Chennai Court June 1947 Judgments
P. Venkataramaniah Chetty Vs. Pappamah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad103; (1947)2MLJ153
ORDERRajamannar, J.1. This is an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which the petitioner seeks to obtain a direction from this Court calling upon the respondent to produce a girl named Kamalammah to be restored to his. lawful custody. It is common ground that Kamalammah is a minor though, there is a dispute as regards her age. The petitioner alleges that the girl was married to him about 11 months before the date of the petition and was staying with him for some days. The respondent is her mother. The petitioner alleges that on 21st April, 1947, the respondent took her daughter to her house promising to send her back on 26th April, 1947, but failed to do so. Further, the respondent went away with the girl to a village near Meenjur and according on the petitioner the respondent is contemplating to leave for Rangoon.2. The respondent admits that her daughter Kamalammah was duly married to the petitioner. The main allegations in her counter-affidavit are th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ummal Hasanath
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad433; (1947)2MLJ142
ORDERRajamannar, J.1. This case raises a point on which there is no direct authority. The petitioner is the first accused in P. R. C. No. 11 of 1947 in the Court of the Sub-Magistrate, Karur. She was arrested without a warrant by the police and remanded in a sub-jail for a period of 13 days. The offence was one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. An application was made to the Magistrate, purporting to be under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to dispense with her personal attendance and to permit her to appear by her advocate. The grounds on which the application was made were that the petitioner was a purdah Muslim lady belonging to a respectable family and that she was a woman of poor health and frequently falling ill. The Sub-Magistrate rejected the application for two reasons : (i) that he had no jurisdiction to grant the application ; and (2) that the accused might be required for identification purposes. The petitioner seeks to have this order of the Magist...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›