Just a moment...
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 Magistrate is bound under Section 127(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to cancel or vary an existing maintenance order under Section 125 when a competent civil court has specifically decided the issue of maintenance.
Analysis: The statutory language of Section 127(2) is mandatory. Once the Magistrate is satisfied that a competent civil court has rendered a decision directly on the liability or quantum of maintenance, he has no discretion to ignore that decree. The civil court's determination on civil rights prevails over the parallel criminal maintenance order, and the maintenance order must yield to the civil adjudication. The provision is in pari materia with the earlier maintenance provision and the principle that final civil adjudication governs the parties' civil rights applies with full force where the civil court has squarely ruled on maintenance.
Conclusion: The Magistrate is obliged to follow the civil court's decree specifically on maintenance and to cancel or vary the earlier maintenance order accordingly.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded because the impugned order wrongly treated the Magistrate's role as discretionary despite a conclusive civil decree on maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a competent civil court has specifically adjudicated the issue of maintenance, Section 127(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires the Magistrate to cancel or vary the maintenance order in conformity with that decree.