BHARATI H.DANGRE
Agnes Lily Irudaya – Appellant
Versus
Irudaya Kani Arsan – Respondent
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner-mother claiming maintenance for her major daughter under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the legal issue involved is whether a major daughter is entitled for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Cr.P.C.” for short) and another issue which arises out of the present proceedings, whether a mother is competent to file proceedings claiming maintenance on behalf of her major daughter.
2. A brief in sight into the facts would reveal that the petitioner, a Roman Catholics, was married to respondent no.1 in the year 1988 and three children were born from the wedlock. At present, two sons are aged 25 and 24 years respectively and daughter Alcina Judy is presently 19 years. It is the claim of the petitioner that all the major children are residing with her. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondent had deserted her in the year 1997 and she was living with her minor children and on the contrary the respondent is living an adulterous life. The petitioner had filed proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C. bearing petition No.E24/2003 in the Family Court, Mumbai seeki
None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The case law description focuses solely on the legal principles established within that particular case, without any mention of subsequent negative treatment or judicial invalidation.
Followed/Established Law:
The case law describes the rights of children of Muslim parents to claim maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and clarifies the scope of this right, including specific provisions for females under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The language suggests this case is establishing or reaffirming legal principles rather than being overruled or criticized.
Since there is no indication of subsequent treatment, this case appears to be treated as good law or at least unchallenged in the provided context.
Uncertain Cases:
None explicitly listed or indicated as uncertain. The description provided does not mention any treatment that would suggest questioning, criticizing, or overrule.
None. The treatment of the case law provided is clear and unambiguous in the description, with no indication of subsequent judicial treatment that would render it uncertain.
**Source :** Jagdish Jugtawat VS Manju Lata - Supreme Court Noor Saba Khatoon VS Mohd. Quasim - Supreme Court Vijaykumar Jagdishrai Chawla VS Reeta Vijaykumar Chawla - Bombay
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.