DV ACT 2005   |   IPC 498A   |   Maintenance






Number of Documents : 446

INSTALL ANDROID APP



1.

DIVORCE
SC of INDIA

on

2017-09-12
Civil Appeal No 11158 of 2017J. Adarsh Kumar GoelAmardeep Singh vs Harveen KaurHMA 13

Cooling off period mentioned in Section 13-B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act is not mandatory. It is open to the District Court/ Family Court to exercise its discretion to waive off the period in the facts of the case

1) Since we are of the view that the period mentioned in Section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directory, it will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation.

2) Needless to say that in conducting such proceedings the Court can also use the medium of video conferencing and also permit genuine representation of the parties through close relations such as parents or siblings where the parties are unable to appear in person for any just and valid reason as may satisfy the Court, to advance the interest of justice.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
2.

DIVORCE
SC of INDIA

on

2017-08-22
Writ Petition (C) No 118 of 2016Jagdish Singh KheharShayara Bano vs Union of IndiaSpecial Marriage Act

Triple Talaq is set Aside by SC of India

In view of the different opinions recorded, by a majority of 3:2 the practice of talaq-e-biddat - triple talaq is set aside
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
3.

DIVORCE
HC of ORISSA, CUTTACK

on

2017-08-11
S.A. No 338 of 1999J.R.K. RathPrasanta Kumar Mishra vs Suryamani MishraHMA 13B

Conceiving Another Fellow's Kids and Suicide Threats amount to Cruielty - Divorce granted

1) On a cursory perusal of the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiff pleaded that the respondent had threatened to commit suicide and the respondent had disclosed that she had conceived before marriage. The plaintiff in his evidence had stated that five months after, the respondent insisted him for staying separate. When he refused, she threatened to commit suicide. She had even attempt to commit suicide. In cross-examination, the respondent admitted that there was a quarrel between her and her husband. On 28.02.1992, she disclosed that she was conceived through other. What more is required to prove the mental cruelty ? The plaintiff will suffer the ignominy throughout his life. He cannot live in peace.

2) The next question crops up as to the amount the respondent is entitled to towards permanent alimony. In course of hearing, an affidavit has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff stating therein that he has paid an amount of Rs.93,100/- towards maintenance to the respondent. During conciliation, he offered an amount of rupees three lakhs towards permanent alimony. But the conciliation failed. He filed the salary slip of April, 2017 issued by the Manager (Personnel) Ananta OCP, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited. The same indicates that he is getting Rs.41,203/- towards salary. When the suit was filed in the year 1993, the respondent was 23 years of age. She is at present 47 years. Considering her age and status of her husband, this Court feels that ends of justice shall be better served, if an amount of Rs.12,36,000/- (rupees twelve lakhs thirty-six thousand), i.e., 25% of the salary x 12 x 10 years is granted to the respondent towards permanent alimony.

3) In the result, the judgments and decrees of the courts below are set aside. The plaintiffs suit is decreed. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
4.

BAIL
SC of INDIA

on

2017-08-03
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No 2411 of 2016J. Ranjan GogoiRukmani Mahato vs State of JharkhandBAIL

Do Not Grant Regular Bail When Interim Anticipatory Bail is Granted By Higher Courts And Matter Is Pending

1) If this is a practice that is prevailing in some of the subordinate Courts in the Country and we have had notice of several such cases, time has come to put the learned subordinate Courts in the country to notice that such a practice must be discontinued and consideration of regular bail applications upon surrender during the pendency of the application for pre-arrest bail before a superior Court must be discouraged. We, therefore, direct that a copy of this order be forwarded to the Director of all Judicial Academies in the country to be brought to the notice of all judicial officers exercising criminal jurisdiction in their respective States.

2) Insofar as the present case is concerned, we reiterate our order dated 18.04.2017 and recall our interim order(s) dated 04.04.2016 and 09.05.2017 as well as the order of regular bail granted by the learned trial Court dated 21.04.2016 and direct that the accused shall now surrender before the learned trial Court within fifteen days from today failing which the investigating agency will apprehend the accused and take her into custody.

3) We also make it clear that once the accused is in custody, it will be open for her to move an application for regular bail which as and when moved will be considered on its own merits by the Court of competent jurisdiction.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
5.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2017-07-27
Criminal Appeal No 1265 of 2017J. Adarsh Kumar GoelRajesh Sharma vs State of U.P.IPC 498A

Guidelines in Dowry Cases

19. Thus, after careful consideration of the whole issue, we consider it fit to give following directions :-

i) (a) In every district one or more Family Welfare Committees be constituted by the District Legal Services Authorities preferably comprising of three members. The constitution and working of such committees may be reviewed from time to time and at least once in a year by the District and Sessions Judge of the district who is also the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority.

(b) The Committees may be constituted out of para legal volunteers/social workers/retired persons/wives of working officers/other citizens who may be found suitable and willing.

(c) The Committee members will not be called as witnesses.

(d) Every complaint under Section 498A received by the police or the Magistrate be referred to and looked into by such committee. Such committee may have interaction with the parties personally or by means of telephone or any other mode of communication including electronic communication.

(e) Report of such committee be given to the Authority by whom the complaint is referred to it latest within one month from the date of receipt of complaint.

(f) The committee may give its brief report about the factual aspects and its opinion in the matter.

(g) Till report of the committee is received, no arrest should normally be effected.

(h) The report may be then considered by the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate on its own merit.

(i) Members of the committee may be given such basic minimum training as may be considered necessary by the Legal Services Authority from time to time.

(j) The Members of the committee may be given such honorarium as may be considered viable.

(k) It will be open to the District and Sessions Judge to utilize the cost fund wherever considered necessary and proper.

ii) Complaints under Section 498A and other connected offences may be investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of the area. Such designations may be made within one month from today. Such designated officer may be required to undergo training for such duration (not less than one week) as may be considered appropriate. The training may be completed within four months from today

iii) In cases where a settlement is reached, it will be open to the District and Sessions Judge or any other senior Judicial Officer nominated by him in the district to dispose of the proceedings including closing of the criminal case if dispute primarily relates to matrimonial discord

iv) If a bail application is filed with at least one clear days notice to the Public Prosecutor/complainant, the same may be decided as far as possible on the same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected. Needless to say that in dealing with bail matters, individual roles, prima facie truth of the allegations, requirement of further arrest/ custody and interest of justice must be carefully weighed

v) In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine

.. ... ...
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
6.

DIVORCE
HC of JHARKHAND at RANCHI

on

2017-06-30
Cr.M.P. No. 1669 of 2015J. Rongon MukhopadhyayAmitabh vs State of JharkhandHMA 13B

Mandatory Six (6) months Cooling Period before Divorce (13B) Waived in case of money settlement

Since as it appears that the marriage has irretrievably broken down between the parties and the parties having accepted the said fact have finally decided to separate instead of reconciling their marital life which is reflected in the application filed under Section 13b of the Hindu Marriage Act and in view of the undertaking which has been given by the petitioner with respect to making payment of the rest amount of Rs. 5,75,000/- on the date when the evidence of both the parties are recorded this application is disposed of with a direction to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi to waive the statutory period of six months and after taking evidence of the petitioner as well as the opposite party no. 2 pass necessary order on the 13b application on 04th July, 2017 itself which according to the learned counsel for the respective parties is the next date of hearing in the matrimonial title suit.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
7.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2017-05-23
Criminal Appeal No 560 of 2014J. L.Nageshwara RaoAnjan Kumar vs State of AssamIPC 302

Last Seen Together Along With Absence Of Satisfactory Explanation Insufficient For Conviction

(1) It is clear from the above that in a case where the other links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the guilt of the accused, the circumstance of last seen together and absence of explanation would provide an additional link which completes the chain. In the absence of proof of other circumstances, the only circumstance of last seen together and absence of satisfactory explanation cannot be made the basis of conviction. The other judgments on this point judgment are not applicable to the facts of this case.

(2) Due to the lack of chain of circumstances which lead to the only hypothesis of guilt against the accused, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and acquit the Appellants of the charges of Section 302, 201 read with 34 IPC. The Appellants are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

(3) The Appeal is accordingly allowed.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
8.

DV Act 2005
HC of HIMACHAL PRADESH at SHIMLA

on

2017-05-02
CrMMO No 30 of 2011J. Sandeep SharmaAnil Kumar vs Shashi BalaSection 12 of DV ACT 2005

No Maintenance Under DV Act If No Evidence Of Maltreatment Or Violence

This Court, after having bestowed its thoughtful consideration to the pleadings available on record, has no hesitation to conclude that appellate court below, while granting maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant got swayed by emotions and completely ignored overwhelming evidence available on record suggestive. of the fact that complainant herself had left the house. Since there was no evidence with regard to maltreatment or violence, learned appellate Court below ought not have granted any amount on account of maintenance. Moreover, as has been noticed above, marriage between the parties has been dissolved vide judgment dated 3.3.2011, which has been further upheld by his Court and as such, this Court sees not force, much less substantial, in the complaint of the complainant, which was rightly u rejected by the learned trial Court.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
9.

DV Act 2005
HC of KARNATAKA at BENGALURU

on

2017-04-18
Criminal Petition No 2351 of 2017J. Anand ByrareddyMohammed Zakir vs Smt. ShabanaDV ACT 2005

Husband Allowed to file Domestic Violence Case Against Wife

The Karnataka High Court has recently held that any person, whether male or female, aggrieved and alleging violation of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, can invoke the provisions under the Act.

Justice Anand Byrareddy was hearing a petition filed by Mohammed Zakir against dismissal of his complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act against his wife and her relatives by Addl. City Civil Court, Bangalore.

The civil judge was not impressed with the complaint, as the Act clearly is loaded in favour of women only and it does not contemplate any male person being aggrieved by domestic violence.

The high court observed that it is to be noticed that the said issue was subject matter of an appeal before the apex court in the case of Hiral P Harsora vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, wherein the Supreme Court has struck down a portion of Section 2(a) on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the phrase adult male as appearing in Section 2(q) stood deleted.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
10.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2017-04-10
Criminal Appeal No 8983 of 2017J.A.K.SikriState of Himachal Pradesh vs Nirmala DeviIPC 302

Women criminals can be shown leniency

35. In a case of murder, it is relevant to note that under Section 302 IPC also, punishment is with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. Imprisonment for life, on the above interpretation, can also be converted only into fine, which is clearly impermissible and not in accordance with the Scheme of Indian Penal Code. Thus, no interpretation can be put to Section 386(b)(iii) except that the power of the Appellate Court to alter the sentence awarded by trial court has to be in accordance with law i.e. sentencing provisions as contained in the Indian Penal Code.

36. There is one more aspect of the matter which needs to be noted. Section 386 Sub clause (b)(i) uses the phrase 'reverse the finding and sentence, whereas Sub clause (iii) uses the phrase 'alter the nature or the extent or the nature and the extent of the sentence'. There is a difference between the word 'reverse' and 'alter', both have been made, contemplating different consequences and circumstances.

39. There cannot be any dispute as to the power of the Appellate Court to alter the nature and extent of the sentence without altering the finding. Thus, even in a case when High Court affirms the finding of guilt, the nature and extent of sentence can very well be altered. The Appellate Court taking into consideration the case can alter/reduce the sentence.

44. We are thus of the view that the fact that accused has three minor sons, out of them two are mentally retarded, was taken into consideration by trial court and after considering the aforesaid fact, sentence of imprisonment of only two years was ordered.

45. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that order of the High Court, modifying the sentence is unsustainable and is hereby setaside. Judgment and order of the trial court dated 05.03.2003 is restored.

46. The appeal is allowed. The accused shall be taken into custody for serving the sentence.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
11.

RAPE
HC of RAJASTHAN at JODHPUR

on

2017-03-31
S.B. Crml Leave to Appeal No 41 of 2017J. P.K. LohraState of Rajasthan vs GaneshIPC 376

HC acquitted accused in Rape case filled by wife against who filled DOwry case too

Key observations at HC are (1) Learned trial Court has also noticed serious contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of prosecutrix and further found that the other prosecution witnesses have not corroborated her version. also taken note of compromise which was arrived at between prosecutrix and her in-laws family pursuant to a case registered by her under Section 498A IPC..

(2) Her version is not supported by other prosecution witnesses.

(3) A glaring fact, that at the time of occurrence of incident, other family members including husband of the prosecutrix, were present but on her raising alarm, neighbours came at the site but none of the family members responded to her alarm, also creates serious doubts about the occurrence of alleged incident..

(4) There is yet another aspect of the matter that husband of the prosecutrix himself has appeared in the witness box as defence witness and has completely disowned the entire incident.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
12.

Misc
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2017-03-28
LPA 274 of 2016J. Sangeeta Dhingra SehgalDevika Singh vs Kunal ChauhanNational Comission for Women

NCW Not Empowered To Adjudicate & Issue Advisories

(1) It is no doubt true that the NCW is empowered to look into complaints and take suo moto notice of matters pertaining to deprivation of rights of women. However, a perusal of letter dated 14.06.2013 addressed by NCW to the High Commission of India, Singapore stating that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner should not be posted to any foreign country until he resolves his matrimonial dispute with Devika Singh manifests that it was in the form of an advisory. It is also relevant to note that the said letter culminated into termination of employment of writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein. More significantly, the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 was never intimated by NCW with regard to the complaint of Devika Singh.

(2) In the light of the aforementioned undisputed facts, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the procedure adopted by NCW is without any authority. Having regard to Section 10 of the NCW Act and the object sought to be achieved by the said Act, we are clear in our mind that it has never been the legislative intent to empower NCW to arrive at any final conclusion on any complaint received by it or to grant any relief which a Court is empowered to do.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
13.

Misc
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2017-03-15
W.P. (C) 10463 of 2015J.Manmohan SinghSunny Paul vs State NCT of DelhiSenior Citizen Act 2007

Maintenance Tribunal Can Order Eviction Of Adult Children In Cases Of Parental Abuse

(1) The direction of eviction is a necessary consequential relief or a corollary to which a senior citizen would be entitled upon a transfer being declared void. In Promil Tomar and Others (supra) the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that once the transfer of the property to the petitioners is held void by the Tribunal, the consequential benefit would be to restore senior citizens to a position which would be in the shape of status quo ante i.e. a situation which existed prior to the transfer so far as title and possession is concerned.

(2) Consequently, the Maintenance Tribunal has the jurisdiction to not only pass an eviction order but also to issue directions to give effect to the same under Section 23 of the Act 2007.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
14.

RAPE
HC of TRIPURA AGARTALA

on

2017-03-10
Crl.A (J) 4 of 2015J. T.VaipheiSubir Debnath vs The State of TripuraIPC 376, 375

Physical Relationship With Girl Aged Below 16 Is Rape, Even If There Was Love Relationship

(1) Exhibit M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.3 were seized by I.O. on production by the informant and according to the prosecution those were love letters written by the accused to the prosecutrix. In the FIR also it was mentioned that the accused made love relationship with the prosecutrix. The accused and the prosecutrix are close neighbours. In her statement, the prosecutrix clearly stated that the accused proposed to make physical relation but she refused and the accused made assurance of marriage but she denied. That part of the statement of the prosecutrix remains un-rebutted. So, even if there was any relation of love between the prosecutrix and the accused, she being a minor girl below 16 years, the physical relation with her amounts to rape since her consent was no consent even if for argument sake it is accepted that she had made consent.

(2) Since the evidence of the victim prosecutrix inspires confidence and it is corroborated by other items of evidence, we find no reason at all to interfere in the finding of guilt of the accused and the sentence imposed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge.

(3) Learned trial Judge directed the State Govt. to give compensation to the victim prosecutrix of an amount of `50,000/- and that direction has been given under Section 357A of Cr.P.C. Section 357A of Cr.P.C.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
15.

CHILD CUSTODY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

on

2017-02-17
MAT. APP (F.C.) 67 of 2016J.Pradeep NandrajogSMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA vs PERRY KANSAGRAChild Custody

Child has Right to Get Love from both Parents. Good Attitude of both Parents

(1) There can be no quarrel with the proposition that mediation proceedings are confidential proceedings and anything disclosed, discussed or proposed by the parties before the mediator cannot be recorded, much less divulged. The reason being that very often during mediations, offers, counter offers and proposals are made. The ethos of mediation would bar disclosure of specified communications and writings associated with mediation. Parties are encouraged during mediation to engage in honest discussions as regards their problems and in matrimonial disputes these honest discussions many a time give rise to a better understanding between the couple. Such an approach encourages a forget and forgive attitude to be formed by the parties. If either spouse is under an apprehension that the well-meant deliberations might subsequently be used against them it would hamper an unreserved consideration of their problems. The atmosphere of mutual trust during mediation warrants complete confidentiality.

(2) In the instant case, what has been taken on record during mediation proceedings is the report of the Child Counselor and the mediator, which we find are reports commending the good attitude of both parents who, unlike many other couples, are not using the child as a tool to take revenge against the other. As noted above, the interaction by the previous Division Bench with the child has been recorded in the order dated May 11, 2016 i.e. the child being equally comfortable with both parents and having a desire to spend quality time with not only his mother and relatives from the maternal side but even with the father and relatives from the paternal side. Such reports are a neutral evaluation of expert opinion to a Court to guide the Court as to what orders need to be passed in the best interest of the child. These reports are not confidential communications of the parties.

(3) Having answered the issue which incidentally arose, and noting that otherwise the appeal has been rendered infructuous, we terminate further proceedings in the appeal inasmuch as no orders are now warranted to be passed in the appeal.

(4) The learned Judge Family Court would consider granting over night interim custody to the respondent when he is in India by imposing such terms and conditions which would ensure that the child is not removed from the territory of India. The issue concerning the appellant claiming that she has lost the Kenyan passport of the child and a fresh passport being issued in the name of the child would also be looked into by the learned Judge Family Court.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
16.

BAIL
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2017-02-16
Bail App No 135 of 2017J.P.S.TejiUdit Raj Poonia vs State (Govt of NCT Delhi)IPC 498A, IPC 406, IPC 34

IO Required to Apply Mind/Decide if custody required for Recovery. The Bail Application Ought not to be Rejected for Settling the Scores Between the Parties

(1) Certain directions were issued by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar (supra) regarding arrest to be made by the police officers. It has been observed that the police officer must justify the arrest after arriving at a reasonable satisfaction after investigation as to the legitimacy of the complaint. The said judgment has been relied upon in the case of D.K. Basus case (supra) in which guidelines regarding arrest, investigation and interrogation of an accused have been issued such as manner of arrest, right of an accused during arrest, investigation and interrogation, his right to be medically examined and to be counselled by his lawyer during the period of investigation. Several precautions have been issued by the Honble Apex Court after the arrest of an accused by the above said judgments.

(2) 23. This Court is of the considered opinion that in matters of matrimonial cases, the Investigating Officer is required to first make out whether any article is to be recovered. In case, he is of the view that any article is to be recovered then he is to decide whether the custodial interrogation of any of the accused is required for the purpose of recovery of article. Without reaching to the conclusion with regard to recovery of article, whether it is stridhan article or any other article, the Investigating Officer is not to arrest the person for the recovery of the same.

(3) Similarly, the bail application ought not to be rejected for settling the scores between the parties.

(4) In view of the above discussion, facts and circumstances of the case and the parameters laid down above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the bail should be granted to the applicant and the instant bail application is allowed. He is further directed not to leave the country without prior permission of the court concerned.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
17.

RAPE
HC of GUJRAT at AHMEDABAD

on

2017-02-15
Criminal Misc App No 18202 of 2015J. J.B.PardiwalaShivlal Jerambhai vs State of GujratIPC 376, 342, 506

A team of doctors at the Civil Hospital tried to collect the semen sample by electrovibratory method for three times. It has been very specifically noted in the certificate that there was no erection or no ejaculation.

1. A team of doctors at the Civil Hospital tried to collect the semen sample by electrovibratory method for three times. It has been very specifically noted in the certificate that there was no erection or no ejaculation.

(2) In the overall view of the matter, I am convinced that the FIR is false. The case falls within the categories 3, 5 and 6 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604.In the FIR as well as in the statement of the prosecutorix recorded under Section164 of the Cr.P.C., there are specific allegations that she was overpowered by the accused and was forcibly raped. These allegations stand falsified by the evidence on record.

3. In the result, this application is allowed. The F.I.R. being C.R. No. 14 of 2015 filed before the Bhavnagar City Mahila Police Station, District Bhavnagar, is hereby ordered to be quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
18.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2017-02-14
RSA 14 of 2017J.Pratibha RaniMeenu vs Birma Devi2nd Appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure

Daughter In Law Can't Claim Right to Live in Self Acquired House of Mother-in-Law

Daughter In Law Can't Claim Right to Live in Self Acquired House of Mother-in-Law
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
19.

RAPE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

on

2017-02-10
Bail Application No 1504 of 2016J. Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKARDevrath Prashant Dubey vs The State of MaharastraIPC 376, 376D

Consent of Drunk Woman For Sex Invalid. Every Yes is not Yes.

(1) In the case of rape, intoxication cannot be an excuse. If a girl is intoxicated, it means mentally she is not capable to give a free and conscious consent. In a case of rape, when a woman says 'No' for sexual intercourse, it means she is not willing; similarly when she says 'Yes', it should be free and conscious 'Yes'. Not every 'Yes' is covered under the valid consent. Under section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, in the definition of 'rape' the words used are 'against her will' o and 'without her consent'. The term 'without her consent' has a wider meaning and covers a broader area of her wish to have sexual intercourse. If a woman is under intoxication/influence of liquor or any drug, then even though she gives consent, it is not a consent. On the other hand, act of rape committed under influence of drug or liquor is not covered under the iexceptions under the Indian Penal Code and that argument is not available to the accused. While reading Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, one has to refer to definition of consent under section 390 of the Indian a Penal Code wherein it is specifically mentioned that consent given when b a woman is intoxicated is not a consent. Similarly, along with to section understand 90, it is that necessary under to intoxication refer to section if rape 85 is of committed, the Indian Penal it is not Code an excuse for a man.

(2) Considering the rising number of rape cases, genuine or false, and after coming across the incidents wherein young lives are ruined due to ignorance of law, I am constrained to observe that the young generation needs legal education and it is to be impressed upon them that Criminal Jurisprudence and the Indian Penal Code are largely based on human psychology, social norms and moral values in order to maintain peace and harmony in the society.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
20.

RAPE
HC of KARNATAKA at BENGALURU

on

2017-02-08
Criminal Petition No 9463 of 2017Vijayakumar MajageSoni Nihal Dinesh vs Sri. Sandeep PatelIPC 376

Rape Case Can't Be Quashed On The Ground That Accused Married Victim

Rape undisputedly is one of the most depraved act. It is not only an offence against and individual,i t is catagorized as an offence against the society at large. In the instant case, petitioner No.1 is accused of committing forcible rape against the petitioner No.2 who was below 18 years of age as on the date of commission of the offence. The allegations made against the petitioner No.1 squarely fall within clause Sixthly of section 376 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, even though there is a settlement between the parties, and the parties are stated to have been married and are living together, the criminal proceedings initiated for the alleged offence cannot be quashed. In view of the ratio laid down in the above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised in the present set of facts.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
21.

CHILD CUSTODY
SC of INDIA

on

2017-02-06
Civil Appeal No 3962 of 2016J.A.K.SikriVivek Singh vs Romani SinghChild Custody

Assessment of Child’s Welfare For Custody Possible Only After Level Playing Field Is Given To Both Parents

(1) Within the few days, i.e. on August 26, 2010, the respondent filed the petition seeking custody of the child and for appointment of her guardian. She did not lose any time making her intentions clear that as a natural mother she wanted to have the custody of the child. It was her mis-fortune that the trial court vide its judgment dated December 07, 2011 dismissed her petition. Though, she filed the appeal against the said judgment immediately, but during the pendency of the appeal, the custody remained with the appellant because of the dismissal of the petition by the Family Court. The High Court has, by impugned judgment dated April 02, 2013 granted the custody to the respondent. However, the respondent has not been able to reap the benefit thereof because of the interim orders passed in the instant appeal. It is in these circumstances that child Saesha from the tender age of 21 months has remained with the appellant and today she is 8 years and 3 months. Obviously, because of this reason, as of today, she is very much attached to the father and she thinks that she should remain in the present environment. A child, who has not seen, experienced or lived the comfort of the company of the mother is, naturally, not in a position to comprehend that the grass on the other side may turn out to be greener. Only when she is exposed to that environment of living with her mother, that she would be in a position to properly evaluate as to whether her welfare lies more in the company of her mother or in the company of her father. As of today, the assessment and perception are one sided. Few years ago, when the High Court passed the impugned judgment, the ground realities were different.

(2) No doubt, this presumption in favour of maternal custody as sound child welfare policy, is rebuttable and in a given case, it can be shown that father is better suited to have the custody of the child. Such an assessment, however, can be only after level playing field is granted to both the parents. That has not happened in the instant case so far.

(3) It is also to be emphasised that her mother is a teacher in a prestigious Kendriya Vidyala school. Saesha is herself a school going child at primary level. If Saesha is admitted in the same school where her mother is teaching, not only Saesha would be under full care and protection of the mother, she would also be in a position to get better education and better guidance of a mother who herself is a teacher.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
22.

