Allahabad Court May 1995 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Muslim Alias Bhoora Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ98
ORDERC.A. Rahim, J.1. None appears on behalf of the revisionist even when the list is revised. Today is fixed for admission of the Revision. The only ground that has been taken is that the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was not followed, as no order was passed within one month from the date of filing of the application and hence the proceeding is2. An application was filed by Smt. Khatoon alias Zaitun on 16-12-1987 for allowing maintenance during the Iddat period at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month, Mahr of Rs. 1000/- along with the prayer for recovery of the articles or its price mentioned in Schedule 'A' of the petition before the court of the II Munsif Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar and the case was started under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, directing the revisionist to appear on 15-1-1988 but the revisionist did not attend on that day and the matter was adjourned, ulti...
Rajendra Kumar Vs. District Judge, Jaunpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All178
ORDER1. For the decision of the writ petition, the essential facts are as under:Jwala Prasad Plaintiff instituted Small Cause Suit No. 2 of 79 in the Court of J.S.C.C. (Civil Judge) against Raj Kumar and 10 other defendants and alleged in the suit that the disputed shop along with Kothari described at the foot of the plaint was given on rent to defendant No. 1 and Vishwanath for Rs. 30/- per month and in that connection the defendant No. 1 and Vishwanath executed rent deed in plaintiffs favour on 1st March, 1970. It was also alleged that after the death of Vishwanath his legal representative became the tenant of the said shop. It was also alleged that on the demand of rent from 1 July 1973 to 31 January, 1975 at the rate of Rs.40/- per month, the defendant did not pay the same even despite repeated demand, on that basis plaintiff does not want to continue the defendants as tenants, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of defendants by notice and the plaintiff prayed for the relief that...
Ram Adhar Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC246
N.B. Asthana, J.1. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.5.92 passed by IIIrd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Case No. 53 of 1990 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. granting maintenance allowance to Opp. Party No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month and their son at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of application i.e., 14.3.89.2. The application was filed upon the aliegations that Opp. Party No. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. Out of this wedlock a son was born. The revisionist was posted as guard in a bank but subsequently he was enrolled as constable in the police force. He was posted out of district Kanpur Dehat where he entered into second marriage and refused to keep the Opp. Party No. 2 and their son with him. It was also said that the revisionist is getting Rs. 2000/- per month as salary and, therefore, can easily secure Rs. 900/- month for her and their son.3. The contention of the revisionist was th...
Muslim @ Bhoora Vs. State of U.P. and Khatoon @ Zaitun
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC298
C.A. Rahim, J.1. None appears on behalf of the Revisionist even when the list is revised. Today is fixed for admission of the Revision. The only ground that has been taken is that the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was not followed, as no order was passed within one month from the date of filing of the application and hence the proceeding is bad in law.2. An application was filed by Smt. Khatoon @ Zaitun on 16.12.1987 for allowing maintenance during the Iddat Period Act the rate of Rs. 500 per month, Mahr of Rs. 1000/- alongwith the prayer for recovery of the articles of its price mentioned in Schedule 'A' of the Petition before the Court of the II Munsif Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar and the case was stated under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, directing the Revisionist to appear on 15.1.1988, but the Revisionist did not attend on that day and the matter was adjourned, ult...
Smt. Gulab Devi Widow of Vishwanath Sahai Vs. Smt. Premwati Widow of K ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All22
1. This is an appeal by the defendants arising out of the judgment dated 21-4-80 passed by the then IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Mirzapur in Original SuitNo.62 of 1975.2. Original Suit No. 62/75 of the Court of Mirzapur was filed by Kanhaiya Lal (since deceased) against 9 defendants. The relief prayed for was that the house given in List A, at the foot of the plaint, be partitioned and the share of the plaintiff being 7/12, be separated by means of a final decree.3. A pedigree has been given in paragraph 1 of the plaint. Kanhaiya Lal, deceased was the son of Beni Prasad and grandson of Hanuman Prasad. According to the pedigree, Shiv Sewak Lal had two sons -- Hanuman Prasad and Mewa Lal. Hanuman Prasad predeceased heirless. Therefore, the entire property was vested in Hanuman Prasad, who had four sons-- Lalta Prasad, Binda Prasad, Beni Prasad and Deep Narain Lal.Lalta Prasad died in 1933 leaving behind his widow Smt. Bhagwati Devi, who died in 1959 heirless. Therefore, the entire propert...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›