Sec.125, 127 and 128 of Cr.P.C. whether preferring for civil prison is enough to satisfy the arrears of maintenance ? default in payment in the proceedings for recovery of arrears of maintenance to the wife and children, sending of husband to jail is not a mode of discharging the liability being a mode of recovery and not a substitute for recovery, the Apex Court directed to put the husband in jail till he makes payment and application for recovery of arrears by wife, the husband cannot be absolved from liability merely because he prefers to go to jail. whether arrest or attachment which is first ? It is to say Section 128 of Cr.P.C. not provided with procedure of destraint warrant against properties to recover before seeking to send to jail as mode of recovery. Dismissal of earlier petition for modification - no bar to file a fresh application under sec.127 Cr.P.C. no way a bar to his filing fresh application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for alteration of the maintenance order, if he is able to show that son attained majority by virtue of the original maintenance order till then he is liable and if the daughters marriage shown performed pursuant to the maintenance order, apart from which if he is able to show that he was removed from service and what are the terminal benefits he received and what is the avocation he is pursuing and what are the properties in his name, what rents he is receiving and from which and how much quantum that can be reduced in the maintenance claim of the wife and the children to consider afresh for the prospective liability from date of such petition and till then it no way shelters the existing liability of maintenance to pay else to execute and recover. So far as existing arrears concerned, the revision petitioner (husband) is granted two months time from today dated 25.11.2014 to pay all arrears including of the pending execution petition, if not, trial court can proceed with the execution after expiry of two months period according to law. 2015 A.P. msk law reports

Sec.125, 127 and 128 of Cr.P.C.
whether preferring for civil prison is enough to satisfy the arrears of maintenance ?
default in payment in the proceedings for recovery of
arrears of maintenance to the wife and children, sending
of husband to jail is not a mode of discharging the
liability being a mode of recovery and not a substitute for
recovery, the Apex Court directed to put the husband in
jail till he makes payment and application for recovery of
arrears by wife, the husband cannot be absolved from
liability merely because he prefers to go to jail.

whether arrest or attachment which is first ?
It is to say Section 128 of Cr.P.C. not provided with
procedure of destraint warrant against properties to
recover before seeking to send to jail as mode of recovery.

Dismissal of earlier petition for modification - no bar to file a fresh application under sec.127 Cr.P.C.
no way a bar to his filing fresh
application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for alteration of
the maintenance order, if he is able to show that son
attained majority by virtue of the original maintenance
order till then he is liable and if the daughters marriage
shown performed pursuant to the maintenance order,
apart from which if he is able to show that he was
removed from service and what are the terminal benefits
he received and what is the avocation he is pursuing and
what are the properties in his name, what rents he is
receiving and from which and how much quantum that
can be reduced in the maintenance claim of the wife and
the children to consider afresh for the prospective liability
from date of such petition and till then it no way shelters
the existing liability of maintenance to pay else to execute
and recover.  So far as existing arrears concerned, the
revision petitioner (husband) is granted two months time
from today dated 25.11.2014 to pay all arrears including
of the pending execution petition, if not, trial court can
proceed with the execution after expiry of two months
period according to law. 2015 A.P. msk law reports

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS