Judgements Search Made Easy
Find Judgements on all Sections and Judgements by all Courts
Filter Judgements by Category and Subcategory.
Judgement By Sections or Articles
Select some options
Judgement Court
Select some options
Judgement Year
Select Judgment Year
Judgement Bench
Select Bench/Beches
Judgements
Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
- 2020
- Supreme Court Of India
Now, so far as the reliance placed upon Rule 51 of the Gujarat High Court Rules by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant is concerned, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, Rule 51 shall not have any application for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.Proceedings arising out of an application under Section 173(8) CrPC cannot be equated with the appeal or application against the order passed in criminal case as stated in Rule 51.
Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel vs Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors
- 2017
- Supreme Court Of India
The assail is of the verdict dated 10.04.2015 rendered by the High Court, setting at naught the order dated 27.5.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar, whereby the Trial Court had allowed the application filed by the appellant, the original informant, under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Code/1973 Code”) for further investigation by the police.
Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. Versus The State of Gujarat and Anr
- 2019
- Supreme Court Of India
The learned Magistrate may then decide, in the event that cognizance is taken of the police report in the FIR to be filed, as to whether a joint-trial should take place, or whether separate trials be conducted one after the other pursuant to both the FIRs.
Nagendrappa Natikar vs Neelamma
- 2013
- Supreme Court Of India
Section 25 of the Contract Act provides that any agreement which is opposed to public policy is not enforceable in a Court of Law and such an agreement is void, since the object is unlawful. Proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature and intended to provide a speedy remedy to the wife and any order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by compromise or otherwise cannot foreclose the remedy available to a wife under Section 18(2) of the Act.
Rohtash Singh vs Smt. Ramendri And Ors
- 2000
- Supreme Court Of India
It is contended that since the decree of divorce was passed on the ground of desertion by respondent, she would not be entitled to Maintenance for any period prior to the passing of the decree under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. To that extent, learned counsel appears to be correct. But for that short period, we would not be inclined to interfere.
Shamim Ara vs State Of U.P. & Anr
- 2002
- Supreme Court Of India
The respondent no.2 in his reply (written statement) dated 5.12.1990, to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., denied all the averments made in the application. One of the pleas taken by way of additional pleas is that he had divorced the appellant on 11.7.1987 and since then the parties had ceased to be spouses.
Chaturbhuj vs Sita Bai
- 2007
- Supreme Court Of India
In the instant case the trial Court, the Revisional Court and the High Court have analysed the evidence and held that the respondent wife was unable to maintain herself. The conclusions are essentially factual and they are not perverse. That being so there is no scope for interference in this appeal which is dismissed.
Kamala vs M.R.Mohan Kumar
- 2018
- Supreme Court Of India
Based upon oral and documentary evidence, when the family court held that there was a valid marriage, the High Court being the revisional court has no power reassessing the evidence and substitute its views on findings of fact. The High Court did not keep in view that in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., strict proof of marriage is not necessary. The findings recorded by the family court as to the existence of a valid marriage ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court.
Rana Nahid @ Reshma @ Sana vs Sahidul Haq Chisti
- 2020
- Supreme Court Of India
I am of the view that the Family Court, for the reasons discussed above, had the jurisdiction to convert the application of the Appellant under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C into an application under Section 3 of the 1986 Act for Muslim Women and to decide the same.