Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Christu Raj Vs. Kanagam @ Gnanaprakasi and anr.
Decided On : Jun-23-1997
Court : Chennai
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Christu Raj Vs. Kanagam @ Gnanaprakasi and anr. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure', (int) 1 => 'Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure', (int) 2 => 'Section 482' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Jayarama Chouta', (int) 1 => 'PW 2', (int) 2 => 'Kanniyakumari' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Judicial Magistrate', (int) 1 => 'the Learned Magistrate', (int) 2 => 'Judicial Magistrate', (int) 3 => 'Magistrate', (int) 4 => 'a Criminal Revision Petition No', (int) 5 => '7,7.1995', (int) 6 => 'Magistrate', (int) 7 => 'Court', (int) 8 => 'this Original Petition', (int) 9 => 'the Judicial Magistrate', (int) 10 => 'Cri' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'M.C.', (int) 1 => 'Kanyakumari', (int) 2 => 'M.C.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1989', (int) 1 => '2,500/- per month', (int) 2 => 'the last 11 years', (int) 3 => '2,500/- per month', (int) 4 => '1989', (int) 5 => '200/- per month', (int) 6 => '1993', (int) 7 => '2/500/- per month', (int) 8 => '1,500/- per month', (int) 9 => '1,500/- per month', (int) 10 => '1995' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '40', (int) 1 => '1993.2', (int) 2 => 'two', (int) 3 => '12,8,1993', (int) 4 => '18', (int) 5 => '40', (int) 6 => '200/-' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'second', (int) 3 => 'first' ), 'EVENT' => array( (int) 0 => 'PW 1' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => '23.3,1989 i.e.' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '823607', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125', 'appealno' => 'Crl. O.P. No. 7418 of 1995 and Cr. M.P. No. 4163 of 1995', 'appellant' => 'Christu Raj', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Christu Raj Vs. Kanagam @ Gnanaprakasi and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'C.S. Sivathanu Pillai, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'F.B. Benjamin George, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1997-06-23', 'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Jayarama Chouta, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Jayarama Chouta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner against the order of maintenance passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Eranial in M.C. No. 18 of 1989 which was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari in Criminal Revision Petition No. 40 of 1993.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondents who are wife and daughter of the petitioner filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner for maintenance of Rs. 400/- to the wife and Rs. 350/- to the child. A counter has been filed on behalf of the husband wherein he has admitted the relationship. However, he has stated that the first respondent (Wife) is employed as a teacher, and she has been drawing a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month. There is no question of the respondents living in poverty, and respondent is working for the last 11 years. He has also stated that he is ready to produce the receipts to prove that the respondent is drawing salary. On behalf of the respondents two witnesses were examined and on behalf of the petitioner he got himself examined. In the evidence of the respondent she has stated that she has been neglected by the petitioner and she does not have any income to maintain herself as well as her child and she prayed for maintenance from her husband. PW 2 has been examined in support of the evidence, of PW 1. On behalf of the petitioner, the husband has stated that the respondent is working as a school teacher drawing a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month. In addition to this she is giving tuition to the children and from this tuition she is getting income and she also owns some immovable properties. The petitioner filed an application before the Learned Magistrate, Eranial to set aside the ex-parte order. The learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 12.8.1993 dismissed the application on the ground that the petition was not maintainable since the order has been decided on merits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 12,8,1993 in M.C. No, 18 of 1989 awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs, 200/- per month for the first respondent and Rs, 300/- to the second respondent from 23.3,1989 i.e., from the date of filing of this petition. The husband preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No, 40 of 1993 before the Sessions Judge, Kanniyakumari and the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 7,7.1995 dismissed the said revision petition. Hence, the present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard the learned Advocates on either side and they took me through the orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge. The main contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the Courts below have not considered the question of income drawn by the wife. He has pointed out that the Court below will get jurisdiction to award maintenance to the wife if she is unable to maintain herself. This aspect has not been considered by the Courts below. In the counter filed by the husband he has specifically mentioned that his wife is drawing a sum of Rs. 2/500/- per month. Further more in the evidence he has specifically stated that she is drawing a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month as a school teacher and in addition to that she is giving tuition to the school children. He also stated that she is in possession of some immovable properties. This aspect has not been considered by the Courts below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On the other hand the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that there is