{"id":74447,"date":"2009-07-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009"},"modified":"2017-02-08T20:43:43","modified_gmt":"2017-02-08T15:13:43","slug":"mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Parvez Saghir Ahmed Ansari vs Mrs.Sana Parvez Ansari & Ors on 15 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Mr.Parvez Saghir Ahmed Ansari vs Mrs.Sana Parvez Ansari & Ors on 15 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: A.S. Oka<\/div>\n
                                    - 1 -\n\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n               CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 513 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n     Mr.Parvez Saghir Ahmed Ansari               ..         Applicant\n\n             vs\n\n     1. Mrs.Sana Parvez Ansari & ors              ...    Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n                     ..\n     Mr.Kunal Bhange for Applicant\n     Ms.Pooja Jalan for Respondent nos. 1 to 3\n     Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa APP for State\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n                              CORAM: A.S.OKA, J\n                     ig       DATED : 15th July, 2009\n     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     1.     The submissions of the learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
     for the parties were heard on the last date.                          By this<\/p>\n
     Revision Application the applicant-husband has taken an<\/p>\n
     exception to the judgment and order dated 30th June 2008<\/p>\n
     passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court on a<\/p>\n
     petition     under   section   125     of    the     Code     of     Criminal<\/p>\n
     Procedure,    1973   (Hereinafter      referred        to    as    the     said<\/p>\n
     Code,of 1973) filed by the 1st to 3rd respondents.                           The<\/p>\n
     marriage between the applicant and the 1st respondent was<\/p>\n
     solemnised on 14th November 1997.                It appears that they<\/p>\n
     resided together till 28th December 2004.                      The 2nd and<\/p>\n
     the 3rd respondent are daughters born from the wedlock.\n<\/p>\n
     By the impugned order, the learned Judge of the Family<\/p>\n
     Court directed the applicant to pay maintainance at the<\/p>\n
     rate   of    Rs.5000\/-    to   the     1st       respondent-wife             and<\/p>\n
     maintainance at the rate of Rs.10,000\/- per month each to<\/p>\n
     the 2nd and 3rd respondents.                Thus, the applicant was<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:46:59 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                        – 2 –\n<\/p>\n
     directed to pay total monthly maintainance amount of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     25,000\/- to the 1st respondent, 2nd and 3rd respondents<\/p>\n
     with effect from 13th June 2006 which is the date of the<\/p>\n
     filing of the said application under section 125 of the<\/p>\n
     said Code.\n<\/p>\n
     2.      Various contentions have been raised by the learned<\/p>\n
     counsel appearing for the applicant. The first contention<\/p>\n
     raised by the learned counsel is based on the Maharashtra<\/p>\n
     Amendment<\/p>\n
     statute book by<\/p>\n
                    to    section     125   which   was<\/p>\n
                           Maharashtra Act No.21 of 1999.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           brought        on\n\n                                                                       The said\n                                                                                the\n                  \n<\/pre>\n
     amendment came into force with effect from 20th April<\/p>\n
     1999.     Prior to the said amendment, in the sub section 1<\/p>\n
     of section 125 of the said Code of 1973, there was a<\/p>\n
     upper ceiling of Rs.500\/- per month on                      maintainance<\/p>\n
     amount.      By the Maharashtra Act No. 21 of 1999, the<\/p>\n
     ceiling of Rs.500\/- was enhanced to Rs.1500\/- per month.\n<\/p>\n
     Thereafter,      by the Central Act being Act No. 50 of 2001,<\/p>\n
     section 125 was amended and the upper ceiling of was<\/p>\n
     altogethe removed.         The said Central act was brought into<\/p>\n
     force with effect from 30th September 2001. The effect of<\/p>\n
     the Central Act, is that there is no ceiling on the<\/p>\n
     amount which could be granted in terms of sub-section 1<\/p>\n
     of section 125 of the said Code of 1973.                 The submission<\/p>\n
     of the learned counsel for the applicant was that the<\/p>\n
     said Code of 1973 is an enactment on the concurrent list.\n<\/p>\n
