Raj Kumar Makkad's Expert Profile

Queries Replied : 44370

+ View Full Profile

What kinds of questions I can and can't answer?

My area of expertise

My experience in the area (years):

Organizations I belong to:

Publications or writing which has appeared :

Educational credentials:

Award & Honors:

Anand says : Need help for religious justification
Sir, It my great pleasure to write u, i had read the comments made by the people on your valued services rendered towards the qurries raised before you sir, kindly extend yr help to our religion for justification to thousands of employees and laksh of religious followers nation wide. i would submit my querry after yr acceptance sir, my email id is anandwhy2005@rediffmail.com 09492013232

ankita slot says : what kind of action i can take against my husband
my husband had got an ex party-divorce order against me then after i filed set aside application and my husband was know that i have taken legal action against him and i also inform him that i have filed the application in family court all our conversation is recorded in my cellphone and he does second marriage with another girl now his divorce petition is restored in family court by the consent order of Hon'ble high court plz tell me now can i take legal action against my husband and his second wife in between i lost my job due to absenteeism for attending court proceeding in high court i m only 10th pass and i have documentary proof that he earn minimum 2 corer yearly can i get monthly maintenance and accommodation from my husband plz guide me i have attached the order copy of high court1 17210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY vgm CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 148 OF 2011, CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 149 OF 2011 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 27 OF 2012 Ankita Dhandeep Salot ...Appellant V/s. Dhandeep Gautam Salot & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. C.G. Gavnekar, Amicus Curiae Mr. Vinod Jadhav for the Appellant Mr. S.S. Kudalkar for the Respondents CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND N.M. JAMDAR, JJ. DATE: MARCH 06, 2012 P.C.:- The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th October, 2010 passed below Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 59 of 2010. 2 17210 2. Respondent No.1 filed Petition No. A-1178 of 2008 for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Exparte decree was passed in the said petition on 23rd December, 2009. The appellant filed application for setting aside the said ex-parte decree, being Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 59 of 2010, on 3rd March, 2010. Respondent No.1 claims to have entered into second marriage with respondent No. 2 on 1st May, 2010 after waiting for reasonable period after passing of the decree dated 23rd December, 2009. It is only after the second marriage, the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was served on respondent No. 1 on 5th May, 2010. 3. Respondent No. 1, however, proceeded to get the second marriage with respondent No. 2 registered on 19th May, 2010. Respondent No. 1 then moved application before the Family Court, praying that, in view of the subsequent developments, the application preferred by the appellant for setting aside th ex-parte decree has become infructuous. The Family Court, by the impugned judgment and order, was pleased to reject the application preferred by the appellant for setting aside the ex-parte decree of divorce in respect of her marriage with respondent No. 1. 3 17210 4. As a result, the appellant filed the present appeal, which has been admitted on 3rd March, 2011. During the pendency of this appeal, the abovenumbered applications have been filed for reliefs referred to therein. According to the appellant, she was misled by respondent No. 1. She verily believed respondent No. 1 when he mentioned that she should not be worried about the service of notice on her from the Family Court, including the decree passed by the Family Court. 5. That allegation has been countered by respondent No. 1 before this Court. Nevertheless, respondent No. 1, during the course of arguments of the proceedings, through counsel, submitted that he will not mind, if the parties are relegated before the Family Court for re-trial of Petition No. A-1178 of 2008 filed by him for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act in relation to the marriage solemnised on 13th November, 2006 at Bandra, Mumbai, as per the Hindu Vedic Rites and Customs with the appellant. He, however, submits that the statement made by respondent No. 1 may not be construed as acceptance of allegations made by the appellant qua him, including of having misled her in believing that the notice served on her received from the Family Court was inconsequential. 4 17210 6. Further, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents, the respondents are willing to go back before the Family Court for fresh trial of the petition, from the stage of filing of the Written Statement by the appellant, to give one opportunity to the appellant. The counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submits that the appellant has no objection for adopting this course, as she would get opportunity to contest the proceedings filed by respondent No. 1 against her. At the same time, the appellant may be permitted to urge that the second marriage performed by respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 2 on 1st May, 2010 and registered on 19th May, 2010 is illegal, nullity and not binding on her and to be made subject to the outcome of the proceedings filed by respondent No. 1 against her. The appellant submits that that aspect may be kept open to be tried before the Family Court on its own merits. 7. In view of the above, by consent, we proceed to set aside the judgment and order passed by Family Court No. 5, Mumbai, dated 4th May, 2010 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 59 of 2010, and, instead, allow the said Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 59 of 2010. As a result, Petition No. A-1178 of 2008 is restored to the file of the Family Court, to be tried afresh from the stage of filing of Written 5 17210 Statement by the respondent herein. This is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. All questions to be decided in the said proceedings or in the proposed proceedings to be taken out by the appellant herein will have to be decided on their own merits in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties. 8. While parting, we may place on record that, since the counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents were not very clear about the status of the second marriage, if the ex-parte decree passed on 23rd December, 2009 was to be set aside, we requested Mr. C.G. Gavnekar to assist us on the said legal aspect. He graciously accepted the said request. He has invited our attention to several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of our High Court. 9. We may usefully refer to the decision of three-Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narain, reported in AIR 1978 S.C. 1351, wherein the Apex Court, dealing with similar circumstances, has opined that, keeping in view the fact that the scheme of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for treating certain marriages void and simultaneously some marriages, which are made punishable yet not void and no consequences having been provided for 6 17210 in respect of the marriage in contravention of the proviso to Section 15, it cannot be said that the re-marriage after the statutory period provided for appeal against the decree of divorce is over, would be void. 10. We express our gratitude to Mr. Gavnekar for the able assistance given by him and also for having prepared the matter at short notice. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of on the above terms. In view of the disposal of the appeal, we do not intend to examine the controversy raised in any of the Civil Applications. The same are also disposed of, with liberty to the parties to agitate those reliefs before the Family Court, where the petition will proceed in terms of this order. The parties shall appear before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, on 26th March, 2012, when the Family Court would proceed in the matter, keeping in view all the observations made hitherto. No order as to costs. 12. The amount deposited by respondent No. 1 in this Court in terms of order dated 14th October, 2011 be remitted to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, to be credited in proceedings, being Petition No. A7 17210 1178 of 2008. The parties will be free to file application before the Family Court for appropriate relief with regard to the said amount, as may be advised. The Family Court to pass order thereon on its own merits. 13. Both parties are present, and were asked whether the disposal of the appeal proceedings before this Court on the above terms is acceptable to them. Both of them have been explained the consequences flowing from this order, and have willingly accepted the said arrangement. N.M. JAMDAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

