Aparna Firodia is officially registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA).
PERSONAL INFORMATION
No information regarding Aparna Firodia’s birthdate, birthplace, parents, caste, or hobbies is available. She was married to Ajinkya Firodia, who serves as a director at Kinetic Engineering Ltd and is registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. She is an Indian staying in Pune, Maharashtra, India.
EDUCATION
There is no available information about Aparna Firodia’s education.
CAREER
Aparna Firodia has past affiliations with two companies, namely, Micro Age Instruments Pvt Ltd and Kinetic Kids Products Private Limited.
As of now, APARNA AJINKYA FIRODIA, with Director Identification Number (DIN) 02162001, holds directorship in 0 currently active private or public limited companies, excluding Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs). Notably, she is not disqualified by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) under section 164(2) and is inactive due to failure to submit the DIR-3 KYC Form.
Her initial directorship was with MICRO AGE INSTRUMENTS PVT LTD, and her most recent directorship is associated with KINETIC KIDS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED.
Regarding Micro AGE Instruments Pvt Ltd, it’s a non-government company incorporated on June 2, 1980. It operates as a private unlisted company and falls under the category of “company limited by shares.” The authorized capital of the company amounts to Rs 110.0 lakhs, with 98.954544% of the capital paid-up, totaling Rs 108.85 lakhs. The last annual general meeting (AGM) of Micro AGE Instruments Pvt Ltd took place on September 29, 2017. The latest financial information was updated on March 31, 2017, as per the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA).
Micro AGE Instruments Pvt Ltd primarily engages in the Manufacturing (Machinery & Equipment) business and has been active in this sector for the past 43 years. The current board members and directors include VISMAYA ARUN FIRODIA, SHANTA RATANLAL KOTECHA, ANIL PRABHAKAR CHITRE, SUNEETA PRADEEP KULKARNI, and APARNA AJINKYA FIRODIA.
The scion of the Firodia family, Ajinkya Firodia, faced a harrowing incident involving an attack with a kitchen knife by his wife, Aparna. Fortunately, he escaped with minor injuries, including a graze on his face under the right eye and on the side of his nose. The incident led to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) with the Chaturshringi police station.
The family members refrained from discussing the issue, leaving the FIR as the primary source of information. According to the FIR, the incident occurred on a specific Tuesday evening at 7:25 pm. Ajinkya Firodia, a 40-year-old managing director of the superbike retail company Motoroyale and the Indian branch of the renowned MV Agusta brand, was having dinner with his two children in the kitchen of their home, shared with his parents, Arun and Jayashree Firodia. Aparna suddenly entered the room and confronted Ajinkya, accusing him of speaking about her and brandishing her mobile phone. This led to a physical altercation where Ajinkya grabbed the phone, resulting in a tug-of-war. Amid the chaos, Aparna took a kitchen knife and lunged at Ajinkya, causing the knife to graze his face. The family cook present at the scene managed to wrest the knife from Aparna. Ajinkya’s father, Arun Firodia, an esteemed industrialist and chairman of the Kinetic Group, intervened and engaged in another scuffle while trying to separate Aparna from his son.
CONTROVERSY
Ajinkya was promptly taken to Aundh General Hospital to receive treatment for his injuries. Upon returning home to their Model Colony bungalow off Senapati Bapat Road, Ajinkya declined to comment on the incident, stating, “I don’t want to talk about this right now.” An attempt to speak with Aparna at the Firodia residence was unsuccessful as she was reportedly away, according to security personnel at the gate.
The senior police inspector at the Chaturshringi police station, Anil Shewale, informed that a case had been registered against Aparna Firodia under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 324 (voluntarily causing injury with a dangerous weapon), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 352 (assault or criminal force used in the absence of any grave provocation), and 447 (mischief causing damage). The complaint was lodged by Ajinkya Firodia.
The subsequent part of the text delves into a legal case involving the presumption of paternity and the use of DNA testing in Indian law. It begins with an introduction explaining the presumption of paternity in the Indian legal system and the importance of proving or disproving it in certain situations, especially in cases of alleged infidelity. The case in question involves a husband seeking a DNA test to ascertain the paternity of his second child during the ongoing marriage, challenging the presumption of legitimacy. The wife refuses permission for the DNA test, and the court must decide whether an adverse inference can be drawn based on her refusal.
The subsequent section presents the facts of the case, including the marriage of the couple, the birth of their children, allegations of adultery, and the husband’s petition for divorce and custody of their children. The husband’s doubt about the paternity of the second child leads to the request for a DNA test to establish or refute the allegations.
The narrative continues with the court’s decision to allow the DNA test and the wife’s opposition to it. The Family Court, Pune, determines that a prima facie case has been made for the DNA test and that it can be considered as evidence. It warns that the court may draw an adverse inference if the wife refuses to comply with the directive, as specified in Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly illustration (h).
The appellant (the wife) appeals the Family Court’s decision to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, arguing that a strong prima facie case is required for DNA testing and that the husband did not provide enough evidence to justify it. However, the High Court upholds the Family Court’s decision.
The subsequent sections discuss the legal issues, the judgment, and an analysis of the case. It explores questions regarding the weight given to social parentage versus biological parentage and the consequences of the wife’s refusal to comply with the DNA test.
The conclusion reaffirms that both the Family Court and the High Court erred in allowing the DNA test and that the husband can present other evidence to support his allegations. The case provides an opportunity to reflect on the balance between social and biological parentage, the use of DNA testing, and the right to know the truth versus the privacy of the child.
In summary, the text is structured into several distinct sections, each providing information about the incident involving Ajinkya Firodia and the subsequent legal case, along with an analysis of the legal aspects and implications.
