Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.37 seconds)The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Madhu Limaye vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 October, 1977
"11. [....] It is now well-nigh settled that in
deciding whether an order challenged is
interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the
Code, the sole test is not whether such order
was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar
Nath v State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v State
of Maharashtra, 8 VC Shukla v State,9 and
Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v Uttam 10).
The feasible test is whether upholding the
objections raised by a party, it would result in
culminating the proceedings, if so any order
passed on such objections would not be merely
interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section
397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the
objection raised by the appellants were upheld
by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings
would have been terminated. Hence, as per the
said standard, the order was revisable."
Amar Nath And Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 29 July, 1977
"11. [....] It is now well-nigh settled that in
deciding whether an order challenged is
interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the
Code, the sole test is not whether such order
was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar
Nath v State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v State
of Maharashtra, 8 VC Shukla v State,9 and
Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v Uttam 10).
The feasible test is whether upholding the
objections raised by a party, it would result in
culminating the proceedings, if so any order
passed on such objections would not be merely
interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section
397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the
objection raised by the appellants were upheld
by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings
would have been terminated. Hence, as per the
said standard, the order was revisable."
Section 19 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Ram Sarup vs Chimman Lal And Ors. on 11 September, 1951
He would rely on a decision in the case of
Ram Sarup Vs. Chimman Lal., reported in 1951 SCC
Page 8 of 35
Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Fri Oct 18 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 18 21:34:57 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1268/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2024
undefined
OnLIne AII 238., to submit that the learned judge has
committed an error to construe the fact of past residence
to mean as "ordinary residence".
Kirtibhai Meghjibhai Rathod vs Kanjibhai Virabhai Solanki on 25 September, 2023
Reliance was also
placed on a decision in the case of Kiritbhai Meghjibhai
Rathod Vs. Kanjibhai Virabhai Solanki., rendered in
Appeal From Order No. 95 of 2022 dated 25.09.2023,
on the ground that it would be applicable in the facts of
the present case. That there cannot be a presumption
that the ordinary residence would mean the residence
where the natural guardian would reside.
Ruchi Majoo vs Sanjeev Majoo on 13 May, 2011
8.12 The question, therefore, that needs to be addressed
by us is whether the Family Court in the facts of the case,
though there was no dispute on the aspect of permanent
address of the child being at Maharashtra, vis-a-vis the
past residence of the child at Navsari, could have decided
in favour of the father only on the ground of his past
residence at Navsari before the death of the mother. We
also note that the Trial Court would have, therefore, to
reweigh its options in deciding the jurisdictional aspects
of the application in accordance with the law set out by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruchi Mazoo
(supra).
Shah Harichand Ratanchand vs Virbbal And Ors. on 14 September, 1973
8.11 Perusal of the order impugned before us would
indicate that this factual inquiry has not been undertaken
by the Family Court. Even in the case of Shah
Harichand (supra), though a Division Bench of this
Court considered the question of the application in the
facts where the ward was removed from the father's
custody in this case, what needs to be noted is that the
Division Bench observed that if there are two places
Page 31 of 35
Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Fri Oct 18 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 18 21:34:57 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1268/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2024
undefined
where it could be held that the minor was ordinarily
residing the question would be one of convenience
because the legislative test would be fulfilled. The
question, however, cannot be decided on presumptive,
legal or constructive custody but by an application of the
statutory test of ordinary residence of the minor. This,
according to the Division Bench would surely be a
question of facts to be resolved in each case by taking
into consideration all the relevant circumstances. Para 3
of the decision reads as under: