Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)Section 468 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Inderjit Singh Grewal vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011
'continuing offence' and if the said context has been read
along with Section 472 of Cr.P.C, so also Sections 28 and
32 of the DV Act, it makes clear that the offence is
considered to be a continuing offence and demands are
made and the applications which are going to be filed are
not barred by limitation and the Court can grant the
maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband
has relied upon the decision in the case of Inderjit Singh
Grewal Vs. State of Punjab and Another (cited supra)
wherein at paragraph-32 it has been observed as under:-
Section 28 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Krishna Bhatacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Anr on 20 November, 2015
In the case of Krishna
Bhattacharjee Vs. Sarathi Choudhury and Another,
(cited supra) the issue was one and the same and while
dealing with the said matter, a ratio has been laid down
that if it is continuing offence, then under such
circumstances, the Court cannot hold that Section 468 of
Cr.P.C. is a bar to disclaim the respondent-wife. Under the
said facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the
considered opinion that the contention taken up by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a bar under
Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is not having any force, and the
same is liable to be rejected.