     He   submitted      that   the   Maharashtra     Amendment         was     not<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:46:59 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                               – 3 –\n<\/p>\n
     repugnant to Central Act No.50 of 2001 and in any event,<\/p>\n
     the Maharashtra Amendment of 1999 has not been repealed<\/p>\n
     by     the     Central      Amendment          and    therefore          Courts       in<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra will be governed by the Maharashtra Amendment<\/p>\n
     made by the          Maharashtra Act No. 21 of 1999 and not by<\/p>\n
     the Central Amendment.\n<\/p>\n
     3.           It must be stated here that in Criminal Revision<\/p>\n
     Application NO.400 of 2008 the same issue arose before<\/p>\n
     this Court and it has been held by this Court by order<\/p>\n
     dated 2nd July 2009           that with effect from 24th September<\/p>\n
     2001 the Central Amendment made by Act No.50 of 2001 will<\/p>\n
     prevail.        For reasons recorded in the said judgment and<\/p>\n
     order, the aforesaid first contention cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
     4.      The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has<\/p>\n
     also    argued       on     merits.       He     pointed        that     there       was<\/p>\n
     absolutely no evidence adduced by the 1st respondent to<\/p>\n
     substantiate her claim for maintainance of Rs.25,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
     per    month.       He    invited     my       attention        to     the    various<\/p>\n
     defences raised by the applicant.                      He submitted that the<\/p>\n
     finding recorded by the learned Judge of the Family Court<\/p>\n
     that    the applicant has refused and neglected to maintain<\/p>\n
     the      1st    respondent         and    the     two     minor      daughters        is<\/p>\n
     completely       erroneous.              He      pointed     out     that      at    the<\/p>\n
     instance       of    the     1st     respondent           the      applicant         was<\/p>\n
     prosecuted for            an offence under section 498A of IPC and<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:46:59 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                               – 4 –\n<\/p>\n
     he     has     been     exonerated.               He   submitted         that       the<\/p>\n
     allegations made by the 1st respondent-wife of commission<\/p>\n
     of an offence under section 498A of the Indian penal code<\/p>\n
     could        not   be    substantiated           and   therefore,            the    1st<\/p>\n
     respondent-wife          cannot     contend        that      due    to       acts    of<\/p>\n
     cruelty on the part of the applicant she is residing away<\/p>\n
     from the applicant.\n<\/p>\n
     5.      He invited my attention to the income tax returns<\/p>\n
     filed on record.\n<\/p>\n
                         ig     He pointed out that for the Assessment<\/p>\n
     year 2005-2006 the income of the applicant is not more<\/p>\n
     than     Rs.1,48,000\/-.             He     pointed      out     that         for    the<\/p>\n
     Assessment year 2006-2007 the income is even lesser than<\/p>\n
     that. He invited my attention to the findings recorded by<\/p>\n
     the learned Judge of the                 Family Court.          He pointed out<\/p>\n
     that the bakery business at Kurla is not the business of<\/p>\n
     the applicant. He pointed out that there is no evidence<\/p>\n
     adduced on record to show that the land at Mahabaleshwar<\/p>\n
     was sold by the applicant and that there was a strawberry<\/p>\n
     plantation on the said land.                 He pointed out that the 1st<\/p>\n
     respondent has not adduced any evidence to show that any<\/p>\n
     particular amount was received by the applicant from the<\/p>\n
     said land by way of sale price. He pointed out that                                 the<\/p>\n
     flats referred to in the impugned judgment are not owned<\/p>\n
     by the applicant. He submitted that by no                              stretch of<\/p>\n
     imagination the maintanance at the rate                        Rs.25,000\/- per<\/p>\n
     month    can       be   justified    as      there     not    even       a    finding<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:46:59 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                          – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
     recorded that the monthly income of the applicant is Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     25,000\/-.         He   invited     my    attention         to   the     notes      of<\/p>\n
     evidence and submitted that the impugned order deserves<\/p>\n
     to    be    quashed    and   set    aside.           The     learned       counsel<\/p>\n
