Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

In Re: Ponnammal

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 14, 1892
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/791165

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code. Act X of 1882, Section 488--Maintenance case--Failure to pay process fees. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Ponnammal

Legal References

Cases Referred
Reg. v. Thakur Ira
Reported In
(1893)ILR16Mad234

Excerpt

criminal procedure code. act x of 1882, section 488--maintenance case--failure to pay process fees. - 1. we are of opinion that the district magistrate is right. section 20, clause ii of the court fees act has reference only to fees for processes issued in the case of 'offences,' and it has been held that an order for payment of maintenance is not a conviction for an 'offence' see queen v. golam hossein 2. chowdhry 7 w.r. cr., 10; cf. reg. v. thakur ira 5 bom. h.c.r. 81.2. we, therefore, set aside the head assistant magistrate's order dismissing the application and direct the magistrate to proceed with the inquiry and pass an order in accordance with law.

Full Judgment

1. We are of opinion that the District Magistrate is right. Section 20, clause II of the Court Fees Act has reference only to fees for processes issued in the case of 'offences,' and it has been held that an order for payment of maintenance is not a conviction for an 'offence' see Queen v. Golam Hossein 2. Chowdhry 7 W.R. Cr., 10; cf. Reg. v. Thakur Ira 5 Bom. H.C.R. 81.

2. We, therefore, set aside the Head Assistant Magistrate's order dismissing the application and direct the Magistrate to proceed with the inquiry and pass an order in accordance with law.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Ponnammal vs Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Handley and ;Best, JJ.
Criminal

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales