Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Apr-14-1970
Reported in : 1971CriLJ158
ORDERJaswant Singh, J.1. This is an application to revise an order dated 7.11-1969 passed by the learn, ed Sessions Judge, Udhampur, up-holding the order dated 20.2.1969 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur, rejecting the application of the petitioner for cancellation of the order of maintenance paased against him under the provisions of 8. 438 of the Criminal P.C.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this application are :-In 1963 the respondent made an application Under Section 488 of the Criminal P.C., for maintenance allowance in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur. On 28-8-1965 the parties arrived at a settlement on the basis of which the Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered that maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/. per month be paid by the petitioner to the respondent. The petitioner complied with this order for a little over a year but discontinued the payment thereafter. On 7.3-19.67 he made an application before the Magistrate praying that the order of ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Jul-27-1970
Reported in : 1971CriLJ48
Anant Singh, J.1. These 15 petitions have been filed Under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the nature of Habeas Corpus. As the points involved in them are mostly common, they have been heard together and this judgment will govern all of them.2. The petitioner in each case has been detained in one or another iail of the State either by the order of the District Magistrate Srinagar, or the District Magistrate Baramulla Under Section 3 (2) read with Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 (Act No. XIII of 1964) or by the Government Under Section 3 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 5 of the same Act, referred to hereafter as the Act. The orders of detention were made on different dates by the District Magistrate Baramulla in case Nos. 65, 66, 82 and 83 of 1969, by the Government, case No. 85 of 1970 and by the District Magistrate, Srinagar in the rest. The order of detention in each case was followed by another separate order of even date by the authorit...
Tag this Judgment!