DIVORCE
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI beanch at NAGPUR

on

2017-02-06
Family Court Appeal No 55 of 2016Smt. Vasanti A. NaikBharti vs AnilHMA 13A

DIVORCE GRANTED TO HUSBAND UPHELD BY THE BOMBAY HC ON DESERTION OF WIFE

The Family court, rightly appreciated the evidence tendered by the husband on record to a hold that the husband was successful in proving that the wife had deserted him without any just or reasonable excuse. The Family Court 11/08/2008. found that admittedly The Family the wife Court was found residing that in there her was parental no cohabitation home from between the parties after 11/08/2008. Though the wife had claimed money that the from husband her and and were his family ill­treating members her for were non­fulfillment demanding dowry of the said and demands, the wife did not enter the witness box to prove her case. There is no complaint or any other document on record to show that the husband and his family members indeed demanded dowry from the parents of the wife. The Family Court found that there was nothing t on record to show that there was reasonable and justifiable cause for rthe wife to stay away from the matrimonial home for five years. u The Family Court observed that the wife had pleaded in her written statement that she was ready to cohabit with the husband, however, C she had not filed any counter claim to show that she really intended to reside with the husband. It was found that the wife had never filed any proceedings during the period of five years for the h restitution of conjugal rights. The husband had admittedly served g notices on the wife dated 07/06/2011 iand 20/06/2011 informing her that despite the best efforts made by him and his family H members, the wife was not ready to join his company and, therefore, it was necessary for the wife to agree for a decree y of divorce by consent. The wife, for the reasons best known to a her, did not reply to the said notices. Several facts are stated in these b notices to show that the husband had made genuine efforts to ensure m not that reply the wife to the returns notices to served the matrimonial by the husband home. in the The year wife, 2011 however and also did o did not make any efforts to join his company. There is nothing in the written concretestatement efforts to join of the the wife company to show of the that husband the wife during had the made period any of five years, after she left the matrimonial home on 11/08/2008. It is not the case of the wife that though she went to the matrimonial home after 11/08/2008, she was not permitted to enter the same. The Family Court, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that the husband t had made sufficient efforts to ensure that the wife returns to rthe matrimonial home but there was no positive response u from the wife. The Family Court, therefore, rightly held that there o was no just or reasonable excuse for the wife to leave the company C of the husband. The Family Court, therefore, recorded a finding that the wife had deserted the husband without any just or reasonable excuse. In the circumstances of th case, it cannot h be said that the Family Court has considered only the factum g of desertion and not the factum of animus ideserendi, as is submitted on behalf of the wife. The finding recorded by the Family Court on H the issue of desertion is just and proper and does not call for any interference. The judgments reported in 2010 (1) Mh.L.J. y 735 and 2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 277 and relied on by the learned a counsel for the wife cannot be made applicable to the case in hand.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
23.

DIVORCE
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI beanch at AURANGABAD

on

2017-01-19
Writ Petition No 1798 of 2016J.Ravindra V.GhugeSunuta Newal Gawte vs NewalHMA 13B

25000 Fine on Wife Trying to Backtrack from Mutual Consent & Abusing Family court Judge : (1) There is guarantee of the Constitution of India that there will be freedom of speech and writing, but reasonable restriction can be imposed. It will be of relevance to compare

(2) As the oral judgment of this Court was dictated in open Court on 11.1.2007 and since the petitioner has made a request o for leave to withdraw this petition by filing an affidavit for withdrawal of accusations / imputations against the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad and in the light of the apology tendered, I deem it proper to permit the petitioner / wife to withdraw this petition. Same is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
24.

Misc
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2017-01-10
Writ Pet No (CRL) 1253 of 2016J.Mukta GuptaNishu Wadhwa vs Siddharth WadhwaCrPC 156(3)

Magistrate Can’t Order Investigation By SHO Of Police Station Outside His Territorial Jurisdiction : A bare reading of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. shows that the Magistrate is empowered to direct investigation into the allegation of cognizable offence which he has jurisdiction to enquire into or try if after taking recourse to Sections 154 and 154(3) Cr.P.C., no FIR is registered. If Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. empower the Magistrate to direct the police officer concern to register FIR and investigate the offences alleged, the same would mean all the offences mentioned in the complaint. The police officer who registers FIR and enter into investigation cannot decline to investigate some offences and leave other if on the allegations in the FIR, the same are found to be made out. The veracity of the allegations has to be seen during investigation and at this stage investigation into each of the offences mentioned in the FIR is required to be done. Thus, when a Magistrate on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directs that all the offences mentioned in the complaint be investigated into, the Magistrate is not exercising its power illegally or beyond its jurisdiction. No doubt, once certain offences though made out on the face of the complaint are not mentioned in the copy of the FIR, the same cannot be added because there cannot be any tempering in the FIR but on being pointed out and if on the face of it, it is found that the discretion exercised by the investigating officer is contrary to law, the Magistrate would be within its jurisdiction to direct invoking of sections made out in the FIR during course of investigation so that proper investigation thereon can be carried out.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
25.

BAIL
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI

on

2017-01-09
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2221 of 2016J. Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKARAkshay Manoj Jaisinghani vs The State of MaharastraIPC 376, 504, 506

Every Breach Of Promise To Marry Cannot Amount To Rape : (1) This is an unfortunate but routine case of a boy and girl having affair, indulging into sexual relationship and ultimately ending into a breakup. Considering the facts of the case, undoubtedly, the complainant and the applicant/accused had consensual sexual relationship and were in love with each other.

(2) In a case of rape, the act of sexual intercourse is forcible and without consent of the woman. However, the consent obtained by fraud amounts to no consent and therefore, if there is sexual intercourse with consent but obtained by fraud, it amounts to rape. (3) Previously, in number of such matters, this Court has taken a specific view and has held that when a woman is major and educated and depending on facts on the case, she is supposed to be fully aware of the consequences of having sexual intercourse with a man before marriage. In the event of consent obtained by fraud, inducement is a necessary ingredient. There should be some material on record to believe prima facie that the girl was induced by the accused to such an extent that she was ready to have sexual intercourse with him. Promise to marry cannot be said to be an inducement in these types of cases.

(4) This Court has already held in the case of Mahesh Balkrishna Dandane vs. State of Maharashtra1 that to satisfy the sexual urge is a free decision of every major individual irrespective of gender. Thus, promise to marry in any manner, cannot be a condition precedent to have sex. However, the behavioural pattern and psyche of Indian society has to be taken into account while dealing with this issue.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
26.

RAPE
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2017-01-09
Crl App No 1187 of 2013J.Mukta GuptaRaj Kumar vs StateIPC 376, 420, 468

Woman Can’t Cry Rape After Knowingly Marrying an Already Married Man : (1) the prosecution has not been able to prove that the prosecutrix did not know about the factum of marriage of Raj Kumar with Madhu when she performed marriage with Raj Kumar and he committed sexual intercourse with her on the false pretext of a legal wedding. Thus Raj Kumar is entitled to be acquitted in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420/376 IPC.

(2) It has been proved that the affidavit was duly signed by the appellant wherein he disclosed himself to be a bachelor thereby proving forgery, however, since the element of cheating was missing for the reason the prosecutrix was aware of the marital status of Raj Kumar, ingredients of Section 468 IPC are not fulfilled. Thus Raj Kumar is entitled to be acquitted for offence punishable under Section 468 IPC but liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 465 IPC which is a minor offence of Section 468 IPC and punishable with imprisonment upto two years.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
27.

PERJURY
HC of CALCUTTA

on

2017-01-09
C.R.R. No 809 of 2015J. Indrajit ChatterjeeArijit Sarkar vs Monosree SarkarCrPC 195 340

Charges Without Evidence Attract Perjury

Regarding point no.2: Section 195 of the Code is in Chapter XIV of the Code. This Chapter deals with condition requisite for initiation of a proceeding. It is true that Section 195 deals with offences against the public justice also. Section 340 of the Code has laid down a procedure what the court will do where administration of justice has been affected. It has prescribed a procedure for tackling such a situation after making such preliminary inquiry. This is one procedural law which has supplemented Section 195 of the Code. In view of the decision of this court while answering point no.4 this court is satisfied that in the situation as stated while discussing the fact certainly Section 195 of the Code can be pressed into action along with Section 340 of the Code. The trial court will decide after making preliminary inquiry as to whether the recital in the report submitted by the opposite party no.7 as pointed out by Mr. Roy and duly noted by me in Page no.2 of this judgment is based on facts or not and whether any criminal prosecution can be initiated. Thus, this point no.2 is answered accordingly.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
28.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2017-01-06
Crl App No 1144 of 2016J.Deepak MishraThe State of Telangana vs Habib Abdullah JeelaniSec 482

HC Can’t Restrain Police From Arresting Accused, While Declining To Quash Case : It has come to the notice of the Court that in certain cases, the High Courts, while dismissing the application under Section 482 CrPC are passing orders that if the accused-petitioner surrenders before the trial magistrate, he shall be admitted to bail on such terms and conditions as deemed fit and appropriate to be imposed by the concerned Magistrate. Sometimes it is noticed that in a case where sessions trial is warranted, directions are issued that on surrendering before the concerned trial judge, the accused shall be enlarged on bail. Such directions would not commend acceptance in light of the ratio in Rashmi Rekha Thatoi (supra), Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra), etc., for they neither come within the sweep of Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor Section 482 CrPC nor Section 438 CrPC. This Court in Ranjit Singh (supra) had observed that the sagacious saying “a stitch in time saves nine” may be an apposite reminder and this Court also painfully so stated.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
29.

DV Act 2005
HC of ORISSA, CUTTACK

on

2017-01-04
Crl Rev No 70 of 2016J. S.K.SahooSayed Fakiruddin vs Hena BegumDV ACT 2005

Maintenance is not Meant for the Wife to Live in Luxury. It Should be Fair and Reasonable and Take into Account the Husband's Earnings

Perused the judgment of learned Magistrate where the income side of the petitioner has been discussed. It seems that the learned Magistrate has accepted the statement of the opposite party even though no corresponding documents relating to the income of the petitioner has been filed and no clinching oral evidence has been adduced in that behalf. The monetary relief in the form of maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children as per section 20 of the P.W.D.V. Act, 2005 should be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. The amount should not be so fixed which would enable the aggrieved person as well as her children to live in luxury. The needs/requirements of the claimants, the income of the husband of the aggrieved person, the status of the husbands family and the standard of life which the claimants would have led had they continued to live in the house of the respondent should also be considered. The mechanical way of fixation of maintenance at the whim and pleasure of the Court is not permissible. The decision should not be arbitrary but judicious.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
30.

Misc
HC od CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

on

2016-12-23
WPRC No 145 of 2016J.Goutam BhanduriSurfaraj vs Anupam DubeyArticle 21 of Constitution

Copy Of FIR Can’t Be Refused Except In Sensitive Cases : In this case, applying the aforesaid principles, the submission made by the State that the petitioner can avail a copy of the FIR from the concerned Magistrate cannot be appreciated and thereby the police authorities can be absolved of their duties against the observation of Supreme Court and police officers would be under the duty to provide the FIR if applied for as per the direction issued by the Supreme Court and any violation would sounds in contempt. It is further observed that even if the copy of FIR has been forwarded to the Magistrate then in such case too, the person seeking copy of FIR cannot be denied. The observation is based on inherent object of Constitution that one person cannot be denied to get a certified copy of the FIR from the police authorities as it would offend the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However the exception is carved out like offences of sexual nature, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under POCSO Act and other such offences. It is expected that State shall abide by the orders passed by the Supreme Court and upload the FIR in the police website and in absence thereof any official website of the State Government.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
31.

IPC 304B
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2016-12-21
Crl App No 526 of 2002J.P.S.TejiRamesh Chander vs State of DelhiIPC 304B, Evidence Act 113B

Presumption u/s 113B evidence act can be drawn only when 304B IPC proven : The presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act can be drawn only where the ingredients of Section 304B IPC are fulfilled. The prosecution has failed to establish the necessary ingredient of dowry death i.e. cruelty or harassment meted out to the deceased by the appellant what to say soon before her death. As mentioned above, the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of necessary ingredients to raise the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
32.

DIVORCE
HC of JHARKHAND at RANCHI

on

2016-12-05
First Appeal No 22 of 2005J.H.C.MishraSmt. Rinku Devi vs Santosh KumarHMA 13

Divorce not Dismissed because Husband Already Married : (1) In the facts of this case and taking into consideration the fact that the respondent husband has already married after the expiry of the limitation period, as no appeal was filed within limitation period, and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondent that he is having children from the second marriage also, we refrain from entertaining the appeal on merits and interfering with the Judgment and Decree of divorce granted by the Court below, but we are of the considered view that a permanent alimony should be granted to the appellant who is also maintaining two children out of the wedlock. We are informed that presently, the wife is getting monthly maintenance of Rs.1400/- from the respondent, pursuant to the order passed by the competent Court in the State of Bihar, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

(2) In the facts of this case and taking into consideration the fact that the respondent is a gold-smith, we, hereby, direct the respondent to make the payment of permanent alimony of Rs.7,00,000/-(Rs. seven lakh only) to the appellant wife, which shall be apart from the monthly maintenance to the appellant as granted by the competent Court in the State of Bihar. We direct the respondent to make the payment of the amount of the permanent alimony to the appellant wife positively within the period of three months from today.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
33.

