Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)Section 397 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Urvashi Aggarwal & Ors vs Inderpaul Aggarwal on 5 October, 2021
Though this
Court cannot delve deep into the minute and excruciating
details of the matter, it can arrive at the well comprehended
conclusion that a father has an equal duty to provide for his
children and there cannot be a situation wherein it is only
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR CRL.REV.P. 619/2016 8 of 15
Signing Date:21.08.2024
11:14:11
the mother who has to bear the burden of expenses for
raising and educating the children [Refer to Urvashi
Aggarwal v. Inderpaul Aggarwal, 2021 SCC OnLine Del
3242]."
Rajnesh vs Neha on 4 November, 2020
"22. The receipt of maintenance is not, however, exclusive
to woman and children who are on the edge of destitution
and potential vagrancy. In fact, there is no straitjacket
formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be
awarded. The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2
SCC 324, had comprehensively listed all the factors that
must be taken into consideration and how a careful and just
balance must be drawn between. Therein, the Apex Court
had observed that an able-bodied husband must be
presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to
maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he
is in position to earn sufficient to maintain his family.
Further, the Court is required to have due regard to the
standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling
inflation rates and high cost of living..."
Jayant Bhargava vs Priya Bhargava on 1 April, 2011
In Jayant
Bhargava v. Priya Bhargava, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 1651,
this Hon'ble Court had stated that it was the duty of the
Courts to ensure that it should not be that one spouse lives
in a life of comfort and luxury while the other spouse lives a
life of deprivation and poverty. Further, this Court also
noticed that there was a tendency of spouses in proceedings
for maintenance to not truthfully disclose their income, and
that in such cases, some guesswork on the part of the Court
would be permissible..."
Anju Garg vs Deepak Kumar Garg on 28 September, 2022
In
Anju Garg (supra), the Supreme Court observed as under:
Chaturbhuj vs Sita Bai on 27 November, 2007
In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2
SCC 316, it has been held that the object of maintenance
proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect,
but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife,
by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy
remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a
measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR CRL.REV.P. 619/2016 10 of 15
Signing Date:21.08.2024
11:14:11
women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional
sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the
Constitution of India."
Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi vs Pyla Suri Demudu & Anr on 9 August, 2011
19. The petition invokes revisional jurisdiction of this Court. It is
reiterated that Courts need not reassess or re-appreciate material and evidence
available on record. In revision, a court is to limit its jurisdiction for
adjudication of illegalities and irregularities apparent. Reference in this regard
may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pyla Mutyalamma v.
Pyla Suri Demudu & Anr. (2011) 12 SCC 189 where it has been observed as
under:
Santosh (Smt) vs Naresh Pal on 2 March, 1998
By:MANISH KUMAR CRL.REV.P. 619/2016 11 of 15
Signing Date:21.08.2024
11:14:11
"16. In a revision against the maintenance order passed in
proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, the Revisional Court
has no power to reassess evidence and substitute its own
findings. Under revisional jurisdiction, the questions
whether the applicant is a married wife, the children are
legitimate/illegitimate, being pre-eminently questions of
fact, cannot be reopened and the Revisional Court cannot
substitute its own views. The High Court, therefore, is not
required in revision to interfere with the positive finding in
favour of the marriage and patronage of a child. But where
finding is a negative one, the High Court would entertain
the revision, re-evaluate the evidence and come to a
conclusion whether the findings or conclusions reached by
the Magistrate are legally sustainable or not as negative
finding has evil consequences on the life of both the child
and the woman. This was the view expressed by the
Supreme Court in Santosh v. Naresh Pal [(1998) 8 SCC
447], as also in Pravati Rani Sahoo v. Bishnupada
Sahoo [(2002) 10 SCC 510 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1140] . Thus,
the ratio decidendi which emerges out of a catena of
authorities on the efficacy and value of the order passed by
the Magistrate while determining maintenance under
Section 125 CrPC is that it should not be disturbed while
exercising revisional jurisdiction."