Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.21 seconds)
Anwor Ali Halder vs Sakina Bibi And Anr. on 21 April, 2005 cites

Danial Latifi & Anr vs Union Of India on 28 September, 2001

19. The object and scope of Section 125, Cr. PC is to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who are under an obligation to support those who are unable to support themselves. It was clearly pointed out by the Supreme Court in Danial Latifi (supra) on page 19 at para 30. It is significant to point out in this context that section 5 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 lays down inter alia that if, on the date of the first hearing of the application under Sub-section (2) of section 3, a divorced woman and her former husband declare, by affidavit or any other declaration in writing in such form as may be prescribed, either jointly or separately, that they would prefer to be governed by the provisions of Sections 125 to 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and file such affidavit or declaration in the Court hearing the application, the Magistrate shall dispose of such application accordingly. The provisions of the said Act which are made available to the divorced Muslim women are really in addition to the claims available to them under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said Act nowhere indicates that the divorced Muslim women cannot file an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure independent of that Act. The right to maintenance conferred by Section 125, Cr. PC is a statutory right which the legislature has created and the same was enacted to provide a quick remedy to a class of persons who having no source of income are unable to maintain themselves. The object of Section 125 of Cr. PC is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. So Section 125, Cr. PC has its own sustaining force and stands on its own strength.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 131 - Full Document

Shamim Ara vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 1 October, 2002

14. It is settled law that the talaq to be effective has to be pronounced and the plea of previous divorce taken in the written statement and its communication to the wife by delivery of a copy of such written statement cannot by itself be treated as effectuating talaq on the date of delivery of such copy to the wife. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Shamim Am v. State of U.P. and Anr. (supra) on page 1080 at para 16 that a plea of previous divorce taken in the written statement cannot at all be treated as pronouncement of talaq by the husband on the wife on the date of filing of the written statement in the Court followed by delivery of a copy thereof to the wife. Having regard to the above principles of law and the facts and circumstances emerging from the materials on record I find that there is no proper proof of talaq and mere plea of talaq raised by the petitioner/husband is not tenable in absence of communication of talaq to O.P. No. 1 wife. It appears that the petitioner/husband has taken such plea of divorce by pronouncing three talaqs in accordance with Mohammedan Law on 28th February, 1990 in presence of the witnesses and placed reliance on the talaknama dated 28th February, 1990. But the plea of such previous talaq subsequently taken in the written objection to the application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and delivery of copy thereof to the wife cannot by itself be treated as effectuating talaq and that is evidently more so when except that plea taken in the written objection there is nothing to suggest or indicate that the alleged talaq was communicated to the wife.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 139 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1   2 Next