Misc
HC of KARNATAKA at BENGALURU

on

2016-12-02
MFA No 6526 of 2013J.H.G.RameshKarnatka Power Transmission vs M.RajashekarSec 5(1) of Land Acquisition Act

Whether vakalatnama filed by a new advocate is to be accepted in the absence of ‘no objection’ of the advocate already on record, is the short question for consideration in this case : As stated above, under no circumstance, a party can be denied of his right to appoint a new advocate of his choice. The right is absolute and not conditional. Hence, the objection raised by the Registry on the vakalatnama is overruled. Hereafter, the Registry shall not ask for ‘no objection’ of the advocate already on record, to accept the vakalatnama filed by a new Advocate.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
34.

Misc
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2016-11-24
RSA 136 & CM No. 19123 of 2016J.Pratibha RaniSachin vs Jhabbu LalCPC

Son Can Stay in Parents' House Only at Their Mercy : Where the house is self acquired house of the parents, son whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live in that house and he can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents upto the time the parents allow. Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were cordial, does not mean that the parents have to bear his burden throughout his life.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
35.

DV Act 2005
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, SPECIAL JUDGE CBI­02 (P.C. ACT), DISTT. NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

on

2016-11-24
Crl. (A) No. 46 or New Crl. A No. 49817 of 2016 or 20Rajneesh Kumar GuptaMs. Anjana Rani vs Mr. Amit jindalDV ACT 2005

No Domestic Relation no DV : From the material on record, it is clear that the appellant has left the matrimonial house in the year 2009 and has been living separately from the respondents No. 2 and 3. In the appeal, the appellant has made the allegations that she used to visit the respondent No. 2 and 3 very regularly on every weekend and every holiday. These allegations shows that the appellant is residing separately and has only temporarily visiting the residence of the respondent No. 2 and 3. There is nothing to show that the appellant has ever resided in the household or residence of the respondents No. 2 and 3 continuously and as a matter of right and has lived in the shared household with the respondents No. 2 and 3. Keeping in view the abovesaid judgment, I am of the opinion that there is no domestic relationship between the appellant and the respondents No. 2 and 3.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
36.

Adultry
SC of INDIA

on

2016-11-18
Crl App No 1097 of 2016J.Amitava RoyBaijnath vs State of Madya PradeshIPC 304B

Presumption of Dowry Death Must be Soundly Backed by Evidence of Cruelty

This Court while often dwelling on the scope and purport of Section 304B of the Code and Section 113B of the Act have propounded that the presumption is contingent on the fact that the prosecution first spell out the ingredients of the offence of Section 304B as in Shindo Alias Sawinder Kaur and another Vs. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC 517 and echoed in Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2013) 16 SCC 640. In the latter pronouncement, this Court propounded that one of the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304B of the Code is that the accused must have subjected the woman to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death and that this ingredient has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and only then the Court will presume that the accused has committed the offence of dowry death under Section 113B of the Act. It referred to with approval, the earlier decision of this Court in K. Prema S. Rao Vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao – (2003) 1 SCC 217 to the effect that to attract the provision of Section 304B of the Code, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that 'soon before her death' she was subjected to cruelty and harassment 'in connection with the demand for dowry'.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
37.

DV Act 2005
HC of RAJASTHAN at JAIPUR

on

2016-11-17
S.B.Criminal Revision No 670 of 2016J.Prashant Kumar AgarwalGeeta Singh vs State of RajasthanDV ACT 2005

Although, the Act has been enacted to provide more effective protection of the rights of women but that does not mean that a woman can claim any expenses as monetary relief : The question in the present . case is whether refusal by the respondent to incur living expenses of his daughter can be said to be commision of economic abuse. No law or custom has been shown by the petitioner under which a well educated daughter of the age of more than 30 years can claim her I living expenses to the tune of 700 pound per month for pursuing her further higher studies from a foreign University. According to this provision deprivation of economic or financial resources which the the aggrieved person requires out of necessity also amount to economic abuse. For the applicability of this part of the provision, requirement of the aggrieved person must be out of necessity. In my opinion each and every expenses incurred or to be incurred by the aggrieved person for her study cannot be termed to be a requirement out of necessity. Expenses incurred or to be incurred by daughter of a person for her reasonable studies can be said to be a requirement out of necessity but living expenses incurred or to be incurred by a daughter for pursuing her further higher studies from a foreign University and more particularly in view of the fact that she has already obtained a post graduate degree from a reputed University in India and has already taken further studies from a foreign university and who is capable of earning her own income by joining a job and who has joined her further studies without the consent of his father rather against his wishes cannot be said to be a requirement out of necessity and even if father has refused to bear such expenses, it cannot be said that the daughter has been subjected to economic abuse within the meaning of the Act. Although, the Act has been enacted to provide more effective protection of the rights of women but that does not mean that a woman can claim any expenses as monetary relief from the respondent. Unless the act . of the respondent comes within the purview of the domestic violence as specified under Section 3 of the Act and unless the petitioner is an aggrieved person, no relief can be granted to her.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
38.

DV Act 2005
HC of U.P.

on

2016-11-09
Writ C No 53503 of 2016J.Suneet KumarKusum vs State of U.P.DV ACT 2005

All Live-in Relations can't be relationship in the nature of Marriage

In the facts of the case before the Supreme Court the appellant (lady) had entered into the relationship knowing fully well that the man is married and therefore the Court declined to grant her any relief holding that the relationship would not be a relationship in the nature of marriage.

2) The ratio of Indra Sharma squarely applies on the facts of the present case for the reason it is admitted and pleaded in the writ petition that the second petitioner entered into a relationship with the first petitioner who is married and her marriage has not been dissolved by any competent court as on date, therefore, such a relationship cannot be granted any protection.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
39.

DV Act 2005
HC of RAJASTHAN at JODHPUR

on

2016-11-08
Cri Misc Petition No 1524 of 2011J. P.K.LohraSudama Dutt Sharma vs State of RajasthanDV ACT 2005

Complaint not maintainable under Domestic Violence Act if it lacks mentioning of specific instances of domestic violence. Allowing such a case to continue will be a complete abuse of the process of courts.

There is yet another aspect of the matter that the respondent-complainant laid the complaint on 8 th of February 2010 and during pendency of the complaint her husband expired on 17 th of October 2010, as a consequence of which complainant against him was abated. In the considered opinion of this Court, therefore, learned trial Court has seriously erred in continuing proceedings against the present petitioners on wholly untenable grounds. On the face of it, when the complaint is bereft of pre-requisites of necessary ingredients prescribed under Section 12 of the Act of 2005, further proceedings in the matter against the petitioners is nothing but a futile exercise which warrants clogging of the same perpetually to secure ends of justice.

That apart, in the instant case, the discord/acrimony between the spouses started from 1995 and since then complainant is not living with the petitioners and even there was a matrimonial dispute going on between the spouses, is sufficient to conclude that there is no iota of evidence to indicate that she has been subjected to domestic violence by the petitioners. Moreover, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, any claim of residence staked by respondent- complainant against the petitioners is wholly untenable as per provisions of the Act of 2005. In above view of the matter, if the proceedings are allowed to be continued before the learned trial Court on the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant, it would obviously result in abuse of the process of the Court.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
40.

DIVORCE
HC of ALLAHABAD

on

2016-11-05
Writ Pet C No 51421 of 2016J.Suneet KumarHina vs State of U.P.Muslim Personal Law

The personal laws of any community cannot claim supremacy over the rights granted to the individuals by the Constitution : India is a nation in the making, geographical boundaries alone do not define a nation. It is to be adjudged, amongst others, on the parameter of overall human development and how the society in particular treat their women; leaving such a large population to the whims & fancy of personal law which perpetuate gender inequality and is regressive, is not in the interest of society and the country. It impedes and drags India from becoming a nation. The instant divorce (Triple Talaq) though has been deprecated and not followed by all sects of muslim community in the country, however, is a cruel and the most demeaning form of divorce practised by the muslim community at large. Women cannot remain at the mercy of the patriarchal setup held under the clutches of sundry clerics having their own interpretation of the holy Quoran. Personal laws, of any community, cannot claim supremacy over the rights granted to the individuals by the Constitution.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
41.

PERJURY
HC of GUJRAT at AHMEDABAD

on

2016-10-20
Special Criminal Application No 7666 of 2016J.Sonia GokaniSejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya vs State of GujratCrPC 195 & 340

(1) The trial Court, on an application Exh.88 under sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by respondent No.2 on 13.5.2016, recorded the evidence on both the sides and directed the Registrar of Family Court to file an application before the Pradyuman Nagar police station under sections 191,192 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2) He has furnished before the Court. So far as its impact on the administration of justice is concerned, this Court has no reason to interfere as often it is found that the litigants coming before the Court chose to speak blatant lies and do so with complete impudence.

(3) Laws which are otherwise in favour of the distressed wife when are sought to be misused by declaring completely incorrect facts and also by suppressing the material aspect, the trial Court at the time of considering the case found that the impact on the administration of justice would make it expedient for it to direct the prosecution. (4) This Court finds no justification in interfering with the order. Even otherwise, the petitioner is going to get all the opportunities to defend her case effectively. It is also, therefore, necessary for this Court not to elaborate further on the merits of the matter.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
42.

DV Act 2005
HC of MANIPUR at IMPHAL

on

2016-10-20
Cril Revn Petition 21 of 2015J. R.R.PrasadInaobi Singh vs Huidrom NingolDV ACT 2005

Whether application by father for visitation rights is maintainable under domestic violence Act?

(1) As I have already indicated that Section 21 is amenable to two interpretations as is being highlighted by the parties, in such event only that interpretation which advanced the object of the provision can be accepted. It is worthwhile to note that the Act was enacted to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society and keeping in view that, several protection orders including the safety of the aggrieved person and the child have been contemplated to be passed. Therefore, the cause of the safety of the aggrieved person or the child is always warrants to be taken into account in interpreting the provision. In such situation, if the interpretation given on behalf of the wife-aggrieved party is accepted, it will render the provision incomplete as in case where wife-aggrieved party seeks custody of the child, if the child is in custody of the husband and an order of custody is passed in favour of the aggrieved party, visitation right can be granted to the husband. But, if custody lies with the wifeaggrieved party, then the husband will have no remedy of visitation right if the interpretation as contemplated by the wife-aggrieved party is given effect to and thereby it can easily be said that interpretation given by the aggrieved party-wife will never advance the cause of the child.

(2) On the other hand, if it is held that the husband, in absence of any application for grant of custody, can maintain his application for visitation right will advance the object of the provision as in case of child being in custody of the husband, application for custody can be filed by the wife wherein the husband can have a visitation right if order is of custody of child passed in favour of the aggrieved party. In other situation, when the custody of the child lies with the wife, there would be no occasion for the wife for filing an application for custody as it has happened in the instant case. In that situation, husband will have remedy to have visitation right by filing application to that effect. Under the circumstances, I do find that the appellate court was quite justified in holding that even in absence of application for custody being there, by the aggrieved party, application of visitation right in terms of the proviso to Rule 21 can be maintained. Thus, I do not find any merit in the Criminal Revision Petition No.16 of 2015. Hence, it is dismissed.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
43.

CHILD CUSTODY
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI

on

2016-10-15
Writ Petition No 7268 of 2016J.K.K.TatedRajesh Khanduji vs Smita PendharkarArticle 227 of Constitution

50% of Custody during Vacation LConsidering these facts and the Consent Terms filed by both the parties in the Family Court, I am of the opinion that petitioner is entitled custody of minor child for atleast 50% of Diwali Vacation. Considering the fact that Diwali Vacation for child is from 21.10.2016 to 6.11.2016, I am of the opinion that petitioner is entitled for overnight custody of the child from 22.10.2016 to 29.10.2016 on condition that he has to file undertaking before this court rthat on 29.10.2016 on or before 6 p.m. he will hand over custody of child to the respondent wife at Child Complex in Family o Court at Bandra. It is made clear that if petitioner fails to hand over the custody on 29.10.2016 on or before 6 p.m. respondent wife is at liberty to move before this court immediately for taking action against the petitioner.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
44.

Misc
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI

on

2016-10-10
Criminal Writ Petition No 846 of 2016J. S.S.ShindeRajendra vs State of MaharastraCrPC 482

Court Can't Rely on Police Report

1) Indisputably, the cognizance of the offence punishable under section 27 (b) (ii) of the Act alleged to have been committed by the petitioner has not been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class on the basis of the complaint as defined under section 2 r(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, u 1973, filed by respondent No. 2 - the Drugs Inspector. Consequently, the cognizance of the said offence taken on the basis of the chargesheet filed by the police officer cannot be said to be legal. The learned Judicial Magistrate First h Class had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the said offence against the petitioner on the basis of the chargesheet filed by the police officer ignoring the provisions of section 32 of the Act.

2) The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment in the case of G. Sagar Suri and another m Vs. State of U.P. and others (2000) 2 S.C.C. 636, wherein it has been held that the High Court can exercise the jurisdiction of quashing criminal proceedings even when the application for discharge of the accused is pending with the trial Judge. However, such power should be exercised cautiously to prevent abuse of process of court. He further cited the judgment in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others 1998 (1) Mh.L.J. 599 (S.C.), wherein also it has been held that though the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless, but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceedings quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him and still he must undergo the agony of a criminal trial.

3) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the present case and the rulings referred to above, we are of the y considered view that the continuation of a criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be a sheer abuse of process of the Court. In the result, we allow the writ petition with the following order : (i) The criminal writ petition is allowed. (ii) The criminal proceedings bearing Summary Criminal Case No. 671 of 2014, instituted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chalisgaon, against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 27 (b) (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, are quashed and set aside.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
45.

DIVORCE
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2016-10-07
MAP.APP.(F.C.) 63 of 2016J.Pradeep NandrajogSantosh Sahay vs hanuman SahayHMA 13A

DIVORCE GRANTED ON GROUND OR CRUELTY LIKE TANTRIK KIRYA : The disgusting accusations made by the wife against the husband of he being in illicit relationship, referring him as a drunkard are serious in nature assassinating his character and harming his reputation as a teacher. She has failed to prove any of the above but yet resisting the divorce which if accepted, would make life of the two even more complex and unbearable. The allegations made not only in the written statement but also in the FIR against the husband and his entire family have the effect of causing mental cruelty to him and his entire family. It is now beyond cavil that if a false character assassination allegation is made by either spouse it would invariably constitute matrimonial cruelty to entitle other spouse to seek divorce.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
46.

DV Act 2005
SC of INDIA

on

2016-10-06
Civil Appeal No 10084 of 2016J.R.F.NarimanHiral P.Harsora vs Kusum NarottamdasDV ACT 2005

Women can also be prosecuted under domestic violence law : We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court and declare that the words 'adult male' in Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act will stand deleted since these words do not square with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the proviso to Section 2(q), being rendered otiose, also stands deleted. We may only add that the impugned judgment has ultimately held, in paragraph 27, that the two complaints of 2010, in which the three female respondents were discharged finally, were purported to be revived, despite there being no prayer in Writ Petition No.300/2013 for the same. When this was pointed out, Ms.Meenakshi Arora very fairly stated that she would not be pursuing those complaints, and would be content to have a declaration from this Court as to the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act. We, therefore, record the statement of the learned counsel, in which case it becomes clear that nothing survives in the aforesaid complaints of October, 2010. With this additional observation, this appeal stands disposed of.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
47.

DIVORCE
SC of INDIA

on

2016-10-06
Civil Appeal No 3253 of 2008J.Anil R.DaveNarendra vs K.MeenaHMA 13A

CRUELTY BY WIFE ON HUSBAND : Taking an overall view of the entire evidence and the judgment delivered by the trial Court, we firmly believe that there was no need to take a different view than the one taken by the trial Court. The behaviour of the Respondent wife appears to be terrifying and horrible. One would find it difficult to live with such a person with tranquility and peace of mind. Such torture would adversely affect the life of the husband. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent wife had left the matrimonial house on 12 th July, 1995 i.e. more than 20 years back. Though not on record, the learned counsel submitted that till today, the Respondent wife is not staying with the Appellant. The daughter of the Appellant and Respondent has also grown up and according to the learned counsel, she is working in an IT company. We have no reason to disbelieve the aforestated facts because with the passage of time, the daughter must have grown up and the separation of the Appellant and the wife must have also become normal for her and therefore, at this juncture it would not be proper to bring them together, especially when the Appellant husband was treated so cruelly by the Respondent wife.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
48.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2016-10-04
Crl App No 1516 of 2011J.Adarsh Kumar GoelBHAGWAN JAGANNATH MARKAD vs State of MaharastraIPC 147, 149, 302

Burden of Proof : It is accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is one which occurs to a prudent and reasonable man. Section 3 of the Evidence Act refers to two conditions – (i) when a person feels absolutely certain of a fact – 'believe it to exist' and (ii) when he is not absolutely certain and thinks it so extremely probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances, act on the assumption of its existence. The doubt which the law contemplates is not of a confused mind but of prudent man who is assumed to possess the capacity to 'separate the chaff from the grain'. The degree of proof need not reach certainty but must carry a high degree of probability.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
49.

RAPE
SC of INDIA

on

2016-10-04
Crl App No 1767 of 2011J.Amitava RoyRaja vs State of KarnatkaIPC 376, 392, 34

Sex worker cant cry rape IF denied money : Vis-a-vis the scope of interference with a judgment of acquittal, this Court in Sunil Kumar Shabukumar Gupta (Dr.) (supra) echoed the hallowed proposition that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not ordinarily interfere therewith though its view may appear to be the more probable one. While emphasizing that the trial court has the benefit of watching the demeanour of the witnesses and is thus the best judge of their credibility, it was held that every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved and that his presumption of innocence gets reinforced with his acquittal by the trial court's verdict. It was reiterated that only in exceptionable cases and under compelling circumstances, where the judgement of acquittal is found to be perverse i.e. if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant materials or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material and are against the weight of evidence or are so outrageously in defiance of logic so as to suffer from the vice of irrationality, that interference by the appellate court would be called for.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
50.

IPC 498A
HC of PUNJAB & HARYANA at CHANDIGARH

on

2016-10-03
Crl Misc No M-8742 of 2015J.Anita ChaudhryDaljit Singh vs Sukhwinder KaurIPC 498A

Dowry Complaints Must Be Approached Cautiously As That's Serious Matter For Accused

No fetters can be put on the powers of the Court from exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. once the Court finds that the proceedings against the petitioners are smeared with malafides then pontinuation thereof would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Once this Court has concluded that continuation of prosecution against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law, there is no need to delve into the questions of jurisdiction or to the recourse to the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
51.

Maintenance
HC of PUNJAB & HARYANA at CHANDIGARH

on

2016-09-29
Criminal Revision No 2625 of 2014J. Anita ChaudhryMonu Songra vs PinkiCrPC 125

Whether Application for Interim Maintenance can be Rejected Considering Contents of FIR Filed by Wife ?

The wife in her petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. did not disclose that she was a Physiotherapist or was earning but in the First Information Report lodged with the police in September 2013 she had mentioned that she was a Physiotherapist (doctor). The information was provided by the complainant. There was no reason for the complainant to mention that. When it has been specifically mentioned it can be assumed that she was a practicing Physiotherapist. The husband is posted in Rajasthan. It is not possible for him to collect the information whether she was running a clinic or about her income. The trial Court had noted this and had declined the application for interim maintenance and rightly so. The Revisional Court based on assumptions wrongly allowed maintenance at the interim stage. It should have taken some affidavit from the wife. The wife had to explain how that fact was introduced in the FIR. There was a categoric assertion in the FIR that she was a Physiotherapist, it appears that the wife was hiding facts. She is capable of earning. The trial Court is yet to consider the case on merits. It will have to determine whether a qualified woman who can get a job can sit idle and insist on maintenance. Everyone has to earn for himself or herself or at least make an effort and would not sit idle. See Mamta Jaiswal versus Rajesh Jaiswal 2000(3) MPLJ 100. The order passed by the Revisional Court is set aside. Before parting with the order, it is necessary to mention that the petition filed in 2013 has still not been decided. The litigation can really corrode human relationship and it is the duty of the Court to curtail it. There is no need to hurry but procrastination should not be manifest. The Courts should be in complete control over the proceedings and should not permit the lis to be prolonged and if either party is delaying the proceedings, necessary steps should be taken.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
52.

Misc
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

on

2016-09-27
CIC/SA/A/2016/000884 of 2016M. Sridhar AcharyuluO.P.Gandi vs Tihar JailCIC

Public Authorities/State Must Compensate Victims For Extra-Detention As It Violates Right To Life : The Central Information Commission (CIC) through Information Commissioner M. Sridhar Acharyulu in O.P. Gandhi v. Tihar Jail directed the state/public authorities to compensate a prisoner who lost out on his freedom due to extra detention, thus violating his fundamental right to a meaningful life guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The appellant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and fine. But after collecting information on remission and other aspects through 36 RTI applications, he contended that he was detained for an extra length of four days. The question for consideration was ‘other detriment’ of extra-detention, and compensation. The commission opined that since the order of remission to be granted to all the convicts who had maintained good conduct in the jail and had not been punished during preceding one year 15.08.2013 to 14.08.2014, and instead was issued on 11.08.2014, the appellant should have been released on that day itself. The authorities knew that the appellant has to be released on that day as per the remission order, yet he was detained till 15.08.2014. According to calculation of the appellant, he lost 14 days of freedom, and assuming that the order was given on 11.08.2014, as per the contention of the respondents, the appellant lost four days of freedom. Article 21 under the Constitution guarantees every Indian citizen right to personal life and liberty. An important question that came up was whether the state/public authority could be made liable for false imprisonment. Landmark case Rudul Shah v State of Bihar [AIR 1983 SC 1086] and another important case Bhim Singh, MLA vs State of J&K and Ors. [AIR 1986 SC 494] were relied upon wherein the Supreme Court held that the state has to compensate for extra detention.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
53.

Misc
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2016-09-20
CRL.M.A. 14463 of 2016J.Gita MittalChanderjeet Kumar vs StateJUVENILE JUSTICE

Rights of children completely non-negotiable : The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Director (Academics), Delhi Judicial Academy for designing a refresher course on juvenile justice and compiling the material for it. This design shall be sent to every District Judge, who if possible, would organise and implement the training at the District Court Complexes for expediency and to save the time of the judges. The timing of implementation of the training may be staggered to ensure that the programme is undertaken urgently and by every member of the judicial service. If the court complex does not permit or on account of any other factor, organisation of the training is not possible, it shall be the responsibility of the Delhi Judicial Academy to expeditiously undertake the same.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
54.

DV Act 2005
HC of RAJASTHAN at JAIPUR

on

2016-09-20
Crl Misc Petition No 4990 of 2015J.Mohammad RafiqVishnu Dutt Goyal vs Smt Kalpna GuptaDV ACT 2005

DV CASE NOT TO CONTINUE WHEN ORIGINAL RCR CASE COMPROMISED AND DISMISSED : Learned counsel for the respondent has produced for perusal of the court the order dated 12.12.2015 passed in the Lok Adalat attached to the courts at Hindauncity, and submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties before the Family Court, where the application filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been dismissed on the basis of the compromise. If that be so, there is no reason why the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act continue.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
55.

DV Act 2005
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI

on

2016-09-19
Appeal From Order No 910 of 2014J.Dr.Shalini Phansalkar JoshiMrs. Sarika Mahendra Surekha vs Mr. Mahendra SurekhaDV ACT 2005

WOMEN CAN ENFORCE RIGHT ON SHARED HOUSEHOLD : Thus, when the very object of enactment of D.V. Act is to protect the right of married woman in the 'shared household' irrespective of to whom such house belongs and when the very concept of her right of residence being linked to title or ownership of the house being alien and kept away from the scheme of the Act, as u due to the very absence of right, title or interest in the matrimonial home, she was thrown out therefrom, to import again o the very same concept of title and ownership is defeating the C very object of the Act, setting at naught the legislative efforts and most importantly depriving the woman of her human rights, which hare given statutory recognition under D.V. Act.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
56.

DIVORCE
HC of MAHARASTRA at NAGPUR

on

2016-09-15
Family Court Appeal No 344 of 2014Smt. Vasanti A. NaikSau Sarika vs SachinHMA 13A

12. The terms of settlement executed between the parties on 19.09.2013 as an interim arrangement have worked to a great extent and in the circumstances of the case, we direct that the custody of Anvesh would be with the husband from Friday evening (after the School hours) till Tuesday morning, when Anvesh would be dropped to the school. It is needless to mention that the wife would have the custody of Anvesh from Tuesday evening (after the School hours) till Friday evening. We have arrived at this arrangement, with a view to give equal opportunity to rboth the parents to spend time with Anvesh who is just seven u years of age and is a slow learner. The husband may continue to drop o Anvesh to the school and classes and bring him back to the house of the wife even when Anvesh would be in the custody of the wife. During the vacations, the custody of Anvesh should be shared equally by the husband and the wife, that is to say that, if the vacations are for a period of twenty two days, Anvesh would remain with each of the parents for eleven days. This arrangement would apply to all the vacations including the summer, the winter and the Diwali vacations.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
57.

DIVORCE
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2016-09-09
MAT. APP (F.C.) 95 of 2016J.Pradeep NandrajogKamini Sondhi vs Kapil SondhiHMA 13A

FALSE COMPLAINT AGAINST HUSBAND IS CRUELTY : (1) The appellant/wife cannot rebut the evidence led by the respondent/husband to prove the act of mental cruelty being caused by her by visiting his (respondent’s) boss at his residence and also at his (appellant’s) office and creating scene there.

