Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be sustained when the first petitioner's name was wrongly shown by clerical mistake, and whether the Magistrate could treat the error as a correctable clerical mistake and grant maintenance on the basis of identity proved by the evidence.
Analysis: The identity of the first petitioner as the wife of the respondent and mother of the minor petitioners was not in dispute, and the wrong name in the petition was only a clerical error. Proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are meant to provide a speedy social remedy and should not fail on technical defects when the substance of the claim is otherwise established. The court held that subordinate criminal courts are not powerless to correct obvious mistakes when such correction is necessary to do justice and prevent prejudice or miscarriage of justice. The Magistrate's acceptance of the corrected identity on evidence was a factual finding with no illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness warranting interference in revision.
Conclusion: The correction of the petitioner's name was permissible, and the maintenance order could not be set aside on the ground of the clerical mistake.