no dispute regarding the relationship of the parties. He has submitted that the Courts below were justified in awarding maintenance to the wife by fixing Rs. 250/-. He also tried to support the orders passed by the Courts below and submitted that this criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing the rival submissions and going through the orders and relevant materials I am of opinion that the Courts below were not justified in awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs, 200/- to the wife without considering the evidence produced by the husband. In his evidence he has clearly stated that his wife is drawing salary of Rs, 1,500/- per month as a school teacher and in addition to that she is giving tuition to the school children in which she is getting income and also she is in possession of some immovable property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Hence for the reasons stated above, I allow this Original Petition to the extent of awarding maintenance to the first respondent i.e., the wife and remit the matter before the Judicial Magistrate, Eranial to reconsider the case afresh, Consequently, Cri, M.P. No. 4163 of 1995 is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'I(1998)DMC634', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Kanagam @ Gnanaprakasi and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal;Family', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '823607' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Christu Raj Vs. Kanagam @ Gnanaprakasi and anr. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure', (int) 1 => 'Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure', (int) 2 => 'Section 482' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Jayarama Chouta', (int) 1 => 'PW 2', (int) 2 => 'Kanniyakumari' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Judicial Magistrate', (int) 1 => 'the Learned Magistrate', (int) 2 => 'Judicial Magistrate', (int) 3 => 'Magistrate', (int) 4 => 'a Criminal Revision Petition No', (int) 5 => '7,7.1995', (int) 6 => 'Magistrate', (int) 7 => 'Court', (int) 8 => 'this Original Petition', (int) 9 => 'the Judicial Magistrate', (int) 10 => 'Cri' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'M.C.', (int) 1 => 'Kanyakumari', (int) 2 => 'M.C.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1989', (int) 1 => '2,500/- per month', (int) 2 => 'the last 11 years', (int) 3 => '2,500/- per month', (int) 4 => '1989', (int) 5 => '200/- per month', (int) 6 => '1993', (int) 7 => '2/500/- per month', (int) 8 => '1,500/- per month', (int) 9 => '1,500/- per month', (int) 10 => '1995' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '40', (int) 1 => '1993.2', (int) 2 => 'two', (int) 3 => '12,8,1993', (int) 4 => '18', (int) 5 => '40', (int) 6 => '200/-' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'second', (int) 3 => 'first' ), 'EVENT' => array( (int) 0 => 'PW 1' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => '23.3,1989 i.e.' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '823607', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125', 'appealno' => 'Crl. O.P. No. 7418 of 1995 and Cr. M.P. No. 4163 of 1995', 'appellant' => 'Christu Raj', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Christu Raj Vs. Kanagam @ Gnanaprakasi and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'C.S. Sivathanu Pillai, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'F.B. Benjamin George, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1997-06-23', 'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Jayarama Chouta, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Jayarama Chouta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner against the order of maintenance passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Eranial in M.C. No. 18 of 1989 which was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari in Criminal Revision Petition No. 40 of 1993.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondents who are wife and daughter of the petitioner filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner for maintenance of Rs. 400/- to the wife and Rs. 350/- to the child. A counter has been filed on behalf of the husband wherein he has admitted the relationship. However, he has stated that the first respondent (Wife) is employed as a teacher, and she has been drawing a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month. There is no question of the respondents living in poverty, and respondent is working for the last 11 years. He has also stated that he is ready to produce the receipts to prove that the respondent is drawing salary. On behalf of the respondents two witnesses were examined and on behalf of the petitioner he got himself examined. In the evidence of the respondent she has stated that she has been neglected by the petitioner and she does not have any income to maintain herself as well as her child and she prayed for maintenance from her husband. PW 2 has been examined in support of the evidence, of PW 1. On behalf of the petitioner, the husband has stated that the respondent is working as a school teacher drawing a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month. In addition to this she is giving tuition to the children and from this tuition she is getting income and she also owns some immovable properties. The petitioner filed an application before the Learned Magistrate, Eranial to set aside the ex-parte order. The learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 12.8.1993 dismissed the application on the ground that the petition was not maintainable since the order has been decided on merits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 12,8,1993 in M.C. No, 18 of 1989 awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs, 200/- per month for the first respondent and Rs, 300/- to the second respondent from 23.3,1989 i.e., from the date of filing of this petition. The husband preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No, 