Ramesh Vs. Laxmi Bai

Ramesh vs Laxmi Bai

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 17, 1996

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/508590

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/508590
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: Rajeev Gupta, J.
Decided On: Jul 17, 1996
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 577 of 1996
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 147; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, S.S. Jha & A.M. Sapre, JJ] Liability of Insurer - Third party insurance Held, The insured who is a party to the insurance is not a third party for the purpose of Chapter XI of the Act, particularly Section 147 thereof. Thus, any person ot...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 97

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramesh

Advocate Atul Awasthy, Adv.

Respondent

Laxmi Bai

Advocate None

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 97
Reported In: II(1997)DMC125

Excerpt

.....be liable for any bodily injury or death of a third party in an accident unless the liability is fastened on the insurer under the provisions of section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. an employee is a third party inasmuch as he is not a party to the insurance policy. but merely because an employee is a third party, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate in case such employee suffers bodily injury or dies in an accident in which the motor vehicle is involved unless section 147 of the act fixes such liability on the insured or unless the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance fixes liability on the insurer. section 147 (1)(b) of the act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of chapter xi of the act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against the liabilities mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereunder. even if an employee is a passenger or a person travelling in a motor vehicle which is insured as per the requirements of sub-section (1) of section 147 of the act, the insurer will not be liable to cover any liability in respect of death or bodily injury of such employee unless such employee falls in one of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1)of section 147 of the act and further in cases where such employees fall under categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1`) of section 147 of the act, the insurer is liable only for the liability under the workmens compensation act, 1923. [national insurance co. ltd. v sarvanlal, 2004 (4)..........of their minor child, amit kumar, in the court. frustrated mother laxmi bai then ap- proached the court of sessions, by filing a revision petition against the dismissal of her application by the s.d.m. the revisional court, on considering facts in its entirety, while allowing the revision petition directed s.d.m., bhatapara for issuing a search warrant for the production of minor child amit kumar, in the court. the revisional court further directed that the minor child amit kumar, on his production in the court, be allowed to go and remain with his mother, laxmi bai.3. mr. awasthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the revisional court has transgressed its limits, as no such order could have been passed by a criminal court, in the proceedings, initiated under section 97, cr. p.c. 4. while considering the question relating to the custody of a minor child, the interest and welfare of the child should always be the paramount considera- tion. the natural and ideal arrangement, from the child's point of view, is that the child lives with his father and mother both. as mother and father supplement each other in looking after and in bringing up their child, none of them can substitute the other's role. in the unfortunate situation of the father and mother falling apart, the courts are forced to perform the unhappy task of making a choice between the two and for entrusting the minor child in his/her custody. no hard and fast rule of universal application, in that behalf, can be laid down. the choice between father and mother would depend on the facts of each case.5. on perusing the revisional court's order, it is found that petitioner ramesh, after divorcing his first wife, has married again and his second wife has given birth to a female child also. from the above developments, it is apparent that minor child amit kumar, at present, is in the custody of his step-mother. though there is nothing wrong in allowing a child to remain in the.....

Full Judgment

Rajeev Gupta, J.

1. Petitioner Ramesh, who claims to have divorced his non- petitioner/wife Smt. Laxmi Bai, has filed this revision petition challenging the correctness and propriety of the order dated 9.7.1996, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, Raipur in Criminal Revision No. 210/95.

2. S.D.M., Bhatapara vide order dated 20.2.1995 dismissed the application, filed by non-petitioner/wife Laxmi Bai, under the provision of Section 97, Cr.P.C, praying for a direction to petitioner-husband Ramesh, for the production of their minor child, Amit Kumar, in the Court. Frustrated mother Laxmi Bai then ap- proached the Court of Sessions, by filing a revision petition against the dismissal of her application by the S.D.M. The Revisional Court, on considering facts in its entirety, while allowing the revision petition directed S.D.M., Bhatapara for issuing a search warrant for the production of minor child Amit Kumar, in the Court. The Revisional Court further directed that the minor child Amit Kumar, on his production in the Court, be allowed to go and remain with his mother, Laxmi Bai.

3. Mr. Awasthy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Revisional Court has transgressed its limits, as no such order could have been passed by a Criminal Court, in the proceedings, initiated under Section 97, Cr. P.C.

4. While considering the question relating to the custody of a minor child, the interest and welfare of the child should always be the paramount considera- tion. The natural and ideal arrangement, from the child's point of view, is that the child lives with his father and mother both. As mother and father supplement each other in looking after and in bringing up their child, none of them can substitute the other's role. In the unfortunate situation of the father and mother falling apart, the Courts are forced to perform the unhappy task of making a choice between the two and for entrusting the minor child in his/her custody. No hard and fast rule of universal application, in that behalf, can be laid down. The choice between father and mother would depend on the facts of each case.

5. On perusing the Revisional Court's order, it is found that petitioner Ramesh, after divorcing his first wife, has married again and his second wife has given birth to a female child also. From the above developments, it is apparent that minor child Amit Kumar, at present, is in the custody of his step-mother. Though there is nothing wrong in allowing a child to remain in the custody of his step- mother, but adopting such a course during the life time of his real mother will never be in the interest of the 'child'. The petitioner, in the revision petition, has not denied the fact of his second marriage.

6. From the above narration of facts, it emerges out that the impugned order will result in the mother and child living together. Allowing the child to remain with his mother will help child Amit Kumar in his normal, physical and mental development.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order, passed by the Revisional Court, even if the same does not come within the ambit of Section 97 Cr.P.C, deserves to be maintained, as this Court is of the opinion that the directions, contained in the impugned order, are in the interest of minor child Amit Kumar.

8. Consequently, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed summarily.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 1996 Same Parties Ramesh vs Laxmi Bai Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Rajeev Gupta, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 97

Criminal