Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 98 (3.16 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Kuldip Kaur vs Surinder Singh And Anr on 3 November, 1988

Nitin Sagar Bajaj vs Ashima Bajaj on 17 September, 2013

18. Ld. counsel for respondent has relied on the judgement titled Kuldep Kaur Vs. Surinder Singh and another (Supra) and submitted that in para­6 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the order for monthly allowance can be discharged only upon the monthly allowance being recovered. The liability cannot be taken to have been discharged by sending the person liable to pay the monthly allowance to jail. It is only a mode or method of recovery and not a substitute for recovery. In that case husband was not absolved from his liability to pay the monthly allowance by reason of his undergoing a sentence of jail and the amount is still recoverable notwithstanding the fact that the respondent who is liable to pay the monthly allowance has undergone a sentence of jail for failure to pay the same. Even the Apex Court had ordered the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate to issue warrant for his arrest, cause him to be arrested and put in jail for his failure to comply with the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and shall not be released till he makes the payment. It is well settled proposition of law as laid down by the apex court.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Muthuraj vs Lakshmi on 22 November, 2023

5. The decision of this Court in Kuldip Kaur v. Surinder Singh [(1989) 1 SCC 405 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 171] may be usefully recalled wherein this Court has held the provision of sentencing under Section 125(3) to be a “mode of enforcement” as distinguished from the “mode of satisfaction” of the liability which can only be by means of actual payment. Para 6 of the Report to the above effect, namely, that the mode of enforcement i.e. sentencing to custody does not extinguish the liability may be extracted below: (SCC p. 409, para 6) “6. A distinction has to be drawn between a mode of enforcing recovery on the one hand and effecting actual recovery of the amount of monthly allowance which has fallen in arrears on the other. Sentencing a person to jail is a ‘mode of enforcement’. It is not a ‘mode of satisfaction’ of the liability. The liability can be satisfied only by making actual payment of the arrears. The whole purpose of sending to jail is to oblige a person liable to pay the monthly allowance who refuses to comply with the order without sufficient cause, to obey the order and to make the payment. The purpose of sending him to 16/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD).No.28 of 2022 jail is not to wipe out the liability which he has refused to discharge. Be it also realised that a person ordered to pay monthly allowance can be sent to jail only if he fails to pay monthly allowance ‘without sufficient cause’ to comply with the order. It would indeed be strange to hold that a person who ‘without reasonable cause’ refuses to comply with the order of the court to maintain his neglected wife or child would be absolved of his liability merely because he prefers to go to jail. A sentence of jail is no substitute for the recovery of the amount of monthly allowance which has fallen in arrears. Monthly allowance is paid in order to enable the wife and child to live by providing with the essential economic wherewithal. Neither the neglected wife nor the neglected child can live without funds for purchasing food and the essential articles to enable them to live. Instead of providing them with the funds, no useful purpose would be served by sending the husband to jail. Sentencing to jail is the means for achieving the end of enforcing the order by recovering the amount of arrears. It is not a mode of discharging liability. The section does not say so. Parliament in its wisdom has not said so.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tule Ram vs Ramneek Singh on 19 September, 2024

In Kuldip Kaur v. Surinder Singh [(1989) 1 SCC 405: 1989 SCC (Cri) 171: AIR 1989 SC 232] in the context of Section 125 CrPC observed that sentencing a person to jail is sometimes a mode of enforcement. In this regard, the Court stated: (SCC p. 409, para 6) "6. A distinction has to be drawn between a mode of enforcing recovery on the one hand and effecting actual recovery of the amount of monthly allowance which has fallen in arrears on the other. Sentencing a person to jail is a 'mode of enforcement'. It is not a 'mode of satisfaction' of the liability. The liability can be satisfied only by making actual payment of the arrears. The whole purpose of sending to jail is to oblige a person liable to pay the monthly allowance who refuses to comply with the order without sufficient cause, to obey the order and to make the payment. The purpose of sending him to jail is not to wipe out the liability which he has refused to discharge. Be it also realised that a person ordered to pay a monthly allowance can be sent to jail only if he fails to pay the monthly allowance 'without sufficient cause' to comply with the order. It would indeed be strange to hold that a person who 'without reasonable cause' refuses to comply with the order of the court to maintain his neglected wife or child would be absolved of his liability merely because he prefers to go to jail. A sentence of jail is no substitute for the recovery of the amount of monthly allowance which has fallen in arrears."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Goldy Fruit Company And Another vs Sunil Kumar on 17 October, 2024

26. From the above line of cases, it becomes very clear, that, a sentence of imprisonment can be granted for default in payment of compensation awarded under Section 357(3) CrPC. The whole purpose of the provision is to accommodate the interests of the victims in the criminal justice system. Sometimes the situation becomes such that there is no purpose served by keeping a person behind bars. Instead directing the accused to pay an amount of compensation to the victim or affected party can ensure delivery of total justice. Therefore, this grant of compensation is sometimes in lieu of sending a person behind bars or in addition to a very light sentence of imprisonment. Hence on default of payment of this compensation, there must be a just recourse. Not imposing a sentence of imprisonment would mean allowing the accused to get away without paying the compensation and imposing another fine would be impractical as it would mean imposing a fine upon another fine and therefore would not ensure proper enforcement of the order of compensation. While passing an order under Section 357(3), it is imperative for the courts to look at the ability and the capacity of the accused to pay the same amount as has been laid down by the cases above, otherwise, the very purpose of granting an order of compensation would stand defeated.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next