Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Pavakkal vs Athappa Goundan on 13 March, 1925

N.M. Velayudhan vs P. Sukumari on 21 December, 1977

11. The question as to whether it is obligatory on the part of the criminal court to cancel an order for maintenance when the husband produces a copy of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been the subject matter of decision by other High Courts as well in cases which arose under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the interpretation put to the section is in conformity with the decision in Haji Hussain Sulaiman Hodekar v. Rukhya Bi 1962 Ker LJ 783, See the decisions by the Madras High Court in Pavakkal v. Athappa Goundan AIR 1925 Mad 1218 : (1926) 27 Cri LJ 30) by the Calcutta High Court in Kunti Bala Dassi v. Nabin Chandra Das , by the Allahabad High Court in Nur Muhammad v. Ayesha Bibi (1905) ILR 27 All 483), by the Rangoon High Court in Ma Pwa Shein v. Maung Po Kwe (1939) 40 Cri LJ 827 (Rang), by the Rajasthan High Court in Jhanwar-lal v. State 1969 Cri LJ 306 (Raj) and Geeta Kumari v. Shiva Charan 1975 Cri LJ 137 (Raj). All the above decisions lay down that while it is improper to compel a husband to maintain a wife who consistently refuses to obey the order of the Civil Court directing her to live with the husband, the court is competent to consider whether the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was obtained by the husband bona fide. Where the husband has taken steps to execute the decree for restitution of conjugal rights and the wife unreasonably refuses to obey the decree, it is up to the Magistrate to cancel the order for maintenance.
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Bhagwant Singh vs Surjit Kaur on 2 December, 1980

11. The learned Counsel has then cited Pavakkal v. Athappa Goundon AIR 1925 Mad 1218 : 27 Cri LJ 30; Fakruddin Shamsuddin Saiyed v. Bai Jenab AIR 1944 Bom 11 : 45 Cri LJ 271; Mt. Durghatia v. Ayodhya Prasad AIR 1953 Vind Pra 28 : 1953 Cri LJ 1214; Kunti Bala Dassi v. Nabin Chandra Das AIR 1955 Cttl 108 : 1955 Cri LJ 354 and Jhanwarlal v. State of Rajasthan . It is unnecessary to advert to these cases in detail because they are plainly distinguishable. In most of, if not in all, these cases the argument for cancellation or variation of the original order of maintenance was sought to be based on a decree of restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the husband. As I said earlier, it is not apt to delve into the abstract question of the effect and impact of all the civil decrees on the earlier order of maintenance under Section 125 of the new Code. The cases aforesaid arise on their individual set of facts and their correctness or otherwise can only be examined when these issues arise directly for decision. Herein the sole question is whether the decree of the Civil Court, specifically on the question of maintenance, would be binding under Section 127(2) of the new Code, which was not even remotely the question in the cases relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Jhanwarlal vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 10 July, 1968

In proper case a Magistrate is within his right to decline to revoke the maintenance order under Section 488, Cr. P. C. A like case came up for consideration before the Madras High Court in Pavakkal v. Athappa Goundan, AIR 1925 Mad 1213. There Phillips, J., observed that it is competent for a Magistrate to cancel or vary an order for maintenance if he thinks that it should be cancelled or varied in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court. If a Civil Court had given to the husband a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and the husband bona fide wished to execute that decree and the wife refused, that would be a good ground for cancelling the order for maintenance under Section 488, Cr. P. C. But where the husband is not willing to take back his wife and his object in obtaining the decree for restitution of conjugal rights is merely to get 'the maintenance order cancelled, it will be wrong to cancel the order for maintenance under Section 489(2), Cr. P. C. Thus, according to the Madras view also the discretion whether the order for maintenance should be revoked cr not lies with the Magistrate even though a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed by a competent Civil Court.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1