(2) The above instances were sufficient to dissolve their marriage on the ground of cruelty.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
58.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2016-09-09
Crl.M.C. 46 of 2013J.Pradeep NandrajogBabita vs StateDV ACT 2005

NO DV CASE IF ACCUSED ARE NOT IN DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIP

Pertaining to the complaint lodged under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and perusal of the allegations therein, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate deleted Sh.Ved Prakash and Smt.Hira Devi from the array of respondents vide order dated February 29, 2012 which order has been confirmed by the learned ASJ, Kakardoma Court vide order dated November 29, 2012 holding that there is no domestic relationship between the complainant and Sh.Ved Prakash and Smt.Hira Devi who were not even residing with the complainant in the matrimonial home. The allegations against Ved Prakash and Hira Devi have been found to be vague.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
59.

BAIL
HC of MADRAS

on

2016-09-08
Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 14115 of 2016J. S.VimalaVigneshwaran vs State RepCrPC 482

Report of the Probation Officer not necessary for granting bail to a Juvenile.

(1) When a specific question was posed as to why a direction is required in a case where bail is mandatory under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bail application of the juvenile is not being considered on the same day of appearance, as the Juvenile Justice Board wants the report of the Probation Officer before the grant of bail and that compels the minor to stay in Observation Home which the petitioner wants to avoid. Under such circumstances, this application for direction is taken up.

(2) Section 12 of the Act does not contemplate obtaining of report of the Probation Officer before the grant of bail. If the Juvenile Justice Board is not granting bail, the alterative option open to the Juvenile Justice Board is to place the Juvenile under the supervision of a Probation Officer.

(3) Bail can be refused under the proviso to Section 12 of the Act, only if the release is likely to bring the juvenile into the association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physicalpsychological danger or that his release would defeat the endsjustice. In other circumstances, so far juveniles are concerned, grantbail is the rule and non grant of bail is only an exception.

(4) Under such circumstances, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Juvenile Justice Board within A ten days from the date receipt of a copy of this order E and file bail application. The Juvenile Justice Board is directed to consider and pass orders on the bail application of the petitioner . on merits on the same day of his appearance.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
60.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2016-09-07
Writ Pet No (CRL) 68 of 2016J.Deepak MishraYouth Bar Association of India vs Union of IndiaArticle 32 of Constitution

FIR GUIDELINES : The Supreme Court of India Today in Youth Bar Association of India Vs Union of India and Others has issued 10 important Guidelines on First Information Report. Guidelines

(a) An accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
(b) An accused who has reasons to suspect that he has been roped in a criminal case and his name may be finding place in a First Information Report can submit an application through his representative/agent/parokar for grant of a certified copy before the concerned police officer or to the Superintendent of Police on payment of such fee which is payable for obtaining such a copy from the Court. On such application being made, the copy shall be supplied within twenty-four hours.
(c) Once the First Information Report is forwarded by the police station to the concerned Magistrate or any Special Judge, on an application being filed for certified copy on behalf of the accused, the same shall be given by the Court concerned within two working days. The aforesaid direction has nothing to do with the statutory mandate inhered under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
(d) The copies of the FIRs, unless the offence is sensitive in nature, like sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under POCSO Act and such other offences, should be uploaded on the police website, and if there is no such website, on the official website of the State Government, within twenty-four hours of the registration of the First Information Report so that the accused or any person connected with the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application before the Court as per law for redressal of his grievances. It may be clarified here that in case there is connectivity problems due to geographical location or there is some other unavoidable difficulty, the time can be extended up to forty-eight hours. The said 48 hours can be extended maximum up to 72 hours and it is only relatable to connectivity problems due to geographical location.
(e) The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website shall not be taken by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any person holding equivalent post. In case, the States where District Magistrate has a role, he may also assume the said authority. A decision taken by the concerned police officer or the District Magistrate shall be duly communicated to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.
(f) The word 'sensitive' apart from the other aspects which may be thought of being sensitive by the competent authority as stated hereinbefore would also include concept of privacy regard being had to the nature of the FIR. The examples given with regard to the sensitive cases are absolutely illustrative and are not exhaustive.
(g) If an FIR is not uploaded, needless to say, it shall not enure per se a ground to obtain the benefit under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
(h) In case a copy of the FIR is not provided on the ground of sensitive nature of the case, a person grieved by the said action, after disclosing his identity, can submit a representation to the Superintendent of Police or any person holding the equivalent post in the State. The Superintendent of Police shall constitute a committee of three officers which shall deal with the said grievance. As far as the Metropolitan cities are concerned, where Commissioner is there, if a representation is submitted to the Commissioner of Police who shall constitute a committee of three officers. The committee so constituted shall deal with the grievance within three days from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate it to the grieved person.
(i) The competent authority referred to hereinabove shall constitute the committee, as directed herein-above, within eight weeks.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
61.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2016-09-05
MAT APP (FC) 143 of 2014J.Pradeep NandrajogRupali Gupta vs Rajat GuptaHMA 24

MAINTENENCE DENIED TO WIFE : The respondent/husband while appearing before the Court acknowledges his responsibility to support his children and did not question the maintenance awarded to them. He assures the Court that he will ensure good education for his children and bear the additional burden in terms of increase in school fees, transport allowance etc. as and when necessity arises and brought to his notice. He has only objected to award of maintenance to his wife who is a Chartered Accountant and to this extent we have also not granted any relief to her.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
62.

Misc
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2016-09-01
MAT APP (FC) 4 of 2013J.Pradeep NandrajogRajdeep vs Gurmeet SinghHMA

ROKA IS SOCIAL EVIL : We conclude by bringing the curtains down holding that neither cruelty nor desertion have been proved. Gurmeet’s drunkenness and refusing to take anti-depression medicines is the foundation of the problem. Rajdeep’s desire to live with her husband has been established through her testimony and admissions made by Gurmeet, provided Gurmeet takes anti-depression medicines which would inhibit his violent behaviour leads us to hold that though as a matter of fact Rajdeep left the matrimonial house but it was without any animus to withdraw from the consortium and the fact of desertion being the result of the conduct of Gurmeet would be in law be a case of constructive desertion and thus the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and decree dated April 10, 2013 is set aside. HMA No.303/2011 filed by Gurmeet is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
63.

CHILD CUSTODY
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2016-09-01
MAT. APP (F.C.) 82 of 2016J.Pradeep NandrajogAditya Mahajan vs Shachi MahajanGuardian and Ward Act Section 12

Father Visitation Rights can’t be denied due to mere hesitation of Child : (81) The learned Judge Family Court ought not to have rushed through the matter in a casual manner. One interaction with the child was not enough. If a child is hesitant to be with a parent, it is duty of the Presiding Judge of the Family Court to have the child counselled with the help of the counsellors attached to the Court. Every effort has to be made to counsel both parents to spare the child the agony of their separation. The parents have to be counselled to keep the child out of the litigation. Both spouses should be encouraged to, in turn encourage the child to meet the other spouse. (2) Till a resolution takes place, as an interim measure we direct that the appellant be granted access to the child on fortnightly basis. The meeting would be initially either in the counsellors’ room attached to the Family Court Complex or in the children room. If the counsellors find the child comfortable with the father he would be permitted to take the child out for two hours. If the situation improves the ultimate endeavour would be for the child to spend six to eight hours every week with his father.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
64.

Maintenance
HC of PUNJAB & HARYANA at CHANDIGARH

on

2016-08-12
CRM No M-10226 of 2013J.Anita ChaudhrySamarjit Kalita vs Monika GuptaCrPC 125, 482

MAINTENANCE DENIED TO CAPABLE WIFE : Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the wife was an Architect and she was working before marriage and t here is no reason why she would stop working after marriage and she has not d is closed her income. It was urged that the wife had purchased Alto car in 2011 and the bank statement is available on record to show the number of deposits made from time to time. The counsel had also referred to the photographs to show that all was well and they had been visiting different places together on holidays before they parted.

Perusal of the record shows that the car was purchased in 2012 by Monika. It appears that the wife is not correctly showing her income. The wife is highly educated. She was working as an Architect i n Delhi. No record was produced to show that she had lost her job, therefore, the order passed by the Courts below regarding the maintenance granted to the wife is set aside.

The petition is partly allowed. The petitioner would continue to pay interim maintenance allowed to the child. The parties will have to lead evidence in support of their respective claims. The trial Court would examine the evidence with respect to the income and decide strictly on merits without being influenced of any observations made herein.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
65.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2016-08-05
Writ Petition (C) No 159 of 2012J.R.BhanumathiSWAMI ACHYUTANAND TIRTH vs Union of IndiaFOOD SAFETY & STANDARD ACT

MILK & FOOD SAFETY STEPS : (1) Considering the seriousness of the offence and referring to the amendment to Section 272 Indian Penal Code made by States of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Odisha, wherein the punishment for adulteration of food and products is enhanced to imprisonment for life and also fine, by order dated 05.12.2013, this Court observed that similar amendments are to be made in other states as well. (2) States shall take appropriate steps to inform owners of dairy, dairy operators and retailers working in the State that if chemical adulterants like pesticides, caustic soda and other chemicals are found in the milk, then stringent action will be taken on the State Dairy Operators or retailers or all the persons involved in the same. (3) State Food Safety Authorities should also ensure that there is adequate lab testing infrastructure and ensure that all labs have/obtain NABL accreditation to facilitate precise testing. State Government to ensure that State food testing laboratories/district food laboratories are well-equipped with the technical persons and testing facilities.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
66.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2016-08-04
Curative Petition (CRL) No 39 of 2016CJI.T.S.ThakurNational Commission for Women vs Arnesh KumarIPC 498A

SC DISMISSES NCW'S CURATIVE PETITION AGAINST ITS 2014 JT PROTECTING HUSBANDS AGAINST AUTOMATIC ARRESTS : The Supreme Court bench comprising the Chief Justice, TS Thakur, and justices Anil R Dave, J.S.Khehar, and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, on August 4, dismissed the curative petition filed by the National Commission for Women (NCW), by circulation, against its 2014 judgment in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar. Arnesh Kumar was delivered by a two-Judge bench comprising justices Chandamauli Kr Prasad and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, on July 2, 2014. The judgment in this case had created a controversy, with feminists protesting against its lack of sensitivity to women victims of dowry harassment. The 2014 judgment seeks to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused in dowry harassment cases under Section 498-A of the IPC unnecessarily and Magistrates do not authorize detention of the accused casually and mechanically.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
67.

DIVORCE
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2016-08-03
MAT APP (FC) 150 of 2015J.S.Ravindra BhatGopal Krishna Dua vs Tajni DuaHMA 13, Sec 19 of Family Court ACT

This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 22.08.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Tis Hazari. The learned Judge allowed the wife’s petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and dismissed the husband’s counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act. This Court is of the opinion that the Family Court’s order granting divorce to the respondent and disallowing the appellant’s counter claim is justified and need not be interfered with. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed. There is no order, in the circumstances, as to costs.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
68.

DIVORCE
HC of RAJASTHAN

on

2016-08-03
MAT APP (FC) 150 of 2015J.S.Ravindra BhatGopal Krishna Dua vs Rajni DuaSection 19 of Family Court Act, 1984

DIVORCE GRANTED : Marriages- more than any other relationships- are founded and sustained on trust and mutual understanding. If suspicion enters this relationship, it is in the interests of both spouses to clear the air, or else doubts would simmer, take ominous shape in the form of phantasmagoria of enormous magnitude. In this case, the husband appears to have harboured such suspicions, and, all too willingly allowed them to fester and assume large proportions. Distressingly, this led him to level wild and unfounded allegations, which he persisted with, even in the present appeal. Such feelings are utterly unconducive of any meaningful conjugal relationships. Cruelty, otherwise, is a phrase of many hues. Courts are advisedly circumspect in stereotyping what is cruelty or what can be described as cruelty because acceptable behaviour in one mileu can be entirely anathema in another. One recollects the wise instruction of A.P. Sen, J in Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC 121.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
69.

DIVORCE
HC of PUNJAB & HARYANA at CHANDIGARH

on

2016-08-03
MAT APP (FC) 65 of 2015J.S.Ravindra BhatParul Nahar vs Soumitra Kumar NaharSection 19 of Family Court Act, 1984

EXPARTY DIVORCE CANCELED : In the light of the above observations and findings, the Court hereby sets aside the impugned order; the appellant is directed to bear the costs of these proceedings, quantified at `50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) to be paid to the respondent in two months. The parties are directed to be present before the concerned Family Court, on 08.08.2016. The parties’ statement about the number of witnesses (five for the appellant and six for the respondent) shall bind them. The modified list of witnesses shall be furnished to the Family Court on the next date of hearing. The respondent’s witnesses’ cross-examination shall be taken up thereafter. Given that the present case has reached its fifth anniversary, the Family Court shall endeavor to render final judgment expeditiously. We advise the Family Court to be less tolerant to requests for adjournment on grounds of counsel’s inconvenience (the exception being illness or obvious emergencies).
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
70.

