PATHUMMA versus MUHAMMAD

PATHUMMA versus MUHAMMAD

The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under section 401 CrPC by reassessing evidence and overruling the trial Magistrate’s finding on a question of fact. The Magistrate’s assessment that appellant No.2 was the illegitimate child of the respondent stood restored.

Parties
Appellant: Pathumma; Appellant: Sulekha; Respondent: Muhammad
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 April 1986
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against High Court Order in Revision Under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Outcome
Criminal Appeal No. 462A/81 allowed; Criminal Appeal No. 463/81 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr PC, Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction, Illegitimacy and Maintenance, Appreciation of Evidence
Criminal Law Family Law Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr PC Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction Illegitimacy and Maintenance Appreciation of Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pathumma

Appellant

Sulekha

Appellant

Muhammad

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against High Court Order in Revision Under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court in revision under Section 401 CrPC can reappreciate evidence and substitute its findings of fact for those of the trial court
  2. 2 Whether Sulekha is the illegitimate child of the respondent and entitled to maintenance

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under section 401 CrPC by reassessing evidence and overruling the trial Magistrate’s finding on a question of fact. The Magistrate’s assessment that appellant No.2 was the illegitimate child of the respondent stood restored.

Court Disposition

Criminal Appeal No. 462A/81 allowed; Criminal Appeal No. 463/81 dismissed.

Orders

  • Order of High Court disallowing maintenance to appellant No. 2 set aside and order of Magistrate granting maintenance restored.
  • Order of High Court dismissing the claim of appellant No. 1 for maintenance affirmed.