter
was born to her on 05.05.2011. Thus, the executing Court has recorded the
finding that the decree was complied with by the respondent and if
thereafter on 08.06.2011, respondent has left the house of the petitioner,
then it could afford a new cause of action to the petitioner, but the relating
decree has already been satisfied. It is also clear from the order that the wife
of the petitioner is in service in Nepa Nagar School, District-Khandwa
while the petitioner is a resident of District-Damoh. There appears no any
illegality or irregularity in the above-mentioned order passed by the District
Judge, Damoh, which is under challenged in this revision. Thus, the
revision petition filed by the petitioner appears to be not maintainable, as
the decree was complied with. Thus, it is dismissed summarily.
(ASHOK KUMAR JOSHI)
JUDGE
