Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)
Madan vs Neelam And Anr on 25 February, 2016 cites

Shahada Khatoon And Ors. vs Amjad Ali And Ors. on 7 April, 1999

17. In view of the discussions made above, the order of the learned Family Judge is wholly unsustainable. I am fortified in my view by a decision of the Apex Court reported in (1999) 5 SCC 672:(1999 AIR SCW 4880) (Shahada Khatoon v. Amjad Ali). The Apex Court has gone to the extent of saying that the confinement can extend to only one month and if even after the expiry of one month the delinquent husband does not make the payment of arrears SUNIL SEHGAL 2016.02.25 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1677 of 2015 (O&M) -9- then the wife can approach the Magistrate again for a similar relief but the confinement of the husband must be only of one month. This decision of the Apex Court further lays down a fetter in the exercise of this power by the Judicial Magistrate or the Family Judge to the extent that only a confinement for a period of one month can be passed on an application whether the amount claimed by the wife as arrears is for more than one month or for only a month. In one stroke no composite confinement can be directed by the Court. It very clearly flows from the above decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 107 - M B Shah - Full Document

Sateppa Basappa Paschapuri vs Kum. Geetha on 31 July, 1998

7. The counsel for the petitioner had urged that the revision was maintainable under Section 19(4) of the Act which was analogous provision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and this aspect has been examined by various High Courts in Rajesh Shukla Vs. Smt. Meena Shukla and another SUNIL SEHGAL 2016.02.25 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1677 of 2015 (O&M) -3- 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 275, Aakansha Shrivastava Vs. Virendra Shrivastava and another 2010(5) RCR (Criminal) and Sateppa Basappa Vs. Ku. Geetha 1999 CRI LJ 927. It was urged that the husband could not have been sentenced to an imprisonment for more than one month and in case of non-payment of maintenance, the wife could approach again for similar relief and the family Court had imposed a sentence of more than one year which is illegal.
Karnataka High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 5 - B Padmaraj - Full Document

Rajesh Shukla vs Smt. Meena And Anr. on 8 April, 2005

7. The counsel for the petitioner had urged that the revision was maintainable under Section 19(4) of the Act which was analogous provision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and this aspect has been examined by various High Courts in Rajesh Shukla Vs. Smt. Meena Shukla and another SUNIL SEHGAL 2016.02.25 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1677 of 2015 (O&M) -3- 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 275, Aakansha Shrivastava Vs. Virendra Shrivastava and another 2010(5) RCR (Criminal) and Sateppa Basappa Vs. Ku. Geetha 1999 CRI LJ 927. It was urged that the husband could not have been sentenced to an imprisonment for more than one month and in case of non-payment of maintenance, the wife could approach again for similar relief and the family Court had imposed a sentence of more than one year which is illegal.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Ashim Kumar Chatterjee vs Smt. Moushumi Chatterjee Nee ... on 12 November, 2010

8. On the other hand, the submission on behalf of the wife was that an order had been passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the execution had been filed and the Court could not go into the legality or validity of the order and the Calcutta High Court had dismissed the revision. Reliance was placed upon Ashim Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Smt. Moushumi Chatterjee Nee Bhattacharjee 2011(1) AICLR 507 (Calcutta). It was urged that the husband had failed to pay the amount and therefore, could not be released. It was urged that there was an offer that he would deposit the amount but still the amount has not been paid.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - A K Roy - Full Document
1