40 of 1993 before the Sessions Judge, Kanniyakumari and the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 7,7.1995 dismissed the said revision petition. Hence, the present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard the learned Advocates on either side and they took me through the orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge. The main contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the Courts below have not considered the question of income drawn by the wife. He has pointed out that the Court below will get jurisdiction to award maintenance to the wife if she is unable to maintain herself. This aspect has not been considered by the Courts below. In the counter filed by the husband he has specifically mentioned that his wife is drawing a sum of Rs. 2/500/- per month. Further more in the evidence he has specifically stated that she is drawing a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month as a school teacher and in addition to that she is giving tuition to the school children. He also stated that she is in possession of some immovable properties. This aspect has not been considered by the Courts below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On the other hand the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that there is no dispute regarding the relationship of the parties. He has submitted that the Courts below were justified in awarding maintenance to the wife by fixing Rs. 250/-. He also tried to support the orders passed by the Courts below and submitted that this criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing the rival submissions and going through the orders and relevant materials I am of opinion that the Courts below were not justified in awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs, 200/- to the wife without considering the evidence produced by the husband. In his evidence he has clearly stated that his wife is drawing salary of Rs, 1,500/- per month as a school teacher and in addition to that she is giving tuition to the school children in which she is getting income and also she is in possession of some immovable property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Hence for the reasons stated above, I allow this Original Petition to the extent of awarding maintenance to the first respondent i.e., the wife and remit the matter before the Judicial Magistrate, Eranial to reconsider the case afresh, Consequently, Cri, M.P. No. 4163 of 1995 is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'I(1998)DMC634', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Kanagam @ Gnanaprakasi and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal;Family', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '823607' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Christu Raj Vs. Kanagam @ Gnanaprakasi and anr. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure', (int) 1 => 'Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure', (int) 2 => 'Section 482' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Jayarama Chouta', (int) 1 => 'PW 2', (int) 2 => 'Kanniyakumari' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Judicial Magistrate', (int) 1 => 'the Learned Magistrate', (int) 2 => 'Judicial Magistrate', (int) 3 => 'Magistrate', (int) 4 => 'a Criminal Revision Petition No', (int) 5 => '7,7.1995', (int) 6 => 'Magistrate', (int) 7 => 'Court', (int) 8 => 'this Original Petition', (int) 9 => 'the Judicial Magistrate', (int) 10 => 'Cri' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'M.C.', (int) 1 => 'Kanyakumari', (int) 2 => 'M.C.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1989', (int) 1 => '2,500/- per month', (int) 2 => 'the last 11 years', (int) 3 => '2,500/- per month', (int) 4 => '1989', (int) 5 => '200/- per month', (int) 6 => '1993', (int) 7 => '2/500/- per month', (int) 8 => '1,500/- per month', (int) 9 => '1,500/- per month', (int) 10 => '1995' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '40', (int) 1 => '1993.2', (int) 2 => 'two', (int) 3 => '12,8,1993', (int) 4 => '18', (int) 5 => '40', (int) 6 => '200/-' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'second', (int) 3 => 'first' ), 'EVENT' => array( (int) 0 => 'PW 1' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => '23.3,1989 i.e.' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '823607', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125', 'appealno' => 'Crl. O.P. No. 7418 of 1995 and Cr. M.P. No. 4163 of 1995', 'appellant' => 'Christu Raj', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Christu Raj Vs. Kanagam @ Gnanaprakasi and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'C.S. Sivathanu Pillai, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'F.B. Benjamin George, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1997-06-23', 'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Jayarama Chouta, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Jayarama Chouta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner against the order of maintenance passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Eranial in M.C. No. 18 of 1989 which was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari in Criminal Revision Petition No. 40 of 1993.