Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Section 127 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Krishnappa Chettiar vs Sivagami Achi on 4 September, 1952
2. Against that order, the wife filed a revision petition before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, also dismissed the appeal holding that petitioner is the second wife and there is no need for any other proof of neglect or refusal on the part of the respondent to maintain the petitioner-wife. On the facts the learned Judge found that the petitioner was getting only Rs. 200/- per year and it is hardly sufficient to maintain oneself even for one month and that she is unable to maintain herself. But, however, basing on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Krishnappa Chettiar v. Sivagami Achi, he came to the conclusion that the parties are residing separately by mutual consent as a result of compromise and provision was also made for maintenance, and therefore summary remedy provided under S. 125 Cr.P.C. is not open to the wife and she can approach the Civil Court to claim enhancement of maintenance. With these observations he dismissed the revision petition. It is against this order, this petition is filed under S. 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the order of the learned Magistrate.
Section 13B in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956
Bai Laxmiben vs Bharatbhai Vechatbhai Patel And Anr. on 6 September, 1985
No attempt has been made in the above cited decision (Bai Laxmiben's case) and, therefore, that decision is not applicable to the facts of this case.
Rahamat Ali And Ors. vs Chikan Bibi Wife Of Azgar Ali And Ors. on 19 June, 1917
"Where a claim for maintenance is amicably settled by the parties, the Magistrate should simply dismiss the petition if pending before him. - Lingadu v. Labbakka, 2 Weir 629; Mt. Rahim Bibi v. Khair Din, (1988) Pun Re No. 42 Page 107 (Cri); Raham Ali v. Fateh Bibi, (1905) Pun Re No. 39 Page 79 : (1905-2 Cri LJ 690) (Cri). In Madras High Court Cr.R.C. No. 489 of 1903, a husband and wife came to a settlement outside the Court, whereby the husband consented to maintain the wife. It was held by the High Court that the Magistrate had no longer any power to make an order under this section as it could no longer be said that the husband was refusing to maintain the wife."
1