Home / Supreme Court / Judgments / 2017 / Diary 10114

CHARANJIT SINGH v. PAVNEET SAINI

Supreme Court of India | Diary 10114/2017

Status

ROP - of Main Case

Decided On

11-09-2017

Bench

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

Petitioner

CHARANJIT SINGH

Respondent

PAVNEET SAINI

Primary Holding

Under Section 125 CrPC, maintenance cannot be granted to children who have attained majority and are gainfully employed, and Magistrates must decide maintenance applications strictly in accordance with the tenor and spirit of that provision.

PDF 1 PDF 2 PDF 3 Check another SC case

Full Judgment Text

SLP(Crl.) 2889/17 1 ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.1 SECTION II-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2889/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-02-2017 in CRM No. 7388/2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh) CHARANJIT SINGH Petitioner(s) VERSUS PAVNEET SAINI Respondent(s) Date : 11-09-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. L. Nidhiram Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Jugtawat, Adv. Mr. M. Ravi Chandra Prakash, Adv. Ms. Amita, Adv. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is apprehended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate may not keep in view the provisions contained in Section 125 Cr.P.C. and may grant maintenance to the children despite they attain the age of majority and earn their livelihood being gainfully employed. This apprehension is based on some of the observations made

SLP(Crl.) 2889/17 2 by the High Court. We modify the said observations and direct that the learned Magistrate shall proceed in accordance with tenor and spirit of Section 125 Cr.P.C. Needles to emphasize, the learned Magistrate shall decide the application without being influenced by any observation made by the High Court. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (Chetan Kumar) (Shakti Parkash Sharma) Court Master Assistant Registrar

ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2889/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23/02/2017 in CRM No. 7388/2015 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) CHARANJIT SINGH Petitioner(s) VERSUS PAVNEET SAINI Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief) Date : 18/04/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Amit, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Shantanu J., Adv. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In terms of the letter circulated by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the matter be listed after four weeks. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

nITEM NO.5 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2889/2017(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23/02/2017in CRM No. 7388/2015 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh)CHARANJIT SINGH Petitioner(s) VERSUSPAVNEET SAINI Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief)Date : 18/04/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Amit, Adv.Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv.Mr. Shantanu J., Adv.Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RIn terms of the letter circulated by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher)Court Master Court Master

Search This Case

Supreme Court Resources

High Court Case Status

Check case status for High Courts across India