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondents who are wife and daughter of the petitioner filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner for maintenance of Rs. 400/- to the wife and Rs. 350/- to the child. A counter has been filed on behalf of the husband wherein he has admitted the relationship. However, he has stated that the first respondent (Wife) is employed as a teacher, and she has been drawing a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month. There is no question of the respondents living in poverty, and respondent is working for the last 11 years. He has also stated that he is ready to produce the receipts to prove that the respondent is drawing salary. On behalf of the respondents two witnesses were examined and on behalf of the petitioner he got himself examined. In the evidence of the respondent she has stated that she has been neglected by the petitioner and she does not have any income to maintain herself as well as her child and she prayed for maintenance from her husband. PW 2 has been examined in support of the evidence, of PW 1. On behalf of the petitioner, the husband has stated that the respondent is working as a school teacher drawing a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month. In addition to this she is giving tuition to the children and from this tuition she is getting income and she also owns some immovable properties. The petitioner filed an application before the Learned Magistrate, Eranial to set aside the ex-parte order. The learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 12.8.1993 dismissed the application on the ground that the petition was not maintainable since the order has been decided on merits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 12,8,1993 in M.C. No, 18 of 1989 awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs, 200/- per month for the first respondent and Rs, 300/- to the second respondent from 23.3,1989 i.e., from the date of filing of this petition. The husband preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No, 40 of 1993 before the Sessions Judge, Kanniyakumari and the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 7,7.1995 dismissed the said revision petition. Hence, the present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard the learned Advocates on either side and they took me through the orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge. The main contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the Courts below have not considered the question of income drawn by the wife. He has pointed out that the Court below will get jurisdiction to award maintenance to the wife if she is unable to maintain herself. This aspect has not been considered by the Courts below. In the counter filed by the husband he has specifically mentioned that his wife is drawing a sum of Rs. 2/500/- per month. Further more in the evidence he has specifically stated that she is drawing a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month as a school teacher and in addition to that she is giving tuition to the school children. He also stated that she is in possession of some immovable properties. This aspect has not been considered by the Courts below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On the other hand the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that there is no dispute regarding the relationship of the parties. He has submitted that the Courts below were justified in awarding maintenance to the wife by fixing Rs. 250/-. He also tried to support the orders passed by the Courts below and submitted that this criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing the rival submissions and going through the orders and relevant materials I am of opinion that the Courts below were not justified in awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs, 200/- to the wife without considering the evidence produced by the husband. In his evidence he has clearly stated that his wife is drawing salary of Rs, 1,500/- per month as a school teacher and in addition to that she is giving tuition to the school children in which she is getting income and also she is in possession of some immovable property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Hence for the reasons stated above, I allow this Original Petition to the extent of awarding maintenance to the first respondent i.e., the wife and remit the matter before the Judicial Magistrate, Eranial to reconsider the case afresh, Consequently, Cri, M.P. No. 4163 of 1995 is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'I(1998)DMC634', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Kanagam @ Gnanaprakasi and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal;Family', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '823607' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Christu Raj Vs. Kanagam @ Gnanaprakasi and anr. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure', (int) 1 => 'Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure', (int) 2 => 'Section 482' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Jayarama Chouta', (int) 1 => 'PW 2', (int) 2 => 'Kanniyakumari' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Judicial Magistrate', (int) 1 => 'the Learned Magistrate', (int) 2 => 'Judicial Magistrate', (int) 3 => 'Magistrate', (int) 4 => 'a Criminal Revision Petition No', (int) 5 => '7,7.1995', (int) 6 => 'Magistrate', (int) 7 => 'Court', (int) 8 => 'this Original Petition', (int) 9 => 'the Judicial Magistrate', (int) 10 => 'Cri' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'M.C.', (int) 1 => 'Kanyakumari', (int) 2 => 'M.C.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1989', (int) 1 => '2,500/- per month', (int) 2 => 'the last 11 years', (int) 3 => '2,500/- per month', (int) 4 => '1989', (int) 5 => '200/- per month', (int) 6 => '1993', (int) 7 => '2/500/- per month', (int) 8 => '1,500/- per month', (int) 9 => '1,500/- per month', (int) 10 => '1995' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '40', (int) 1 => '1993.2', (int) 2 => 'two', (int) 3 => '12,8,1993', (int) 4 => '18', (int) 5 => '40', (int) 6 => '200/-' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'second', (int) 3 => 'first' ), 'EVENT' => array( (int) 0 => 'PW 1' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => '23.3,1989 i.e.' