Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)
Mohammad Alam vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 January, 2023 cites

Santosh (Smt) vs Naresh Pal on 2 March, 1998

In revision against the maintenance order passed in proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C., the revisional court has no power to re-assess 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 child and the woman. This was the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Santosh (Smt.) vs. Naresh Pal , as also in the case of Parvathy Rani Sahu vs. Bishnu Sahu. 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, Cr.P.C. is that it should not be disturbed while exercising revisional jurisdiction.''
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs Bidyut Prava Dixit And Another on 14 October, 1999

In case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another, AIR 1999 SC 3348, it has been observed the standard of proof of marriage in a Section 125 proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial for an offence under Section 494 IPC. The Court explained the reason for the aforesaid finding by holding that an order passed in an application under Section 125 does not really determine the rights and obligations of the parties as the section is enacted with a view to provide a summary remedy to neglected wives to obtain maintenance. It was held that maintenance cannot be denied where there was some evidence on which conclusions of living together could be reached. It was further observed as under :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 152 - Full Document

Suresh Mondal vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 December, 2015

"........it is well-settled that the revisional court can interfere only if there is any illegality in the order or there is any material irregularity in the procedure or there is an error of jurisdiction. The High Court under its revisional jurisdiction is not required to enter into re- appreciation of evidence recorded in the order granting maintenance; at the most it could correct a patent error of jurisdiction. It has been laid down in a series of decisions including Suresh Mondal vs. State of Jharkhand AIR 2006 Jhar. R 153 that in a case where the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance holding that the wife had been neglected and the wife was entitled to maintenance, the scope of interference by the revisional court is very limited. The revisional court would not substitute its own finding and upset the maintenance order recorded by the Magistrate.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi vs Pyla Suri Demudu & Anr on 9 August, 2011

11. Further, it has also to be kept in mind that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction it is not required to enter into re- appraisal of evidence and the court can not substitute its own findings in place of which are recorded in the order granting maintenance. Under the revisional jurisdiction, the question whether the O.P. No. 2 is a married wife of revisionist, being pre-eminently questions of fact, cannot be re-opened in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, as has been held in the case of Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi Vs Pyla Suri Demudu and another reported in 201(3) ACR 3538 (SC), wherein it has been held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 52 - G S Misra - Full Document

S. Sethurathinam Piliai vs Barbara Alias Dolly Sethurathinam on 20 December, 1972

In such a situation, this Court in S. Sethurathinam Pillai v. Barbara alias Dolly Sethurthinam, {1971 (3) SCC 923} observed that maintenance under Section 488 Cr.P.C., 1898 (Similar to Section 125 Cr.P.C.) cannot be denied where there was some evidence on which conclusion for grant of maintenance could be reached. It was held that order passed under Section 488 is a summary order which does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties; the decision of the criminal court that there was a valid marriage between the parties will not operate as decisive in any civil proceeding between the parties."
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 29 - Full Document
1   2 Next