Karnail Singh Vs. Mst. Bachan Kaur - Court Judgment
|Court||Punjab and Haryana High Court|
|Case Number||Criminal Revision No. 282 of 1953|
|Judge|| Harnam Singh, J.|
|Reported in||AIR1955P& H26; 1955CriLJ334|
|Acts||Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 340, 342 and 488|
|Respondent||Mst. Bachan Kaur|
|Appellant Advocate|| J.N. Seth, Adv.|
|Respondent Advocate|| Y.P. Gandhi, Adv.|
|Disposition||Criminal revision dismissed|
|Cases Referred||Detnello v. Mrs. Demello|
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the..........magistrate 1st class, zira, dated 24-10-52, allowing rs. 30/- as monthly maintenance to mst. bachan kaur against her husband karnail singh.2. the facts of this case are as follows : mst. bachan kaur filed an application under section 488, criminal p. c., claiming rs. 50/- per mensem as maintenance from the respondent on the ground, that she was married some 9 years ago with the respondent, and that she lived with her husband as his wife and gave birth to two daughters. it is also mentioned, that the respondent treated her well so long as her father-in-law was alive, but thereafter he fell into bad ways and gave beating to the petitioner and turned her out of the house. in spite of 'panchayats' being taken, she was not kept in the house and lastly turned her out of the same four.....
1. 'This is a revision petition against the order of Shri Beni Parshad, Magistrate 1st Class, Zira, dated 24-10-52, allowing Rs. 30/- as monthly maintenance to Mst. Bachan Kaur against her husband Karnail Singh.
2. The facts of this case are as follows : Mst. Bachan Kaur filed an application under Section 488, Criminal P. C., claiming Rs. 50/- per mensem as maintenance from the respondent on the ground, that she was married some 9 years ago with the respondent, and that she lived with her husband as his wife and gave birth to two daughters. It is also mentioned, that the respondent treated her well so long as her father-in-law was alive, but thereafter he fell into bad ways and gave beating to the petitioner and turned her out of the house. In spite of 'panchayats' being taken, she was not kept in the house and lastly turned her out of the same four years ago by giving her beating and has remarried nearly two years ago.
3. The proceedings are forwarded for revision on the following grounds :
It is urged on behalf of Karnail Singh, that the maintenance fixed is excessive and that his statement was not recorded under the provisions of Section 342, Criminal P. C., which has vitiated the trial. His counsel has cited -- Detnello v. Mrs. Demello', AIR 1926 Lah 667 (A), wherein it was observed, that the omission of the Magistrate to examine the accused as required by Section 342, Criminal P. C. vitiated the order granting maintenance. No authority to the contrary has been cited by the learned counsel for Mst. Bachan Kaur, who claimed in her revision the increase of the maintenance allowance. In view of the above cited authority, I cannot but agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for Karnail Singh.
I thus forward the revision petition of Karnail Singh to the High Court with the recommendation, that the order of the Magistrate, dated