Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)
Alagappan vs Thilagam on 25 April, 2000 cites

Krishnappa Chettiar vs Sivagami Achi on 4 September, 1952

That was a case where the husband and wife has entered into an agreement or arrangement as per which they decided to live separately and the wife has agreed to take a specified sum for maintenance. Separation was brought about because the husband insisted upon marrying another woman and living with her. The arrangement was made in 1948 and an agreement was entered between the husband and wife in writing. Long after that when the husband was not able to pay the amount, when he had a downfall in his business, he has failed to pay the amount and the wife filed a petition under Section 488, Cr.P.C. which was the relevant section dealing with maintenance in the old Criminal Procedure Code. It was held in that case by a single Judge of this Court that there can be no doubt that a Magistrate purporting to act under this section cannot assume the functions of a civil Court and give judgment in accordance with a bond evidencing a com promise entered into between a husband and a wife. Where a claim for maintenance is amicably settled by the parties, the Magistrate should simply dismiss the petition, if pending before him.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Padmanabhan vs Bama on 3 February, 1987

In fact Maheswaran, J. in Padmanabhan v. Bama 1987 Mad LW (Cri) 306 : 1988 Cri LJ 1386 has clearly held that there is nothing in 127, Cr.P.C. which takes away the jurisdiction of the Court to modify its own order even though it is passed on the basis of a compromise. The words 'without prejudice to the contentions of the parties' will not alter the situation. If there has been change in the circumstances of any person receiving or paying a monthly maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C, it is always open to the Court to alter the amount under Section 127, Cr.P.C. That means, this Section would apply both to the husband and to the wife. As it has been held that the Magistrate has jurisdiction to enforce the order passed under Section 125, Cr.P.C. he would have jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 127, Cr.P.C. and deal with it in accordance with law. It is within the competence of the Magistrate to accept a compromise made by the parties and to pass an order under Section 125, Cr.P.C. giving effect to the terms agreed between the parties as to the rate of maintenance. As held in , after a compromise has been arrived at, the Court has still to pass an order and if it passes an order in terms of the compromise, it is that order and not the compromise that will be enforced subsequently. Therefore, the petition under Section 127, Cr.P.C. is perfectly maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1