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '823607', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 125', 'appealno' => 'Crl. O.P. No. 7418 of 1995 and Cr. M.P. No. 4163 of 1995', 'appellant' => 'Christu Raj', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Christu Raj Vs. Kanagam @ Gnanaprakasi and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'C.S. Sivathanu Pillai, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'F.B. Benjamin George, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1997-06-23', 'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Jayarama Chouta, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Jayarama Chouta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner against the order of maintenance passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Eranial in M.C. No. 18 of 1989 which was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari in Criminal Revision Petition No. 40 of 1993.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondents who are wife and daughter of the petitioner filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner for maintenance of Rs. 400/- to the wife and Rs. 350/- to the child. A counter has been filed on behalf of the husband wherein he has admitted the relationship. However, he has stated that the first respondent (Wife) is employed as a teacher, and she has been drawing a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month. There is no question of the respondents living in poverty, and respondent is working for the last 11 years. He has also stated that he is ready to produce the receipts to prove that the respondent is drawing salary. On behalf of the respondents two witnesses were examined and on behalf of the petitioner he got himself examined. In the evidence of the respondent she has stated that she has been neglected by the petitioner and she does not have any income to maintain herself as well as her child and she prayed for maintenance from her husband. PW 2 has been examined in support of the evidence, of PW 1. On behalf of the petitioner, the husband has stated that the respondent is working as a school teacher drawing a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month. In addition to this she is giving tuition to the children and from this tuition she is getting income and she also owns some immovable properties. The petitioner filed an application before the Learned Magistrate, Eranial to set aside the ex-parte order. The learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 12.8.1993 dismissed the application on the ground that the petition was not maintainable since the order has been decided on merits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 12,8,1993 in M.C. No, 18 of 1989 awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs, 200/- per month for the first respondent and Rs, 300/- to the second respondent from 23.3,1989 i.e., from the date of filing of this petition. The husband preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No, 40 of 1993 before the Sessions Judge, Kanniyakumari and the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 7,7.1995 dismissed the said revision petition. Hence, the present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard the learned Advocates on either side and they took me through the orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge. The main contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the Courts below have not considered the question of income drawn by the wife. He has pointed out that the Court below will get jurisdiction to award maintenance to the wife if she is unable to maintain herself. This aspect has not been considered by the Courts below. In the counter filed by the husband he has specifically mentioned that his wife is drawing a sum of Rs. 2/500/- per month. Further more in the evidence he has specifically stated that she is drawing a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month as a school teacher and in addition to that she is giving tuition to the school children. He also stated that she is in possession of some immovable properties. This aspect has not been considered by the Courts below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On the other hand the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that there is no dispute regarding the relationship of the parties. He has submitted that the Courts below were justified in awarding maintenance to the wife by fixing Rs. 250/-. He also tried to support the orders passed by the Courts below and submitted that this criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing the rival submissions and going through the orders and relevant materials I am of opinion that the Courts below were not justified in awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs, 200/- to the wife without considering the evidence produced by the husband. In his evidence he has clearly stated that his wife is drawing salary of Rs, 1,500/- per month as a school teacher and in addition to that she is giving tuition to the school children in which she is getting income and also she is in possession of some immovable property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Hence for the reasons stated above, I allow this Original Petition to the extent of awarding maintenance to the first respondent i.e., the wife and remit the matter before the Judicial Magistrate, Eranial to reconsider the case afresh, Consequently, Cri, M.P. No. 4163 of 1995 is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'I(1998)DMC634', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Kanagam @ Gnanaprakasi and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal;Family', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '823607' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 482
PERSON: Jayarama Chouta, PW 2, Kanniyakumari
NORP: J.1
ORG: the Judicial Magistrate, the Learned Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate, Magistrate, a Criminal Revision Petition No, 7,7.1995, Magistrate, Court, this Original Petition, the Judicial Magistrate, Cri
GPE: M.C., Kanyakumari, M.C.
DATE: 1989, 2,500/- per month, the last 11 years, 2,500/- per month, 1989, 200/- per month, 1993, 2/500/- per month, 1,500/- per month, 1,500/- per month, 1995
CARDINAL: 40, 1993.2, two, 12,8,1993, 18, 40, 200/-
ORDINAL: first, first, second, first
EVENT: PW 1
TIME: 23.3,1989 i.e.