DIVORCE
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2016-07-27
MAT APP (FC) 7 of 2014J.S.Ravindra BhatYogita Dasgupta vs Kaustav DasguptaHMA 13

PROPERTY PURCHASED DURING MARRIAGE : If husband purchase property and for the benifit of FAMILY he register this property on the name of WIFE, in case of divorce property remain with HUSBAND. In the present case : (1) The suit property was purchased with the husband’s money, in the wife’s name. (2) The husband secured a Bank loan for the purchase of the property. This would mean that the property is mortgaged to the bank. (3) The husband continues to be liable for the loan and is making repayment towards installments. (4) The suit property became the family home as long as parties were married. (5) The appellant wife left the property in 2010 and never returned. The parties later dissolved their marriage by mutual consent (6) The two children live with the husband, in the suit property. (7) Though the defendant/wife stated that she was repaying the loan, she was unable to prove that allegation. (8) The husband, in the cross examination stated that since stamp duty payable was at a lower rate if the vendees were women, he decided to purchase stamp paper in the wife’s name, and complete the transaction. On the basis of the above it can clearly be held that the plaintiff discharged the onus which lay upon him to prove that the property was purchased not for the wife’s benefit, but for that of the family as a whole.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
71.

Misc
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2016-07-15
W.P.(C) 11979 of 2015J.Pradeep NandrajogManoj vs UOIIPC 323/324/307/120-B/34

CONVICTION FOR MINOR OFFENCES SHOULD NOT BE USED TO DISREGARD ONE'S RIGHT TO PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT : (1) Life is too precious to be staked over petty incidents and the cruel result of conviction for petty offences being the end of the career, the future and the present, of young and inexperienced persons cannot blast their life and their dreams. (2) The impugned order dated February 23, 2015 is set aside and a direction is issued that the petitioner be inducted into service as a Constable with CISF. The petitioner would be entitled to all benefits of seniority and continuity into service with effect from the date the person immediately beneath the petitioner in the empanelled list was made to join. Arrears of salary need not be paid.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
72.

Misc
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI

on

2016-07-12
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 509 of 2013J. Smt. R.P. SondurbaldotaTabassum Vinchu vs H Shafeeq Rahim PagarkarCOC

CONTEMPT OF COURT : The proposition of law canvassed by Mr. Sasi is not only undisputable but the facts of the present case perfectly fit into the proposition. It is seen that the father willfully, deliberately and intentionally avoided to give access to the mother. He not just avoided to give access, but planned and schemed to deny the access. He did not hesitate to use the i daughter as a tool in his schemes. He filed false criminal complaints of sexual assault on the 8 years old daughter, exposed her to police investigation, got her statement recorded and subjected her to medico-legal examination regardless of the impact of such activities on her. Unfortunately and shockingly in all a these schemes, he was actively supported by his own mother, another the b grandmother Bench, the of father the is child. a habitual As has contemnor already been and has observed no regard by action whatsoever for contempt. to the orders In the of facts the court. and circumstance herefore of he the is liable case, not for just the action for contempt but he must also be ubjected to punitive costs.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
73.

Misc
HC of U.P at ALLAHABAD

on

2016-07-08
Crl Misc Writ Petition No 15609 of 2016J.Ramesh SinhaBrahm Singh vs State of U.P.IPC 420, 406, 504, 506

THERE CAN BE NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE INVESTIGATION OR ORDER STAYING ARREST : (1) The Sessions Judges in the State of Uttar Pradesh are also directed to ensure that aforesaid guidelines which are binding on the courts below are followed in letter and spirit, failing which adverse inference would be drawn against erring officers and this Court would be compelled to take appropriate action against them, if any non­ compliance is found in this regard.

(2) Moreover, there is no rule of law that a judgement of the Apex Court and this Court, if not strictly complied by the courts below, a petition or an application may be entertained by this Court and order be passed for getting the same complied with. (3) Let a copy of this order be circulated forthwith through Registrar General to all the Session Judges in State of Uttar Pradesh who shall also circulate the same to all the concerned Judicial Officers in that Judgeship for necessary compliance.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
74.

Misc
HC of GUJRAT at AHMEDABAD

on

2016-07-07
Criminal Misc Application No 7198 of 2013J. Vipul M.PancholiDakshaben Mafatlal vs State of GujratBigamy

Woman files a bigamy case on her husband and another woman some seven years after alleged second marriage. Its Pertiment to note, that her bigamy case is filed SOON after she lost her earlier 498a cocktail. Gujarat HC quashes her unproven Bigamy allegations after noticing the abuse of the process of law

(1) In the present case, no material is produced by the complainant in support of her allegations that the present applicant got married to accused no.1. It is also not stated when the marriage has taken place. Thus, in absence of any material, it cannot be said that the present applicant has, in any way, abetted accused no.1. Even assuming that such marriage has taken place in the year 2005, the impugned complaint has been filed on 13.6.2012 and that too when learned Magistrate has acquitted the original accused no.1 and in-laws in the complaint which was filed under Sections 498A, 323, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code by an order dated 12.5.2012.

(2) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the complainant has abused the process of the Court and therefore in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to exercise the powers vested under Section 482 of theCode.

(3) In view of the aforesaid discussion, this application is allowed. The complaint being Miscellaneous Application No.531 of 2012 registered with 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat and the process issued thereunder are quashed and set aside qua the present applicant. Rule is made absolute.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
75.

Misc
HC of BIHAR at PATNA

on

2016-07-04
Crl Writ Jurisdication Case No 307 of 2016J.I.A.AnsariRaj Ballabh Prasad vs The State of BiharMISC

Charges cannot be framed against the accused without giving him reasonable opportunity to examine police papers : In order to avoid delay in the disposal of the case, it is hereby directed that the accused-petitioner must be provided with copies of all such materials, which are being relied upon by the prosecution, and, thereafter, giving the accused petitioner adequate time and opportunity, as may be deemed necessary by the learned trial court, the case shall be taken up for hearing on the point of framing of charges and, then, necessary order in accordance with law shall be passed, more so, because the offences alleged attract the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO).
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
76.

DV Act 2005
ASJ­02 (EAST) SPL. JUDGE (NDPS) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

on

2016-07-01
Crl Appeal No 71 of 2016Sh.Ravindra DudejaRakhi Luthra vs Sunil LuthraDV ACT 2005

AMOUNT OF MAINTENANCE : The amount of maintenance fixed for wife should be such as she can live reasonable comfort, considering her status and mode of her life as she used to when she lived with her husband and that she does feel handicapped in prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive and extortionate.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
77.

DV Act 2005
HC of U.P.

on

2016-06-29
Cri Rev No 879 of 2015J.Sudhir Kumar SaxenaChiranjeev Kumar Arya vs State of U.P.DV ACT 2005

Maintenence Under Sections of Domestic Violence (DV) Order by Lower Court is Recalled by upper court on the ground that Wife is a Lawyer and practicing in HC of U.P
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
78.

Misc
HC of MADYAPRADESH at JABALPUR

on

2016-06-14
Crl Rev No 608 of 2015J.Atul SreedharanRamnaresh vs State of M.P.IPC 306

MARE FILING OF A CHARGESHEET BY THE POLICE DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE FRAMING OF CHARGES BY THE TRAIL COURT : (1) The evidence on record, even if the same is accepted as true and correct, only reflects that the Petitioners were allegedly searching for the deceased in order to give him a beating. Evidence is not suggestive whether the Petitioner actually ever found the deceased and beat him, as threatened by them. The PMR also does not reveal any external injuries on the body of the deceased which may have raised a slight suspicion that the Petitioners may have beaten the deceased.

(2) There are a number of judgements of the Supreme Court wherein it is clearly laid down that to be charged for an offence u/s. 306 IPC, it would be essential for the prosecution to establish prima facie, that the actions of the accused were directly responsible for instigating that deceased to commit suicide. Such actions must satisfy the ingredients of S. 107 IPC whereby it should evident that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide, or that the actions of the accused were of such nature that the victim had no other option but to commit suicide. In the instant case there is no evidence at all, let alone prima facie evidence that the Petitioners had even met the deceased prior to his committing suicide. The Ld. Trial Court failed to examine the statements of the witnesses in the backdrop of the law laid down by the Supreme Court for an offence u/s. 306 IPC and therefore erred in framing charges against the Petitioners herein u/s. 306 IPC. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it can be said that the Ld. Trial Court did become the mouth piece of the prosecution.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
79.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

on

2016-06-09
File No. CIC/CC/A/2014/002812/BS/10542 of 2014Basant SethSmt. Bijal N Upadhyay vs CPIO / DDO - 20(1), Income Tax DepartmentRTI

CIC DENY WIFE'S RTI SEEKING HUSBAND INCOME : The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide it decision dated 01/07/2009 [W.P. 803/2009 Vijay Prakash vs. UOI and others] has clarified that in a private dispute, between husband and wife, the basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in ‘public interest’.

The appellant has pleaded that the information is required by her for submission to the Court so that proper maintenance is fixed for her and her minor daughter. If it be so, the appropriate remedy available to her would be to apply to the concerned Court for summoning the records of the Income Tax Department but seeking such information under the provisions of Right to Information Act is certainly not an appropriate relief.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
80.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2016-06-03
Writ Petition (Criminal) No 30 of 2015J. Dipak MishraDr. Rini Johar vs State of M.P.CrPC 41

SC ORDERS 5 LAKH COMPENSATION FOR ARREST WITHOUT FOLLOWING PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE U/S 41 AND 41-A OF CRPC

In the case at hand, there has been violation of Article 21 and the petitioners were compelled to face humiliation. They have been treated with an attitude of insensibility. Not only there are violation of guidelines issued in the case of D.K. Basu (supra), there are also flagrant violation of mandate of law enshrined under Section 41 and Section 41-A of CrPC. The investigating officers in no circumstances can flout the law with brazen proclivity. In such a situation, the public law remedy which has been postulated in Nilawati Behra (supra), Sube Singh v. State of Haryana 9, Hardeep Singh v. State of M.P.10, comes into play. The constitutional courts taking note of suffering and humiliation are entitled to grant compensation. That has been regarded as a redeeming feature. In the case at hand, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, we think it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) towards compensation to each of the petitioners to be paid by the State of M.P. within three months hence. It will be open to the State to proceed against the erring officials, if so advised.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
81.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2016-06-03
Writ Petition (Crl) No 30 of 2015J. Dipak MishraDr. Rini Johar vs State of M.P.CrPC 41A

Rs 5 Lakh fine on Police on Non-Compliance of CrPC 41A

1) In the case at hand, there has been violation of Article 21 and the petitioners were compelled to face humiliation. They have been treated with an attitude of insensibility. Not only there are violation of guidelines issued in the case of D.K. Basu (supra), there are also flagrant violation of mandate of law enshrined under Section 41 and Section 41-A of CrPC. The investigating officers in no circumstances can flout the law with brazen proclivity. In such a situation, the public law remedy which has been postulated in Nilawati Behra (supra), Sube Singh v. State of Haryana 9, Hardeep Singh v. State of M.P.10, comes into play. The constitutional courts taking note of suffering and humiliation are entitled to grant compensation. That has been regarded as a redeeming feature. In the case at hand, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, we think it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) towards compensation to each of the petitioners to be paid by the State of M.P. within three months hence. It will be open to the State to proceed against the erring officials, if so advised.

2) In the present case, it can be stated with certitude that no ingredient of Section 420 IPC is remotely attracted. Even if it is a wrong, the complainant has to take recourse to civil action. The case in hand does not fall in the categories where cognizance of the offence can be taken by the court and the accused can be asked to face trial. In our considered opinion, the entire case projects a civil dispute and nothing else. Therefore, invoking the principle laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, we quash the proceedings initiated at the instance of the 8th respondent and set aside the order negativing the prayer for discharge of the accused persons. The prosecution initiated against the petitioners stands quashed.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
82.

Misc
HC of RAJASTHAN at JAIPUR

on

2016-05-27
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No 224 of 2016J.Alok SharmaPreeti Jain vs Kunal JainIT ACT 65B

HOW TO PROVE ORIGINAL ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE IN FAMILY COURT : I am of the considered view that Section 65B of the Act of 1872 only deals with the secondary evidence qua electronic records. It does not at all deal with the original electronic records, as in the instant case, where the pinhole camera, with a hard disk memory on which the recording was done has been submitted before the Family Court. The Apex Court in the case of Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer [(2014)10 SCC 473] has held that if an electronic record is produced as a primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence without compliance with the conditions of Section 65B of the Act of 1872. That evidence would take the colour of primary evidence, subject no doubt to its credibility based on forensic examination and cross examination.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
83.

