Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.27 seconds)Section 128 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
A.N.Sehgal And Ors vs Raje Ram Sheoran And Ors on 5 April, 1991
[(See A.N. Sehgal and Ors. v. Raje Ram Sheoran (AIR 1991 SC 1406), Tribhovandas Haribhai Tamboli v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (AIR 1991 SC 1538) and Kerala State Housing Board and Ors. v. Ramapriya Hotels (P)Ltd. (1994) 5 SCC 672].
Tribhovandas Haribhai Tamboli vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal And Ors on 10 May, 1991
[(See A.N. Sehgal and Ors. v. Raje Ram Sheoran (AIR 1991 SC 1406), Tribhovandas Haribhai Tamboli v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (AIR 1991 SC 1538) and Kerala State Housing Board and Ors. v. Ramapriya Hotels (P)Ltd. (1994) 5 SCC 672].
Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 26 April, 1996
9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC 479, while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that: (SCC p. 489, para 15)
"15. ... While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation."
Dukhtar Jahan vs Mohammed Farooq on 20 January, 1987
In Smt. Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohammed Farooq (1987) 1 SCC 624, the Court opined that: (SCC p. 631, para 16)
"16. .....Proceedings under Section 125 of the Code, it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner."
Smt. Kuldip Kaur vs Surinder Singh And Anr on 3 November, 1988
"5. The decision of this Court in Kuldip Kaur v. Surinder Singh, (1989) 1 SCC 405, may be usefully recalled wherein this Court has held the provision of sentencing under Section 125 (3) to be a "mode of enforcement" as distinguished from the "mode of satisfaction" of the liability which can only be by means of actual payment. ...
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Shahada Khatoon And Ors. vs Amjad Ali And Ors. on 7 April, 1999
The nature of the right to receive maintenance and the concomitant liability to pay was also noticed in a decision of this Court in Shahada Khatoon & Ors. v. Amjad Ali, (1999) 5 SCC 672. Though in a slightly different context, the remedy to approach the court by means of successive applications under Section 125(3) CrPC highlighting the subsequent defaults in payment of maintenance was acknowledged by this Court in Shahada Khatoon.
Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills And ... vs Subbash Chandra Yograj Sinha on 21 April, 1961
"10. The normal function of a proviso is to except something out of the enactment or to qualify something enacted therein which but for the proviso would be within the purview of the enactment. As was stated in Mullins v. Treasurer of Surrey [(1880) 5 QBD 170], (referred to in Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills and Ginning Factory v. Subhash Chandra Yograj Sinha (AIR 1961 SC 1596) and Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta (AIR 1965 SC 1728), when one finds a proviso to a section the natural presumption is that, but for the proviso, the enacting part of the section would have included the subject matter of the proviso. The proper function of a proviso is to except and to deal with a case which would otherwise fall within the general language of the main enactment and its effect is confined to that case. It is a qualification of the preceding enactment which is expressed in terms too general to be quite accurate. As a general rule, a proviso is added to an enactment to qualify or create an exception to what is in the enactment and ordinarily, a proviso is not interpreted as stating a general rule. "If the language of the enacting part of the statute does not contain the provisions which are said to occur in it you cannot derive these provisions by implication from a proviso.