Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing Padmanabhan vs Bama on 3 February, 1987

Unknown vs Petitioner(S) ( on 2 December, 2013

and Padmanabhan v. Bama (1988 Cri.LJ.1386(Mad.) , it was consistently held that there is no legal bar in alteration in the maintenance allowance already fixed in favour of the wife even if the said order was passed on the basis of a compromise between the parties. It was held that, it will also also be not obligatory for the wife to get the order set aside in her favour, before applying for alteration of the maintenance allowance.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Alagappan vs Thilagam on 25 April, 2000

In fact Maheswaran, J. in Padmanabhan v. Bama 1987 Mad LW (Cri) 306 : 1988 Cri LJ 1386 has clearly held that there is nothing in 127, Cr.P.C. which takes away the jurisdiction of the Court to modify its own order even though it is passed on the basis of a compromise. The words 'without prejudice to the contentions of the parties' will not alter the situation. If there has been change in the circumstances of any person receiving or paying a monthly maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C, it is always open to the Court to alter the amount under Section 127, Cr.P.C. That means, this Section would apply both to the husband and to the wife. As it has been held that the Magistrate has jurisdiction to enforce the order passed under Section 125, Cr.P.C. he would have jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 127, Cr.P.C. and deal with it in accordance with law. It is within the competence of the Magistrate to accept a compromise made by the parties and to pass an order under Section 125, Cr.P.C. giving effect to the terms agreed between the parties as to the rate of maintenance. As held in , after a compromise has been arrived at, the Court has still to pass an order and if it passes an order in terms of the compromise, it is that order and not the compromise that will be enforced subsequently. Therefore, the petition under Section 127, Cr.P.C. is perfectly maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Shri Namdeo Sheshrao Dinde, Medical ... vs Sau. Rekha W/O Namdeo Dinde on 28 March, 2008

7. On behalf of the respondent - wife, learned advocate Mr. Biradar, would strenuously argue that when the amount of maintenance is settled between the spouses, then it can be recovered under Section 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He seeks to rely on "Padmanabhan v. Bama 1988 CRI.L.J.1386", "Hashim Hussain v. Smt. Rukaiya Bano 1979 CRI.L.J.1143" and "Dagdubai Mohanrao Shinde v. Mohanrao Sajirao Shinde and Anr. 1996 (1) B.Cri.C. 111".... There is no difficulty in accepting the proposition laid down in these three (3) authorities. It is held that whenever a settlement is arrived and is accepted by the Court, in terms whereof, maintenance allowance is fixed, then it would be permissible to order recovery thereof or seek enhancement under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The fact situation in these cases, however, was altogether different. The proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if are terminated on strength of compromise terms which became part and parcel of the final order, then there is no difficulty in executing such an order. The settlement between the spouses, which is superimposed by the order of the Court, no doubt, becomes executable. Still, however, there is subttle distinction between such executable order and a term in the compromise petition which allows the maintenance allowance on fulfilment of certain conditions. The wife is entitled to claim such benefit on the ground that it is a part of the agreement, but surely, it is not the order rendered under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and, hence, cannot be executed under Section 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The impugned order, therefore, is unsustainable. The respondent - wife is at liberty to file afresh proceeding under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code or to file a Suit under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, as may be permissible and would be found desirable to her. She may claim interim alimony in such proceedings. The execution of the conditional order is, therefore, outside the pale of Section 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V R Kingaonkar - Full Document
1