Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Nagendra Nath Bora & Another vs The Commissioner Of Hills Divisionand ... on 7 February, 1958
7. The learned Advocate for the respondent urges at the first instance that the present proceeding which has arisen out of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution restricts the powers of this Court only to see that the subordinate courts kept within the bounds of their authority and not for any other purpose. It is true in Waryam Singh v. Amar Nath , Nagendra v. Commr. , Babhut Mal v. Laxmi Bai , Md. Yunus v. Md. Mustagim the Hon'ble Supreme Court held again and again that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to seeing that an inferior court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. From that it does not ; follow however that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot look into the evidence on record to see as to whether the findings recorded were not passed on any material or were otherwise perverse.
Mohd. Yunus vs Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors on 4 October, 1983
7. The learned Advocate for the respondent urges at the first instance that the present proceeding which has arisen out of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution restricts the powers of this Court only to see that the subordinate courts kept within the bounds of their authority and not for any other purpose. It is true in Waryam Singh v. Amar Nath , Nagendra v. Commr. , Babhut Mal v. Laxmi Bai , Md. Yunus v. Md. Mustagim the Hon'ble Supreme Court held again and again that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to seeing that an inferior court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. From that it does not ; follow however that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot look into the evidence on record to see as to whether the findings recorded were not passed on any material or were otherwise perverse.
Nibaran Chandra Bag Etc vs Mahendra Nath Ghughu on 28 November, 1962
That has been specifically laid down in Nibaran v. Mahendra Nath AIR 1963 SC 1895. What is necessary is that the perverseness of the finding should be apparent on the face of the records and that it should not be apparent only when evidence has been gone into in details which falls within the exclusive powers of the appellate court.
Chander Parkash Bodh Raj vs Shila Rani Chander Prakash on 16 April, 1968
8. It is urged next from the side of the respondent that since the present petitioner is an able-bodied young man, it is to be presumed that he is capable of earning sufficient means so as to be able to reasonably maintain his wife and that it is for him to establish cogent grounds for holding that he is unable for reasons beyond his control to earn enough to maintain his wife. Chander Parkash v. Smt. Sila Rani is cited in this connection. With all respect to the Hon'ble Judge who delivered this judgment it must be pointed out that there is really no such presumption in law and that such, a presumption cannot also be spelt out from the language of the Section 125 Cr. P.C. Marriage is the normal state in this country and people who habitually live below the poverty line (their number is quite substantial) and even beggars marry in this country. Ordinarily such people cannot even maintain themselves in a proper way. Marriage does not endow them with any ability not only to maintain their own selves but also their wives in a proper way. In that view of the matter it is difficult to understand why from the very fact a person is able-bodied, it is to be presumed that he is in a position to pay sufficient maintenance to his wife, whether in fact he is in such a position or not.
1