SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(Kar) 90

NORONHA
DEVAKI – Appellant
Versus
DOODA S. PUTRAN – Respondent


Advocates:
P.Ranachandra Rao, V.G.Vaantha Kumar, V.K.Govindarajulu, Yashoda

( 1 ) THE petitioner filed M. C. No. 148 of 1970 before the Addl. First Class magistrate, Mangalore, against her father the respondent, under S. 488 (3) criminal Procedure Code, claiming arrears of maintenance at Rs. 20 per month, in execution of the order in M. C. No. 27 of 1964 of that Court, dt. 23-6-1965. Her claim was for the period 24-10-1969 to 23-11-1970. The respondent filed a written statement resisting the application. The learned magistrate dismissed the application. In this Revision the petitioner assails that order.

( 2 ) THE only material we have is the petition dt. 8-12-1970 and the written statement dt. 17-3-1971. The petitioner did not seek to file a reply neither side desired to adduce evidence.

( 3 ) THE contentions of Sri V. G. Vasantha Kumar, learned Advocate of the petitioner, that the Court below ought to have taken the initiative for evidence being adduced, and that there is no provision in the Crl. P. C. for a reply being filed, are propositions which have to be stated only to be rejected. I, however, agree with him that the learned Magistrate was not justified in having recourse to S. 489 (2) Cr. P. C. and also in speculating on the means of the responden








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top