Andhra Pradesh Court October 1951 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.
G. Pandari Vs. Parkash Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ350
ORDERSuryanarayana Rao, J.1. Mr. Narsim Iyengar for the petitioner and Mr. Dattatreya Deshmukh for the respondent are present, so also the petitioner Pandari Rao and the mother of the minor respondent along With the minor. The parties have filed a petition saying that they are willing to compromise the case on the following terms:(a) That the petitioner does not admit that he is the putative father of the respondent;(b) That he is willing to pay by way of gift a sum of O.S. Rs. 4,000/- to the minor.2. The parties have also proposed as to how the said sum of Rs. 4,000/- should be utilised and Invested viz., that a sum of Rs. 500/- may be paid to the mother for meeting costs of this litigation till now and that out of the balance amount of Rs. 3,500/- a sum of Rs. 360/- be set apart and that the balance be invested in a bank as a fixed deposit for two years to be thereafter renewed and that the said sum of Rs. 360/- be utilised towards the minor's maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25/-per m...
Hanmantha Vs. Hanifabi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-22-1951
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1114
ORDERSuryanarayana Rao, J.1. This is a revision application in proceedings under Section 148 of the Hyderabad Criminal P. C. corresponding to Section 145 of the Indian Code. The first party who had complained in the lower Court that there was apprehension of breach of peace is the revision-petitioner. His main contention before me is that the Magistrate having found that there was no likelihood of breach of peace should have forthwith dropped further proceedings and should not have gone further and given a finding that the respondent was in possession of tm property at the crucial time and that she could not be dispossessed by the revision-petitioner, taking the Jaw into his own hands. Mr. Apparao appearing for the revision-petitioner has cited the following authorities of this High Court in support of the proposition that where the Magistrate comes to a conclusion that there was no likelihood of breach of peace, any further order passed by him in connection with the question of posses...
Anjayya and ors. Vs. Parutal
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ577
ORDERSuryanarayana Rao, J.1. The question for decision in this case is whether the natural mother of the minor illegitimate children could settle out of Court the claim of the minors against their putative father for maintenance ordered by the Court to be paid monthly under Section 411 of the Hyderabad Criminal Procedure Code corresponding to Section 488 of the Indian Code.2. The putative father's case is that subsequent to the order of maintenance passed against him in favour of the minor children, he had entered into a compromise with the mother of the minors, acting on their behalf by delivering to them a bull in full settlement of the claim for their future maintenance. On behalf of the minors it is contended that such a compromise is not binding on the minor children. It is admitted by the parties that the bull died some time ago and that its value is somewhere between Rs. 100/- to 150/-.3. Proceedings under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code are not in the nature of crimi...
Ahmed Ali Sahib Vs. Sarfarajulnisa Begum
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ681
ORDERShripat Rao, J.1. This is an application in revision, against the order of the Fourth City Magistrate under Section 488, Criminal P.C., ordering the payment of Rs. 50/- per mensem as maintenance to the respondent.2. The respondent is represented by Mr. Purushotham Rao, Advocate.3. Mr. Appa Rao, the learned Advocate for the petitioner draws my attention to para. 5 of the petition of the respondent in the lower Court dated 19.7.1950, in which she admits that she is serving as a school-mistress in the Model Primary School and is drawing a total salary of Rs. 148/- made up of Rs. 104/- as basic pay and Rs. 44/- as allowances. It is argued before me that under the circumstances the order of the lower Court should be set aside as there is no urgency for the decision of the question of maintenance. Mr. Appa Rao has cited Mohamed Ali v. Sakina Begum 45 Cri.L.J. 254 (Lah.) in which it has been held that the Magistrate's power to make an order under Section 488, Criminal P.C. is discretiona...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›