Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Prema Jain vs Sudhir Kumar Jain on 25 April, 1979

Murti Dhar Singh And Ors. vs Vijendra Singh Jafa on 19 October, 2001

"23. An application under Section 125 of the New Code cannot be a police report as contemplated by Section 173 nor is it a complaint as defined by Section 2(b). The result produced by its conclusion is neither acquittal nor conviction, not oven a discharge. Moreover, a final order under Section 125, to be taken as such, must satisfy the conditions laid down by Section 354(6), i.e., it must state the points for determination, the decision thereon and reasons for the decision. In the present case no evidence whatever had been adduced and the stage of passing a final order had not as such been reached and consequently no such order was actually passed. The mare fact that the order of the Magistrate had the effect of consigning the petition for maintenance to the record room would not by itself be enough clothe it with the attributes of a final order.
Gauhati High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - A H Saikia - Full Document

C. Subramanyam vs C. Sumathi And Anr. on 17 October, 2003

2. The brief facts that are necessary for answering the present Reference are that the first respondent herein filed a petition seeking to set aside the order dated 4.10.2000 whereunder the maintenance petition filed by her in M.C. No. 5 of 2000 was dismissed for default. She filed the said maintenance petition against her husband. When the case came up for hearing on 4.10.2000 for her non-appearance, the Court dismissed the maintenance petition for default. She filed a petition seeking restoration of the maintenance petition on the ground of ill-health. Her husband contended that no medical certificate in support of the claim of ill-health was filed and the default order could not be set aside. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate allowed the petition placing reliance on the decision reported in the case of Smt. Prema Jain v. Sudhir Kumar Jain, 1980 Cr.L.J. 80. Against the said order, the husband filed Crl. R.C. No. 984 of 2001 which came up before the learned Single Judge.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 20 - Cited by 9 - B Nazki - Full Document

Suhird Kamra vs Neeta And Anr. on 9 December, 1987

In Smt. Prema Jain v. Sudhir Kumar Jain, 1979 CC. Cases 74 (Delhi), this Court went to the extent of holding that the crder dismissing a petition under Section 125 of the Code in default of the appearance of the petitioner was in the nature of an administrative order other than a judicial one and the magistrate could review the same. It would be noted that an order on a petition under Section 125 of the Act even after recording of the evidence and hearing the parties is never always a final order and that the Court has power to alter the same if there are change in circumstances.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Kunhimohammed vs Nafeesa on 6 January, 2003

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of this court to deposit the arrears of maintenance could not be complied with in time as the petitioner was abroad. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of the court below had already come into effect by the noncompliance of the condition and the above order was not liable to be reviewed in view of Section 362 of the Code. It was further argued that an order passed by this court cannot be modified or reviewed, except a clerical error or mistake as Section 362 of the Code is a bar for considering the present application for review. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings under Chapter X of the Code regarding the grant of maintenance to the wife, children and parents is totally different from the other proceedings contemplated under the Code and even Section 125 of the Code empowers the court to pass an ex parte order and to set aside such ex parte order when sufficient reasons are shown for the absence of the party. Furthers. 127 of the Code permits the court to modify or review its own orders in change of circumstances. Thus the proceedings under Chapter X of the Code stands in a different footing than the other proceedings contemplated by the Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even a petition under Section 125 of the Code dismissed for default can be restored in view of the provisions in Chapter X. He placed reliance on a decision of the Delhi High Court in Smt. Prema Jain v. Sudhir Kumar Jain (1980 Crl. L.J. 80) wherein it was held that the Magistrate had power to restore a petition under Section 125 of the Code dismissed for default.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Satish Kumar vs Babli @ Mamtesh And Others on 25 April, 2013

In Smt. Prema Jain vs. Sudhir Kumar Jain, 1980 Marriage Law Journal 17, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has elaborately discussed and taken a view that order under Chapter IX is only administrative one and could be reviewed by the Magistrate on sufficient cause being shown on the analogy of provisions of Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The bar under the Code is only from reviewing the judgment or the final order after it has been signed except to the extent of Crl. Misc. No. M-1243 of 2013 -5- correcting the clerical or arithmetical errors.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - P Singh - Full Document

Kusum Devi vs Ram Chandra Maurya And Anr. on 25 September, 2003

8. A direct question as to whether an application was under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. dismissed in default could be restored was under consideration of the Delhi High Court in Smt. Prema Jain v. Sudhir Kumar Jain, 1980 Marriage L.J. 17. It was held that such an order of dismissal did not amount to final order and the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to restore the said application, which was dismissed in default. The provisions of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. were not attracted as the order of dismissal in default was not a final order. The proceeding of maintenance even though provided in the Cr.P.C. cannot be equated with the other proceedings of the Code and the husband cannot be treated to be an offender. The Court can proceed ex parte against the respondent husband on his non-appearance and can pass final order.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - K N Ojha - Full Document
1   2 Next