FIR against Virat Kohli-co-owned restaurant & 4 other establishments for breaching operating hours
Bengaluru: An FIR has been registered against the manager of One8 Commune, a restaurant co-owned by cricket star Virat Kohli, and four other establishments for allegedly operating beyond permitted hours, police said on Tuesday.
A special drive was conducted on July six following complaints that many restaurants and pubs in central Bengaluru were operating beyond the stipulated closing time of 1 am, they said.
According to the police, when a sub-inspector of Cubbon Park police station, who was on patrolling duty, reached One8 Commune at around 1.20 am, it was found that the manager was allegedly still operating the pub.
"After we received complaints that certain pubs and hotels were operating beyond the permitted time, a special drive was carried out on the night of July six," a police officer said.
"Based on the violations found, we have registered an FIR against the manager of One8 Commune and four other establishments under the Karnataka Police Act for violation at Cubbon Park police station," he added.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Allahabad HC sets aside maintenance order in favour of earning wife, says she didn't tell truth
Prayagraj (PTI): The Allahabad High Court has set aside a lower court order mandating a man to pay maintenance to his estranged wife, observing that she earns her living and did not reveal the true salary in her affidavit.
Justice Madan Pal Singh also allowed a criminal revision petition filed by the man, Ankit Saha.
"A perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that in the affidavit filed before the trial court, the opposite party herself admitted that she is a post-graduate and a web designer by qualification. She is working as a senior sales coordinator in a company and getting a salary of Rs 34,000 per month," the court said in the December 3 order.
"But in her cross-examination, she has admitted that she was earning Rs 36,000 per month. Such an amount for a wife who has no other liability cannot be said to be meagre; whereas the man has the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents and other social obligations," it observed.
The high court observed that the woman was not entitled to get any maintenance from her husband "as she is an earning lady and able to maintain herself".
The man's counsel argued in court that the estranged wife did not reveal the whole truth in the affidavit.
"She claimed herself to be an illiterate and unemployed woman. When the document filed by the man was shown to her before the trial court, she admitted her income during cross-examination. Thus, it is clear that she did not come before the trial court with clean hands," the counsel submitted.
The court, in its order, said, "Cases of those litigants who have no regard for the truth and those who indulge in suppressing material facts need to be thrown out of the court."
It impugned the lower court's February 17 judgment and order, passed by the principal judge of a family court in Gautam Buddh Nagar and allowed the criminal revision petition filed by the man.
