Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.20 seconds)
Documents citing Suresh Mandal vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 6 September, 2005

Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi vs Pyla Suri Demudu & Anr on 9 August, 2011

appreciation of evidence recorded in the order granting maintenance; at the most it could correct a patent error of jurisdiction. It has been laid down in a series of decisions 10 including Suresh Mondal vs. State of Jharkhand3 that in a case where the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance holding that the wife had been neglected and the wife was entitled to maintenance, the scope of interference by the revisional court is very limited. The revisional court would not substitute its own finding and upset the maintenance order recorded by the Magistrate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 52 - G S Misra - Full Document

Pinki Devi & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 25 July, 2013

―15. The High Court under its revisional jurisdiction is not required to enter into reappreciation of evidence recorded in the order granting maintenance; at the most it could correct a patent error of jurisdiction. It has been laid down in a series of decisions including Suresh Mandal v. State of Jharkhand that in a case where the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance holding that the wife had been neglected and the wife was entitled to maintenance, the scope of interference by the Revisional Court is very limited. The Revisional Court would not substitute its own finding and upset the maintenance order recorded by the Magistrate.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - A K Trivedi - Full Document

Bharat Yadav @ Bharat Prasad Yadav @ ... vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 25 July, 2013

―15. The High Court under its revisional jurisdiction is not required to enter into reappreciation of evidence recorded in the order granting maintenance; at the most it could correct a patent error of jurisdiction. It has been laid down in a series of decisions including Suresh Mandal v. State of Jharkhand that in a case where the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance holding that the wife had been neglected and the wife was entitled to maintenance, the scope of interference by the Revisional Court is very limited. The Revisional Court would not substitute its own finding and upset the maintenance order recorded by the Magistrate.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - A K Trivedi - Full Document

Dr. Firoz Alam vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 24 September, 2014

"15. The High Court under its revisional jurisdiction is not required to enter into Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014 20/22 reappreciation of evidence recorded in the order granting maintenance; at the most it could correct a patent error of jurisdiction. It has been laid down in a series of decisions including Suresh Mandal V. State of Jharkhand that in a case where the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance holding that the wife had been neglected and the wife was entitled to maintenance, the scope of interference by the Revisional Court is very limited. The Revisional Court would not substitute its own finding and upset the maintenance order recorded by the Magistrate."
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - D K Singh - Full Document

Grijesh Kumar Tripathi vs Ansu Devi on 25 July, 2013

15. The High Court under its revisional jurisdiction is not required to enter into reappreciation of evidence recorded in the order granting maintenance; at the most it could correct a patent error of jurisdiction. It has been laid down in a series of decisions including Suresh Mandal v. State of Jharkhand3 that in a case where the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance holding that the wife had been neglected and the wife was entitled to maintenance, the scope of interference by the Revisional Court is very limited. The Revisional Court would not substitute its own finding and upset the maintenance order recorded by the Magistrate.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - A K Trivedi - Full Document

Sh. Dinesh Kumar vs Smt. Rakhi on 23 August, 2014

In Suresh Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand reported as (2006) 1 AIR Jhar R 153 it has been held:­ "in a case where the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance holding that the wife had been neglected and the wife was entitled to maintenance, the scope of interference by the Revisional Court is very limited. The Revisional Court would not substitute its own finding and upset the maintenance order recorded by the Magistrate."
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yogesh Sharma vs Smt. Kamla Sharma on 17 August, 2013

In Suresh Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand reported as (2006) 1 AIR Jhar R 153 it has been held, "in a case where the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance holding that the wife had been neglected and the wife was entitled to maintenance, the scope of interference by the Revisional Court is very limited. The Revisional Court would not substitute its own finding and upset the maintenance order recorded by the Magistrate."
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Kusum vs Amit Joshi (Husband) on 24 August, 2012

In Suresh Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand reported as (2006) 1 AIR Jhar R 153 it has been held, "in a case where the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance holding that the wife had been neglected and the wife was entitled to maintenance, the scope of interference by the Revisional Court is very limited. The Revisional Court would not substitute its own finding and upset the maintenance order recorded by the Magistrate."
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramu Chauhan vs Smt. Bimla on 6 September, 2012

In Suresh Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand reported as (2006) 1 AIR Jhar R 153 it has been held, "in a case where the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance holding that the wife had been neglected and the wife was entitled to Ramu Chauhan Vs. Bimal Devi (CR No.23/11) Page No. 4 of pages 5 maintenance, the scope of interference by the Revisional Court is very limited. The Revisional Court would not substitute its own finding and upset the maintenance order recorded by the Magistrate."
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vikas vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 August, 2013

".......it is well-settled that the revisional court can interfere only if there is any illegality in the order or there is any material irregularity in the procedure or there is an error of jurisdiction. The High Court under its revisional jurisdiction is not required to enter into re- appreciation of evidence recorded in the order granting maintenance; at the most it could correct a patent error of jurisdiction. It has been laid down in a series of decisions including Suresh Mondal vs. State of Jharkhand AIR 2006 Jhar. R 153 that in a case where the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance holding that the wife had been neglected and the wife was entitled to maintenance, the scope of interference by the revisional court is very limited. The revisional court would not substitute its own finding and upset the maintenance order recorded by the Magistrate.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - B Bhushan - Full Document
1   2 Next