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

1998 Supreme(Kar) 481

B.PADMARAJ, CHIDANANDA ULLAL
SATEPPA BASAPPA – Appellant
Versus
KU. GEETHA – Respondent


Advocates:
R.B.DESHPANDE, S.Mahesh

CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision Petition has been placed before us to decide whether the order passed under Sec. 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act 1984 (henceforth in brief referred to for convenience as 'the Act' ( by the Family Court has to be challenged either as a Civil Revision Petition or as a Criminal Revision Petition and has to be disposed of by the learned single Judge of this Court under the provisions of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. Such a situation had occurred before the learned single Judge of this Court in view of the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Sathyabhama v. Ramachandran reported in 1998 (1) Crimes 143 : (1997 Cri LJ 4306), wherein it was held that for the purpose of Sec. 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act (as amended in 1991), the Family Court acted as a Criminal Court and not as a Civil Court and in that view of the matter, the revision petitions to challenge the orders under the said provision of law has to be registered as revision petition (Family Court) liable to be disposed of by a learned single Judge under Sec. 3 (8) of the Kerala High Court Act as proceedings of a Criminal Court. The order for reference























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