Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)Section 127 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Joydeb Chakraborty vs Smt. Bharti Chakravarty on 4 March, 1994
Similarly, the authority of Rulia Singh's case 1990 (1) Pun LR 43 (supra) can be fully distinguished on facts . In the said case there was no allegation on the part of the wife that the proceedings were delayed or that there were any laches on the part of the husband.
Section 399 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ram Narain vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 1973
The case of Narain v. State of Rajasthan (supra) was a case where the Hon'ble Judge prima facie came to the view that a case of civil liability had been converted into a criminal one by the complainant and this aspect of the case was not considered properly by the Courts below. When the very action of the complainant was a sheer abuse of the process of law, the provisions of Section 399, Cr.P.C, do not put a blanket bar for invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, present is a case where we cannot say that the minors were absuing the process of law when they filed a legitimate petition under Section 127, Cr.P.C, for the enhancement of the amount of maintenance. On equitable and legal grounds also the father is supposed to maintain his children in a satisfactory state of condition. Hence the enhanced amount of maintenance cannot be termed either excessive or oppressive qua the father. Thus both the proposition propounded at the very outset of this judgment are replied as follows :-
Bhagat Singh vs Smt. Parkash Kaur And Ors. on 24 May, 1972
In this regard I am also fortified with the judgment of our own High Court reported as Bhagat Singh v. Smt. Parkash Kaur 1973 Crl LJ 719, wherein the Hon'ble Judge interpreted the provisions of Section 488(2) in para No. 3 of the Judgment as follows :-
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
J.H. Amroon vs R. Sassoon on 7 February, 1949
The learned Additional Sessions Judge turned down a contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that Section 489 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not permit an increase in the monthly allowance to take effect from the date when it is asked for and that it can be awarded only prospectively. The contention has been repeated before me and support for it is sought in J.H. Amroon v. Miss R. Sasson AIR 1949 Cal 584 : 1949 (50) Cri LJ 1006. Blank J., who decided that case, held that Sub-section (2) of Section 488 of the Code which runs thus -
Madan Raj Bhandari vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 July, 1969
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Rulia Singh v. Smt. Kartaro 1990 (1) Pun LR 43 Joydeb Chakraborty v. Smt. Bharati Chakraborty (1994) 1 Hindu LR 673 : 1994 Cri LJ 2234 a judgment of the Calcutta High Court and Madan v. State of Rajasthan 1993 (I) Hindu LR 632 - a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court - and it was submitted with force that the order of the learned Magistrate could only be prospective and not retrospective from the date when the application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed.