Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.32 seconds)Section 127 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 362 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
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."
The Indian Majority Act, 1875
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."
Sanjeev Kapoor vs Chandana Kapoor on 19 February, 2020
In Sanjeev Kapoor Vs. Chandana Kapoor and others6, after examining the legislative scheme as delineated by Sections 125 and 127 Cr.P.C., and the express provisions where an order passed thereunder can be cancelled or altered, it was held that the embargo as contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C. is relaxed in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The observations made in the judgment, in this regard, are as follows:
Sankatha Singh vs State Of U.P on 25 January, 1962
23. The scope of Section 362 Cr.P.C. was also considered, and it was held that the rigour contained in the section, is relaxed in two conditions, that is to say, where power to alter or review a judgment or final order is provided either; (i) by the Code of Criminal Procedure itself, or (ii) any other law for the time being in force. As regards the embargo put on the criminal court to alter or review its judgment, it was observed that the same is with a purpose and object. Referring to the earlier decisions in Sankatha Singh v. State of U.P.7, Sooraj Devi vs. Pyare Lal8, Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee9, Hari Singh v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa10, State v. K.V. Rajendran11, Mahua Biswas v. Swagata Biswas12; and the law summarized therein, it was observed that criminal justice delivery system does not clothe criminal courts with power to alter or review a judgment or final order disposing of a case except to correct the clerical or arithmetical errors.
Smt. Sooraj Devi vs Pyare Lal And Anr on 8 January, 1981
23. The scope of Section 362 Cr.P.C. was also considered, and it was held that the rigour contained in the section, is relaxed in two conditions, that is to say, where power to alter or review a judgment or final order is provided either; (i) by the Code of Criminal Procedure itself, or (ii) any other law for the time being in force. As regards the embargo put on the criminal court to alter or review its judgment, it was observed that the same is with a purpose and object. Referring to the earlier decisions in Sankatha Singh v. State of U.P.7, Sooraj Devi vs. Pyare Lal8, Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee9, Hari Singh v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa10, State v. K.V. Rajendran11, Mahua Biswas v. Swagata Biswas12; and the law summarized therein, it was observed that criminal justice delivery system does not clothe criminal courts with power to alter or review a judgment or final order disposing of a case except to correct the clerical or arithmetical errors.