Sec.125, 127 and 128 of Cr.P.C. whether preferring for civil prison is enough to satisfy the arrears of maintenance ? default in payment in the proceedings for recovery of arrears of maintenance to the wife and children, sending of husband to jail is not a mode of discharging the liability being a mode of recovery and not a substitute for recovery, the Apex Court directed to put the husband in jail till he makes payment and application for recovery of arrears by wife, the husband cannot be absolved from liability merely because he prefers to go to jail. whether arrest or attachment which is first ? It is to say Section 128 of Cr.P.C. not provided with procedure of destraint warrant against properties to recover before seeking to send to jail as mode of recovery. Dismissal of earlier petition for modification - no bar to file a fresh application under sec.127 Cr.P.C. no way a bar to his filing fresh application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for alteration of the maintenance order, if he is able to show that son attained majority by virtue of the original maintenance order till then he is liable and if the daughters marriage shown performed pursuant to the maintenance order, apart from which if he is able to show that he was removed from service and what are the terminal benefits he received and what is the avocation he is pursuing and what are the properties in his name, what rents he is receiving and from which and how much quantum that can be reduced in the maintenance claim of the wife and the children to consider afresh for the prospective liability from date of such petition and till then it no way shelters the existing liability of maintenance to pay else to execute and recover. So far as existing arrears concerned, the revision petitioner (husband) is granted two months time from today dated 25.11.2014 to pay all arrears including of the pending execution petition, if not, trial court can proceed with the execution after expiry of two months period according to law. 2015 A.P. msk law reports

Sec.125, 127 and 128 of Cr.P.C.
whether preferring for civil prison is enough to satisfy the arrears of maintenance ?
default in payment in the proceedings for recovery of
arrears of maintenance to the wife and children, sending
of husband to jail is not a mode of discharging the
liability being a mode of recovery and not a substitute for
recovery, the Apex Court directed to put the husband in
jail till he makes payment and application for recovery of
arrears by wife, the husband cannot be absolved from
liability merely because he prefers to go to jail.

whether arrest or attachment which is first ?
It is to say Section 128 of Cr.P.C. not provided with
procedure of destraint warrant against properties to
recover before seeking to send to jail as mode of recovery.

 Dismissal of earlier petition for modification - no bar to file a fresh application under sec.127 Cr.P.C.
no way a bar to his filing fresh
application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for alteration of
the maintenance order, if he is able to show that son
attained majority by virtue of the original maintenance
order till then he is liable and if the daughters marriage
shown performed pursuant to the maintenance order,
apart from which if he is able to show that he was
removed from service and what are the terminal benefits
he received and what is the avocation he is pursuing and
what are the properties in his name, what rents he is
receiving and from which and how much quantum that
can be reduced in the maintenance claim of the wife and
the children to consider afresh for the prospective liability
from date of such petition and till then it no way shelters
the existing liability of maintenance to pay else to execute
and recover.  So far as existing arrears concerned, the
revision petitioner (husband) is granted two months time
from today dated 25.11.2014 to pay all arrears including
of the pending execution petition, if not, trial court can
proceed with the execution after expiry of two months
period according to law. 2015 A.P. msk law reports

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more