Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (2.32 seconds)
Documents citing Ravendra Kaur vs Achant Swarup on 10 December, 1964

Jagdish Prasad vs Ivth Addl. Sessions Judge And Ors. on 13 February, 1995

In the case of Teja Singh (supra) on the facts and circumstances of that case and in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the wife whose application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act had already been dismissed on the ground that she had herself deserted her husband, she was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the case of Ravendra Kumar (supra) it was held on the facts and circumstances of that case that the wife was not entitled to receive maintenance allowance from the husband as the Magistrate was bound to take note of the decision of the Civil Court as provided under Section 489(2) of Cr.P.C, even though there was no specific application under that section before him.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Jashelal Agrawal @ Jain vs Puspabati Agrawala on 12 August, 1998

10. In this case petitioner has banked upon the second circumstance i.e. the conduct of the opposite party to withdraw from the society of the petitioner without sufficient reason as per the binding finding of the Civil Court, as noted earlier. In support of that contention he has also relied upon the following citations. In AIR 1966 All. 133, Ravendra Kaur v. Achant Swarup, it was held that wife is not entitled for maintenance when husband has obtained a decree for judicial separation on the ground of desertion made by the wife. In 1981 Cri.
Orissa High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - P K Tripathy - Full Document

Karuna Narendra Dhole And Others vs Narendra Dharmaraj Dhole on 2 May, 2017

In the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, reported in Ravendra Kaur v. Achant Swarup it was held that the wife was not entitled to receive maintenance allowance from the husband. It was further held that the Magistrate was bound to take notice of the decision of the Civil Court as provided under section 489, sub-clause (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, even though there was no specific application under that section before him.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - S P Deshmukh - Full Document

Nathu Ram vs Smt. Atar Kunwar on 14 August, 1967

4. A careful reading of the decision would, however, make it clear that it does not lay down the broad proposition on which the reference is based. It will be noticed that before pronouncing upon the effect of the decree for judicial separation which was pleaded in that case as a bar to the claim tor maintenance allowance, Tripathi, J., who decided the above case, 1965 All LJ 602= (AIR 1966 All 133), said:
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Sanjay Chopra vs Shyama on 8 January, 1999

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Ravendra Kaur v. Achant Swarup, 1966 Criminal Law Journal 247 to fortify the aforesaid submission where it was held that if the husband had obtained decree for judicial separation against his wife, no maintenance could be claimed by her. It was held that the wife was not entitled to maintenance and Magistrate was bound to take notice of the decision of the Civil Court as provided under Section 489(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old) even though there was no specific application under that section before him.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - M L Singhal - Full Document
1