TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court affirms Family Court's power to modify maintenance orders</h1> <h3>Sanjeev Kapoor Versus Chandana Kapoor and Ors.</h3> Sanjeev Kapoor Versus Chandana Kapoor and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Family Court to set aside its previous order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).2. Applicability of Section 362 CrPC, which prohibits courts from altering or reviewing their judgments except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.3. Interpretation of Section 125 CrPC as a social justice legislation and its implications.4. The role of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC in the context of the Family Court's decision.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Family Court to Set Aside Its Previous Order:The primary issue in this appeal is whether the Family Court had the jurisdiction to set aside its order dated 06.05.2017, which disposed of the application under Section 125 CrPC based on a settlement between the parties. The Family Court's order dated 05.01.2019, which set aside the previous order, was challenged by the appellant on the grounds that it was contrary to Section 362 CrPC.2. Applicability of Section 362 CrPC:Section 362 CrPC states, 'no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.' The appellant argued that the Family Court's order dated 05.01.2019 violated this provision. The Supreme Court examined several precedents, including Sankatha Singh v. State of U.P. (1962), Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal (1981), and Mostt. Simrikhia v. Smt. Dolley Mukherjee (1990), which emphasized that inherent powers cannot be used to do what the Code specifically prohibits.3. Interpretation of Section 125 CrPC as a Social Justice Legislation:The Supreme Court recognized that Section 125 CrPC is a social justice legislation aimed at providing maintenance to wives, children, and parents. The Court cited Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) to emphasize the need for purposive interpretation to achieve social justice. The Court noted that Section 125 CrPC allows for continuous jurisdiction of the Magistrate to alter or cancel maintenance orders based on changing circumstances, as indicated by Sections 125(5) and 127 CrPC.4. The Role of Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC:The appellant's counsel argued that the Family Court's order was void under Section 362 CrPC and should have been set aside by the High Court under its inherent powers in Section 482 CrPC. However, the Supreme Court held that the inherent powers of the High Court are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice. The Family Court's decision to revive the maintenance application was seen as an act of substantial justice, ensuring the protection of the respondent's rights under Section 125 CrPC.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Family Court's order dated 05.01.2019 was not contrary to Section 362 CrPC. The Court emphasized that Section 125 CrPC allows for continuous jurisdiction to alter or cancel maintenance orders and that the Family Court's decision to set aside its previous order was justified to prevent injustice to the respondent. The High Court's rejection of the appellant's application under Section 482 CrPC was upheld, as it was in line with the principles of securing the ends of justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
