Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.27 seconds)Section 125 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 3 in The Muslim Women (Protection Of Rights On Divorce) Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Shamima Farooqui vs Shahid Khan on 6 April, 2015
"21. It is imperative to acknowledge that the enactment of the
Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "FCA 1984") had
excluded the jurisdiction of a Magistrate under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C
1973, of which Section 125 is a part, wherein a Family Court had been
established for the concerned area or jurisdiction. After the enactment
of FCA 1984, a situation arose where a divorced Muslim woman moved
a Family Court under Section 125 of CrPC 1973, and a similar
circumstance was dealt in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan
(2015(2) KLT SN 78 (C.No.89) SC : (2015) 5 SCC 705] in light of the
question of law at hand. Herein, while relying on the earlier mentioned
judgments of this Court, it observed that the concerned Family Court
had rightly, and without a shadow of a doubt, held that Section 125 of
CrPC 1973 would be applicable. The relevant paragraph number 09 is
2024:KER:76401
Crl.R.P.No.388/2024 10
reproduced below:
Shamim Bano vs Asraf Khan on 16 April, 2014
In Shamim
Bano v. Asraf Khan (2014 (2) KLT SN 56 (C.No.74) SC : (2014) 12
SCC 636 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 145 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 162, this Court
after referring to the Constitution Bench decisions in Danial Latifi v.
Union of India (2001 (3) KLT 651 (SC) : (2001) 7 SCC 740 : (2007) 3
SCC (Cri) 266) and Khatoon Nisa v. State of U.P (Khatoon Nisa v.
State of U.P, [2002 (2) KLT OnLine 1046 (SC) : (2014) 12 SCC 646 :
(2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 155 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 170) had opined as
follows: (Shamim Bano case (2014 (2) KLT SN 56 (C.No.74) SC :
(2014) 12 SCC 636 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 145 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri)
Danial Latifi & Anr vs Union Of India on 28 September, 2001
In Shamim
Bano v. Asraf Khan (2014 (2) KLT SN 56 (C.No.74) SC : (2014) 12
SCC 636 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 145 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 162, this Court
after referring to the Constitution Bench decisions in Danial Latifi v.
Union of India (2001 (3) KLT 651 (SC) : (2001) 7 SCC 740 : (2007) 3
SCC (Cri) 266) and Khatoon Nisa v. State of U.P (Khatoon Nisa v.
State of U.P, [2002 (2) KLT OnLine 1046 (SC) : (2014) 12 SCC 646 :
(2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 155 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 170) had opined as
follows: (Shamim Bano case (2014 (2) KLT SN 56 (C.No.74) SC :
(2014) 12 SCC 636 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 145 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri)
Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan on 4 December, 2009
(2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 266), has reuled that : (Shabana Bano case (2009
(4) KLT SN 102 (C.No.100) SC : (2010) 1 SCC 666 : (2010) 1 SCC
(Civ) 216 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 873, SCC p.672, para.21)
"21. The appellant's petition under Section 125 CrPC would be
maintainable before the Family Court as long as the appellant does not
remarry. The amount of maintenance to be awarded under Section 125
CrPC cannot be restricted for the iddat period only.'
Khatoon Nisa vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 14 August, 2002
Though the aforesaid decision was rendered interpreting Section 7 of
the Family Courts Act, 1984, yet the principle stated therein would be
applicable, for the same is in consonance with the principle stated by
the Constitution Bench in Khatoon Nisa (Khatoon Nisa v. State of
U.P., 2002 (2) KLT OnLine 1046 (SC) : (2014) 12 SCC 646 : (2014) 5
SCC (Civ) 155 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 170).'
In view of the aforesaid dictum, there can be no shadow of doubt that
Section 125 CrPC has been rightly held to be applicable by the learned
Family Judge."