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

APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [6]

Delhi Rent control Act sec.14 - Rent Control Case - Eviction Petition - The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant  on  the  ground  that  the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son-in-law  in  contravention  of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred  to  as ‘the Act’).  -  whether  he  was doing business along with his father-in-law or independent of him,  i.e. whether  he  was  doing  business  exclusively  behind  the  façade   of   a  partnership or as a genuine partner.  It is an  uncontroverted  fact  before  us that the landlord’s permission in writing was  not  obtained  before  the  tenant had allowed the alleged sub-tenant to occupy the shop -  the Rent Controller clearly found that the son-in-law had been put  in  possession of the shop in pursua...
Read more

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, Rule 1 & 2 and Sec. 151 and sec.94 of C.P.C - Police aid when to be granted - hear both parties when resisted - to avoid dispossession of actual possessor with the help of police aid - identify the property before issuing of police aid with the help of advocate commissioner if necessary - since the defendant pleaded that before the filing of suit and after filing of the suit ,he never trespassed into the suit schedule property nor violated interim injunction order - even though no evidence of violation of injunction not filed , the lower court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent when police aid is granted -2013 A.P. msklawreports

filed the I.A.No.175 of 2010 for granting police aid on the ground that the order of ad-interim injunction could not be implemented as the petitioners involved in violating it. In particular the petitioner has not filed any document to show that the injunction granted by this Court is being violated or the respondents damaged his quarry It is the case of the respondents that they did not trespass into suit schedule property before or after the injunction is granted.  What that is the case of the respondents, this Court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the police aid is granted to implement the order of this Court. "  the Court below granted the police aid aggrieved by which the present C.R.P. has been filed However, whereas great caution is to be taken for granting ex parte ad-interim injunction equal measures are to be taken while granting police aid to enforce that order.   Under the guise of an order of ad-interim i...
Read more