ankita slot says : what kind of action i can take against my husband
my husband had got an ex party-divorce order against me then after i filed set aside application and my husband was know that i have taken legal action against him and i also inform him that i have filed the application in family court all our conversation is recorded in my cellphone and he does second marriage with another girl now his divorce petition is restored in family court by the consent order of Hon'ble high court plz tell me now can i take legal action against my husband and his second wife in between i lost my job due to absenteeism for attending court proceeding in high court i m only 10th pass and i have documentary proof that he earn minimum 2 corer yearly can i get monthly maintenance and accommodation from my husband plz guide me i have attached the order copy of high court1 17210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY vgm CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 148 OF 2011, CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 149 OF 2011 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 27 OF 2012 Ankita Dhandeep Salot ...Appellant V/s. Dhandeep Gautam Salot & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. C.G. Gavnekar, Amicus Curiae Mr. Vinod Jadhav for the Appellant Mr. S.S. Kudalkar for the Respondents CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND N.M. JAMDAR, JJ. DATE: MARCH 06, 2012 P.C.:- The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th October, 2010 passed below Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 59 of 2010. 2 17210 2. Respondent No.1 filed Petition No. A-1178 of 2008 for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Exparte decree was passed in the said petition on 23rd December, 2009. The appellant filed application for setting aside the said ex-parte decree, being Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 59 of 2010, on 3rd March, 2010. Respondent No.1 claims to have entered into second marriage with respondent No. 2 on 1st May, 2010 after waiting for reasonable period after passing of the decree dated 23rd December, 2009. It is only after the second marriage, the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was served on respondent No. 1 on 5th May, 2010. 3. Respondent No. 1, however, proceeded to get the second marriage with respondent No. 2 registered on 19th May, 2010. Respondent No. 1 then moved application before the Family Court, praying that, in view of the subsequent developments, the application preferred by the appellant for setting aside th ex-parte decree has become infructuous. The Family Court, by the impugned judgment and order, was pleased to reject the application preferred by the appellant for setting aside the ex-parte decree of divorce in respect of her marriage with respondent No. 1. 3 17210 4. As a result, the appellant filed the present appeal, which has been admitted on 3rd March, 2011. During the pendency of this appeal, the abovenumbered applications have been filed for reliefs referred to therein. According to the appellant, she was misled by respondent No. 1. She verily believed respondent No. 1 when he mentioned that she should not be worried about the service of notice on her from the Family Court, including the decree passed by the Family Court. 5. That allegation has been countered by respondent No. 1 before this Court. Nevertheless, respondent No. 1, during the course of arguments of the proceedings, through counsel, submitted that he will not mind, if the parties are relegated before the Family Court for re-trial of Petition No. A-1178 of 2008 filed by him for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act in relation to the marriage solemnised on 13th November, 2006 at Bandra, Mumbai, as per the Hindu Vedic Rites and Customs with the appellant. He, however, submits that the statement made by respondent No. 1 may not be construed as acceptance of allegations made by the appellant qua him, including of having misled her in believing that the notice served on her received from the Family Court was inconsequential. 4 17210 6. Further, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents, the respondents are willing to go back before the Family Court for fresh trial of the petition, from the stage of filing of the Written Statement by the appellant, to give one opportunity to the appellant. The counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submits that the appellant has no objection for adopting this course, as she would get opportunity to contest the proceedings filed by respondent No. 1 against her. At the same time, the appellant may be permitted to urge that the second marriage performed by respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 2 on 1st May, 2010 and registered on 19th May, 2010 is illegal, nullity and not binding on her and to be made subject to the outcome of the proceedings filed by respondent No. 1 against her. The appellant submits that that aspect may be kept open to be tried before the Family Court on its own merits. 7. In view of the above, by consent, we proceed to set aside the judgment and order passed by Family Court No. 5, Mumbai, dated 4th May, 2010 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 59 of 2010, and, instead, allow the said Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 59 of 2010. As a result, Petition No. A-1178 of 2008 is restored to the file of the Family Court, to be tried afresh from the stage of filing of Written 5 17210 Statement by the respondent herein. This is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. All questions to be decided in the said proceedings or in the proposed proceedings to be taken out by the appellant herein will have to be decided on their own merits in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties. 8. While parting, we may place on record that, since the counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents were not very clear about the status of the second marriage, if the ex-parte decree passed on 23rd December, 2009 was to be set aside, we requested Mr. C.G. Gavnekar to assist us on the said legal aspect. He graciously accepted the said request. He has invited our attention to several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of our High Court. 9. We may usefully refer to the decision of three-Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narain, reported in AIR 1978 S.C. 1351, wherein the Apex Court, dealing with similar circumstances, has opined that, keeping in view the fact that the scheme of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for treating certain marriages void and simultaneously some marriages, which are made punishable yet not void and no consequences having been provided for 6 17210 in respect of the marriage in contravention of the proviso to Section 15, it cannot be said that the re-marriage after the statutory period provided for appeal against the decree of divorce is over, would be void. 10. We express our gratitude to Mr. Gavnekar for the able assistance given by him and also for having prepared the matter at short notice. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of on the above terms. In view of the disposal of the appeal, we do not intend to examine the controversy raised in any of the Civil Applications. The same are also disposed of, with liberty to the parties to agitate those reliefs before the Family Court, where the petition will proceed in terms of this order. The parties shall appear before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, on 26th March, 2012, when the Family Court would proceed in the matter, keeping in view all the observations made hitherto. No order as to costs. 12. The amount deposited by respondent No. 1 in this Court in terms of order dated 14th October, 2011 be remitted to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, to be credited in proceedings, being Petition No. A7 17210 1178 of 2008. The parties will be free to file application before the Family Court for appropriate relief with regard to the said amount, as may be advised. The Family Court to pass order thereon on its own merits. 13. Both parties are present, and were asked whether the disposal of the appeal proceedings before this Court on the above terms is acceptable to them. Both of them have been explained the consequences flowing from this order, and have willingly accepted the said arrangement. N.M. JAMDAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

ankita slot says : what kind of action i can take against my husband
my husband had got an ex party-divorce order against me then after i filed set aside application and my husband was know that i have taken legal action against him and i also inform him that i have filed the application in family court all our conversation is recorded in my cellphone and he does second marriage with another girl now his divorce petition is restored in family court by the consent order of Hon'ble high court plz tell me now can i take legal action against my husband and his second wife in between i lost my job due to absenteeism for attending court proceeding in high court i m only 10th pass and i have documentary proof that he earn minimum 2 corer yearly can i get monthly maintenance and accommodation from my husband plz guide me

Mannat says : NOT ALLOWED TO PLAY IN PARKS BY DDA RWA
Hi Im a resident of c-9 vasant kunj and a lot of residents from here and other far off sectors,both adults and children are not allowed to play in the DDA parks of c-9 and c-6(ARAVALI n VASANT VATIKA respectively).According to a judgement by the Delhi High Court in Rajinder Nagar Welfare Association vs MCD/DDA n others,children cant be stopped by anyone from playing in any parks whatever may be the reason.the rwa says that the cricket academy thats being run in the c-9 dda park pays for the maintainance and thus the rwa doesnt have a say.they say we must pay to play there,apart from what we re already paying to the RWA every year.similar reason given in c-6 where they say the ornamental flowers get destroyed.theyve called the police so many times before who come n stop us from playing despite the high court ruling that says noone can be stopped from playing.urgent advice needed as to what the next step should be,it will be greatly appreciated by all of us,

Click here to see all answered queries

Comment Please

Other LCI Experts

Rajendra K Goyal
Queries Replied : 53581

Devajyoti Barman
Queries Replied : 34799

ajay sethi
Queries Replied : 31529