Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.16 seconds)
Documents citing Sateppa Basappa Paschapuri vs Kum. Geetha on 31 July, 1998

Raj Kumar Sah vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 24 October, 2008

Reference may also be made to a Division Bench 12 judgment of the Karnataka High Court since reported in the case of Sateppa Basappa vs. Ku. Geetha (1999 Cri. L.J. 927) wherein their Lordships have held that it is neither a revision under C.P.C. nor a revision under Cr.P.C. stricto senso. It is a revision under Section 19(4) of the Act. I may also refer to a Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh, High Court, full reports whereof is presently not available but has been noted in A.I.R. 2006 NOC 268 (ALL) wherein apparently their Lordships have held that an order with reference to Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is an order passed in exercise of criminal jurisdiction and, as such, a criminal revision would lie.
Patna High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - C K Prasad - Full Document

Madan vs Neelam And Anr on 25 February, 2016

7. The counsel for the petitioner had urged that the revision was maintainable under Section 19(4) of the Act which was analogous provision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and this aspect has been examined by various High Courts in Rajesh Shukla Vs. Smt. Meena Shukla and another SUNIL SEHGAL 2016.02.25 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1677 of 2015 (O&M) -3- 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 275, Aakansha Shrivastava Vs. Virendra Shrivastava and another 2010(5) RCR (Criminal) and Sateppa Basappa Vs. Ku. Geetha 1999 CRI LJ 927. It was urged that the husband could not have been sentenced to an imprisonment for more than one month and in case of non-payment of maintenance, the wife could approach again for similar relief and the family Court had imposed a sentence of more than one year which is illegal.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Chaudhry - Full Document

Krishan Kumar vs Ritu And Anr on 25 February, 2016

7. The counsel for the petitioner had urged that the revision was maintainable under Section 19(4) of the Act which was analogous provision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and SUNIL SEHGAL 2016.02.25 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1676 of 2015 (O&M) -3- this aspect has been examined by various High Courts in Rajesh Shukla Vs. Smt. Meena Shukla and another 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 275, Aakansha Shrivastava Vs. Virendra Shrivastava and another 2010(5) RCR (Criminal) and Sateppa Basappa Vs. Ku. Geetha 1999 CRI LJ 927. It was urged that the husband could not have been sentenced to an imprisonment for more than one month and in case of non-payment of maintenance, the wife could approach again for similar relief and the family Court had imposed a sentence of more than one year which is illegal.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Chaudhry - Full Document
1