     appearing for the 1st respondent supported the impugned<\/p>\n
     judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
     6.          I   have    given      careful        consideration            to     the<\/p>\n
     submissions.       It must be noted here that the remedy under<\/p>\n
     section 125 of the said Code of 1973 is a summary remedy.\n<\/p>\n
     The order passed under section 125 of the said Code of<\/p>\n
     1973 is not final in the sense that the same can be<\/p>\n
     varied by taking recourse to the provisions of section<\/p>\n
     127 of the said Code of 1973.\n<\/p>\n
     7.     It will be necessary to refer to the evidence of<\/p>\n
     the    1st      respondent-wife         as   to      the     income        of     the<\/p>\n
     applicant. She came out with the case that the applicant<\/p>\n
     was the owner of two bakeries.               She stated that he is the<\/p>\n
     owner of a strawberry farm at Mahabaleshwar and that he<\/p>\n
     owns       buildings at Panvel and Karjat.                 She came out with<\/p>\n
     the case that he is the owner of two vehicles viz; a<\/p>\n
     Scorpio and Honda city.             According to her the income of<\/p>\n
     the applicant from om all sources is approximately is Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     4,00,000\/-.        She was cross-examined by the advocate for<\/p>\n
     the applicant. In the cross-examination she admitted that<\/p>\n
     she has not produced any balance sheet to show that the<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:46:59 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                           – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
     applicant is        owner of two bakeries.              She stated that she<\/p>\n
     has not produced documentary evidence to show that the<\/p>\n
     applicant     is     the     owner     of     a      strawberry          farm      at<\/p>\n
     Mahabaleshwar.        In short, questions were put to the 1st<\/p>\n
     respondent-wife to the effect that she was not possessing<\/p>\n
     any     documentary       evidence      to        substantiate         her      case<\/p>\n
     regarding the income of the applicant.\n<\/p>\n
     8.      The applicant adduced evidence in the form of an<\/p>\n
     affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief.                             He stated<\/p>\n
     that the land in Panvel was standing in the name of his<\/p>\n
     mother.      He     stated    that    he     was     conducting         a    bakery<\/p>\n
     business in partnership and he was earning income of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     1,00,000\/- per year. He stated that he is required to<\/p>\n
     spend some amount for himself and for his sick mother and<\/p>\n
     his net income, therefore, is Rs.50,000\/- to Rs.60,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
     per year.\n<\/p>\n
     9.      It   will    be    necessary         to     refer      to     his     cross<\/p>\n
     examination. He stated that he was residing in a flat A-1<\/p>\n
     at    G.C.Apartments,        Kalina,       Santacruz        along       with      his<\/p>\n
     mother and divorced sister.             He stated that the flat has<\/p>\n
     been purchased by his father.                 He admitted             the letter<\/p>\n
     dated 7th November, 2007 written by him to the society<\/p>\n
     and stated that the flat has not been transferred in his<\/p>\n
     name.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:46:59 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                            – 7 –\n<\/p>\n
     10.   In cross-examination, he admitted that in the year<\/p>\n
     2001 and 2002 he has taken LIC policies in the amounts of<\/p>\n
     Rs.5,00,000\/- each.          He stated that he has not produced<\/p>\n
     documents regarding cancellation of the policies.                          He was<\/p>\n
     shown the 7\/12 extract dated 1st March 2007 of the landed<\/p>\n
     property at Mahabaleshwar.              He admitted the 7\/12 Extract<\/p>\n
     and stated that the land has been sold one year back but,<\/p>\n
     he has not produced documents of sale.                        He denied the<\/p>\n
     correctness of the suggestion that there was a strawberry<\/p>\n
     plantation on the said land.                  His attention was invited<\/p>\n
     to the property extracts of the property in Dhampur,<\/p>\n
     Uttar Pradesh. He stated that he was not aware about the<\/p>\n
     said property. He stated that his father has purchased<\/p>\n
     the land at Panvel which was sold by him thereafter.                             In<\/p>\n
     the cross-examination he admitted that his father started<\/p>\n
     construction      business      in    the     name    Sunshine      Developers<\/p>\n
     which was having office at Kurla and Karjat.                              When a<\/p>\n
     suggestion was given to him that he was having account<\/p>\n
     with the Development Credit Bank at Kurla, he stated that<\/p>\n
     he was unable to remember the same and stated that he was<\/p>\n
     having a bank account with Bharat Cooperative Bank at<\/p>\n
     Kalina.\n<\/p>\n
     11.   In    the   light    of    this       evidence,     now     it    will     be<\/p>\n
     necessary    to    refer    to       the    findings     recorded        by     the<\/p>\n
     learned Judge of the Family Court.                   The learned Judge has<\/p>\n
     noted that the 7\/12 extract of the land at Parut, Taluka<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:46:59 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                – 8 –\n<\/p>\n
     Mahabaleshwar shows that the applicant was holding 5 and<\/p>\n
     1\/2     acres     of       landed        property    on        which     strawberry<\/p>\n
     plantations have been made.                  The learned Judge noted that<\/p>\n
     the applicant himself came out with the case that one<\/p>\n
     year back the property was sold.                     However, the applicant<\/p>\n
     did not disclose the price.                  Thus, what is established on<\/p>\n
     evidence     is    that       the        7\/12     extract       shows     that      the<\/p>\n
     applicant was holding a land admeasuirng about 5 1\/2<\/p>\n
     acres near Mahabaleshwar having strawberry plantations.\n<\/p>\n
     The     learned\n\n     department\n                      \n                        Judge\n\n                      had\n                                    has\n\n                                searched\n                                              observed\n\n                                               his\n                                                           that\n\n                                                       business\n                                                                       central\n\n                                                                      premises.\n                                                                                     excise\n\n                                                                                         The\n                     \n<\/pre>\n
     learned Judge noted that the documents show that the net<\/p>\n
     sales were ranging from Rs.1.60 crores to Rs.2.60 crores<\/p>\n
     from the year 2001-2002 to 2003-2004. The learned Judge<\/p>\n
     has referred to the admission of the applicant that he<\/p>\n
     has   deposited        a    sum     of    Rs.13,00,000\/-          towards       excise<\/p>\n
     duty.     The learned Judge on perusal of the record has<\/p>\n
     recorded     a    finding         that     the     flat     at       G.C.Apartment,<\/p>\n
     C.S.T.Road,       Kalina       was       standing     in       the     name   of    the<\/p>\n
     applicant.         The       learned       Judge     has       referred       to    the<\/p>\n
     documents at Exhibit 70 which show that the applicant was<\/p>\n
     admitted as a partner in Sunshine Developers in 1996. The<\/p>\n
     applicant admitted that the said firm had a project of<\/p>\n
     development       on   a     land    admeasuring          21     gunthas.           The<\/p>\n
     learned Judge has observed that the applicant has been<\/p>\n
     paying    premium      to     LIC    of     Rs.40,000\/-          per    year.       The<\/p>\n
     applicant is admittedly a partner of M\/s Jamal Bakery.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:46:59 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                           – 9 –\n<\/p>\n
     The income tax returns placed on record relate only to<\/p>\n
     the income of the applicant as a partner of the said<\/p>\n
     bakery.\n<\/p>\n
     12.     All these findings which are based on                     documentary<\/p>\n
     evidence have to be appreciated in the light of the fact<\/p>\n
     that the applicant has not clearly come out with his<\/p>\n
     exact income.          He has not even disclosed the amount of<\/p>\n
     income received by him from the land having strawberry<\/p>\n
     reflect    on<\/p>\n
     plantations at Mahabaleshwar.\n<\/p>\n
                      the       financial    and\n                                                  All the aforesaid factors\n\n                                                    social      status       of     the\n                    \n     applicant.       Considering these factual aspects reflected\n\n<\/pre>\n
     from the documentary evidence, a total maintainance of<\/p>\n
     Rs.25,000\/- per month has been fixed by the Family Court.\n<\/p>\n
     In revisional jurisdiction it is impossible to find fault<\/p>\n
     with the said amount fixed by the Family Court.\n<\/p>\n
     13.     Reliance was placed on the fact that the applicant<\/p>\n
     was exonerated from the prosecution under section 498-A<\/p>\n
     of the Indian penal code. It must be noted here that the<\/p>\n
     applicant has come out with the case that he had given<\/p>\n
     talaq to the 1st respondent. However, the said aspect<\/p>\n
     could    not    be    established      on    evidence.         That      is    the<\/p>\n
     finding    of        the    Family     Court    which      has      not       been<\/p>\n
     challenged.          There is no evidence brought on record to<\/p>\n
     show that the applicant is paying any amount to his wife<\/p>\n
     and children towards maintainance.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:46:59 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                       – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
     14.     In   the    circumstances,        the    learned        Judge       was<\/p>\n
     justified in recording a finding that the applicant has<\/p>\n
     refused and neglected to maintain the 1st respondent-\n<\/p>\n
     wife.\n<\/p>\n
     15.     No case is made out to interfere with the impugned<\/p>\n
     order in revisional jurisdiction.               Revision Application<\/p>\n
     is accordingly rejected.              The amount deposited by the<\/p>\n
     applicant in this Court in the sum of Rs.62,500\/- shall<\/p>\n
     be transferred to the Family Court, Bombay.\n<\/p>\n
             On   a   prayer   made   by   advocate     for    the     applicant<\/p>\n
     interim relief granted by this Court will continue to<\/p>\n
     operate for a period of eight weeks. It is clarified that<\/p>\n
     the applicant will continue to pay maintainance of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     12,500\/- per month for the said period.\n<\/p>\n
                                            A.S.Oka, J<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:46:59 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
            – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:46:59 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
            – 12 –\n<\/p>\n
                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:46:59 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Mr.Parvez Saghir Ahmed Ansari vs Mrs.Sana Parvez Ansari & Ors on 15 July, 2009 Bench: A.S. Oka – 1 – IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 513 OF 2008 Mr.Parvez Saghir Ahmed Ansari .. Applicant vs 1. Mrs.Sana Parvez Ansari & ors … […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-74447","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Parvez Saghir Ahmed Ansari vs Mrs.Sana Parvez Ansari & Ors on 15 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Parvez Saghir Ahmed Ansari vs Mrs.Sana Parvez Ansari & Ors on 15 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-08T15:13:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Parvez Saghir Ahmed Ansari vs Mrs.Sana Parvez Ansari & Ors on 15 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-08T15:13:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2156,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Mr.Parvez Saghir Ahmed Ansari vs Mrs.Sana Parvez Ansari & Ors on 15 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-08T15:13:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Parvez Saghir Ahmed Ansari vs Mrs.Sana Parvez Ansari & Ors on 15 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr.Parvez Saghir Ahmed Ansari vs Mrs.Sana Parvez Ansari & Ors on 15 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Parvez Saghir Ahmed Ansari vs Mrs.Sana Parvez Ansari & Ors on 15 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-08T15:13:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Parvez Saghir Ahmed Ansari vs Mrs.Sana Parvez Ansari & Ors on 15 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-08T15:13:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009"},"wordCount":2156,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009","name":"Mr.Parvez Saghir Ahmed Ansari vs Mrs.Sana Parvez Ansari & Ors on 15 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-08T15:13:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-parvez-saghir-ahmed-ansari-vs-mrs-sana-parvez-ansari-ors-on-15-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Parvez Saghir Ahmed Ansari vs Mrs.Sana Parvez Ansari & Ors on 15 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74447","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=74447"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74447\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74447"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74447"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74447"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}