Misc
HC of DELHI

on

2016-03-31
W.P.(C) No. 7359 of 2014J.Rajiv Sahai----- vs -----Misc

National Commission for Women is not authorized to become Judge or Arbiter. Delhi HC slams NCW for abusing authority
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
84.

DV Act 2005
SC/ST District Court, Hanumangarh

on

2016-03-30
Crl App No 35 of 2014Prithvi Pal SinghDr. G. Singh vs StateDV ACT 2005

Lower Court Failed to analyze respondent evidences and Wife failed in proving period of Domestic Relation

(1) Petitioner failed to prove the period of stay in Husband's house. (2) Lower Court failed to analyze respondent evidences (3) Hearsay evidences are not believable (4) If head of family not demanding dowry, how other can. (5) Family members unnecessarily dragged. (6) If husband's father would be alive, wife would add his name too into dowry seekers.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
85.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2016-03-23
RSA 42 of 2016J. Ashutosh KumarAnukriti Dubey vs Parta KansabanikDV ACT 2005

TENANTED PREMISES & SHARED HOUSEHOLD : A tenanted premises may come under the definition of shared household under Clause (s) of Section 2 of the D.V Act if such premises have been used by the aggrieved person and the respondent even if and irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the aforesaid premises. This definition, though, is inclusive of tenanted premises, but is limited to the period during which the tenancy subsists. The definition of shared household is surely with respect to a joint family property or a tenanted premises which are occupied by the aggrieved person and the respondent in a domestic relationship. A landlord does not have any domestic relationship even during the subsistence of a tenancy and, therefore, he is outside the realm of the D.V. Act.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
86.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2016-03-17
W.P. (C) 6532 of 2013J. S.Ravindra BhatMs. Eliamma Sebastian vs Ministry of HOME AffairRTI ACT 2005

Cooperative Societies Are Bound by RTI Act 2005

(1) The next question that arises for consideration is the scope of Section 22 of the RTI Act and its applicability to the provisions of Section 139 of the DCS, Act. Section 22 states as follows: '22. Act to have overriding effect.—The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.' Section 22 declares all laws, bye-laws, rules etc. which are inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act shall be overridden by its provisions. To gather what is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, it is essential to see what is the purpose and intent behind passing of this Act. In People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2004) 2 SCC 476, the Supreme Court held that right of information is a facet of the freedom of 'speech and expression' as contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and such a right is subject to any reasonable restriction in the interest of the security of the state and subject to exemptions and exceptions. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain - (1975) 4 SCC 428, the Supreme Court observed that 'the right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussion on public security.'

(2) The RTI Act is aimed at bringing within its ambit the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. This, however, in the Court’s opinion does not necessarily mean that any other legislature, which aims to ensure access to information with respect to a private body (as per the RTI Act), is overridden by Section 22. The answer will have to be in the negative. The RTI is with respect to Public Authorities. Section 139 makes a separate distinct provision with respect to transactions of a cooperative society. The applicability of the RTI Act does not exclude the operation of the DCS Act, insofar as it enables access to information that is possessed by a cooperative Society. The latter can clearly be sourced by the person concerned from the Society, in view of Section 139.

(3) In view of the above discussion this Court is of opinion that the information which is in the possession of the Cooperative Society is accessible to its members and those interested, in Section 139 of the DCS Act. The absolute nature of this obligation to furnish information to those entitled to apply and receive is reinforced by the consequences which are spelt out in Section 139 (2). However, information which the Society may not possess, but pertaining to it, in the form of records with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, have to be provided by the latter, under the RTI Act, as there is no doubt that such official - who discharges statutory functions- is a 'public authority'. However, the grounds of exemption spelt out under the RTI Act too would be attracted, wherever applicable.

(4) In the light of the above findings, the applications of the Petitioner shall be considered by the RCS, to the extent the information is available with his office. In regard to the information not available, the RCS shall indicate clearly what material does not exist, in an order. It is then open to the Petitioner to seek such information under Section 139 of the DCS Act. The writ petition is partly allowed in the above terms.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
87.

DIVORCE
HC ALLAHABAD

on

2016-03-14
Second Appeal 239 of 2016J.Pramod Kumar Srivastava----- vs -----HMA 13

NULL and VOID : Husband gets married after his first divorce to this woman who does NOT disclose her physical infirmities before the marriage. After marriage the husband understands that wife is unable to consummate the marriage (i.e. have physical intercourse) as she has a blind vagina. In spite of the husband making various efforts to consummate the marriage, there is no success. Wife also goes on to make wild allegations on the husband (claims that husband tried to have sex with her sister !!). Parties live apart for many years.Husband wins the case for NULLITY of marriage both at the first appellate court and also at Allahabad HC
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
88.

DV Act 2005
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST) : DELHI

on

2016-03-10
CA No 41 of 2015J.Rekha RaniSh. Ranjan Parmar vs Smt. Mamta Parmar

Respondent admitted being more qualified than the appellant. She admitted being able bodied person and having capacity to earn. As such she cannot be allowed to sit idle at home to put financial burden on the appellant. Let her make sincere endeavour to find work. As offered by appellant, if respondent needs assistance of the appellant in finding job, she may communicate with him by sending SMS on mobile / email. Both the parties are directed to exchange their respective mobile numbers and email addresses, within a week before Ld. Trial Court. Appellant has agreed to pay her maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month for a period of one year and during this period, she should make sincere efforts and start working.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
89.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2016-03-10
Civil Appeal No 4646 of 2006J.Jagdish Singh KheharIndrani Wahi vs Registrar of Copo SocietySection 79, West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act,1983

Nominee of Deceased Member is Absolutely Entitled for the Ownership by transfer, Co-op. Soc can't challenge the right of Nominee. No legal heirship, court order or succession certificate is required.

1) In the same manner as is postulated under Section 79 of the 1983 Act, Rule 127 of the 1987 Rules provides, that if a nomination has been made by a member under Section 79, the share or interest or the value of such share or interest standing in the name of the deceased member, would be transferred to the nominee. It is however, necessary to notice that Rule 127 postulates nomination only in favour of a person “belonging to his family”.It is not necessary for us to deal with the issue whether theappellant – Indrani Wahi, being a married daughter of the originalmember – Biswa Ranjan Sengupta, could be treated as a member of thefamily, of the deceased member (Biswa Ranjan Sengupta), because thelearned Single Judge, as also, the Division Bench of the High Courtconcluded, that the appellant – Indrani Wahi was a member of thefamily, of the original member - Biswa Ranjan Sengupta. This conclusion has not been assailed by the respondents, before this Court.

2) Rule 128 of the 1987 Rules also leads to the same inference. Inasmuch as Rule 128 aforementioned provides, that only in the absence of a nominee, the transfer of the share or interest of the erstwhile member, would be made on the basis of a claim supported by an order of probate, a letter of administration or a succession certificate (issued by a Court of competent jurisdiction).
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
90.

Misc
Family Court at Mumbai

on

2016-03-01
***** of ****Family Court Mumbai----- vs -----Misc

Family Court Cases Mumbai
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
91.

RAPE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)-01,WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

on

2016-02-12
Session Case No 11 of 2014MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMAState vs Mr. PherudinIPC 376

No one discusses about the dignity and honour of a man as all are only fighting for the rights, honour and dignity of women. Laws for protection of women are being made which may be misused by a woman but where is the law to protect a man from such a woman where he is being persecuted and implicated in false cases, as in the present case. Perhaps, now it is the time to take a stand for a man. The Court has to confine itself to the ambit of law and the contents of the file as well as the testimonies of the witnesses and is not to be swayed by emotions or reporting in the media. In the present case, the accused has been acquitted of the charge of rape,after trial, as evidence of the prosecutrix is not reliable. She had also filed her affidavit in the petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the accused for quashing the FIR wherein the prosecutrix had stated that she had physical relations with the accused with her sweet will and wishes. In the circumstances, such a person, an acquitted accused, who has remained in custody for a considerable period during inquiry, investigation and trial and who has been acquitted honourably, should he now be addressed as a rape case survivor? This leaves us with much to ponder about the present day situation of the veracity of the rape cases. It cannot be ignored that the accused due to this case which has ultimately ended in his acquittal, has suffered humiliation, distress and misery besides the expenses of the litigation. His plight may also continue after his acquittal as his implication may have caused an uproar in society but his acquittal may not even be noticed. He would continue to suffer the stigma of being a rape case accused. He has remained in custody for a considerable period. It may not be possible to restore the dignity and honour of the accused nor compensate him for the humiliation, misery, distress and monetary loss. However, his acquittal may give him some solace. He may also file any case for damages against the prosecutrix, if advised.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
92.

DIVORCE
HC of DELHI

on

2016-02-09
FAQ 228 of 1995J.Najmi Waziri----- vs -----HMA 13

Wife's letter threatening divorce an act of cruelty against husband. Delhi High Court granted permission to a man to divorce his estranged wife, saying that a single letter can constitute an 'act of cruelty
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
93.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2016-02-05
Cri Appeal No 128 of 2011J.Jagdish Singh KheharRam Saran vs State of U.P.IPC 498A

MARRIED SISTER'S LIVING SEPARATE CASE QUASHED : Since, we have not interfered with the impugned summoning order dated 12.05.2008(as against appellant nos. 1 to 3), we would consider it just and appropriate to request the trial Court, to take up and dispose of the proceedings emerging out of Crime Case No. 326 of 2002, registered at Police Station Shiv Kutti, Allahabad, under Sections 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against appellant nos. 1 to 3 only, as expeditiously as possible.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
94.

Misc
HC of MADRAS at MADURAI

on

2016-01-12
Writ App (MD) 1122 of 2015J.V.RamasubramanianS.Ramesh vs M/S Cethar LtdMISC

interim benefits has to be reimbursed if party loses the final order : In any case, the management has removed part of the goods on the basis of the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge while appointing an Advocate Commissioner. Therefore, the management cannot any more lay a claim for an amount of around Rs.80,00,000/- now lying in fixed deposit, as it represents not only the salary payable to the workers for the undisputed period but also represents the value of the goods removed, pursuant to the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge. It is needless to point out that a person who enjoyed the benefit of an interim order, is liable to compensate the other party, when the main case is decided against him. Moreover, it was a conditional order in this case.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
95.

DV Act 2005
IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT, CBI−III, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

on

2015-12-22
Crl App No 70 of 2015Sh. Praveen KumarSatish Solanki vs SujataDV ACT 2005

Daughter in Law visiting in-laws few days is not in domestic relation with them, NO DV : (1) Domestic relationship is defined under section 2 (f) of the D.V. Act. Domestic relationship arises in respect of an aggrieved person if the aggrieved person (respondent) had lived together with the appellants in a shared household. This living together can be either soon before filing of petition, or 'at any point of time'. The phrase 'at any point of time' under the D.V. Act has been defined in judgment Vijay Verma (supra) wherein it has been held that it only means where an aggrieved person has been continuously living in a shared household as a matter of right. It has been further held in the said judgment that where a family member leaves the shared household to stablish his own household, and actually establishes his own household, he cannot claim to have a right to move an application u/S 12 of the D.V. Act on the basis of domestic relationship. It is the case of the respondent herself that after their marriage, they shifted to Vikas Puri and, thereafter, to Rohini. There is nothing in the application u/s 12 of the D. V Act to suggest that the respondent and her husband had been continuously living in the shared household as a matter of right at Janak Puri. Domestic relationship continues so long as the parties live under the same roof and enjoy living together in a shared household.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
96.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2015-12-01
Civil Appeal No 13940 of 2015V. GOPALA GOWDA----- vs -----Misc

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा है कि संपत्ति का अधिकार मानवाधिकार का हिस्सा है और जमीन अधिग्रहण पर उसके मालिक को सरकार से उचित मुआवजा लेने का हक है। जस्टिस वी गोपाल गौड़ा और अमिताभ रॉय की बेंच ने को अपने फैसले में कहा, संपत्ति का अधिकार अब मानवाधिकार का दर्जा पा चुका है और यह हर शख्स के मामले में निहित है। किसी भी तरह से इसके महत्व को घटाया नहीं जा सकता चाहे राज्य बाध्यकारी विधायकी तंत्र से संपत्ति क्यों न अधिग्रहीत कर ले। संविधान के निर्माताओं ने संपत्ति के अधिकार को मौलिक अधिकार में शामिल किया था लेकिन 1978 में 44 वें संशोधन के जरिए यह छीन लिया गया। हालांकि, अब अनुच्छेद 300 ए के जरिए संपत्ति के अधिकार को संवैधानिक दर्जा दिया जा चुका है, जो कहता है, किसी को भी संपत्ति के अधिकार से वंचित नहीं किया जा सकता है।
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
97.

DV Act 2005
HC of GUJRAT

on

2015-11-27
Special Criminal Application No 5313 of 2015J. Jayant Patel----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Gujarat High Court has held that Complaints under Domestic Violence Act can be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
98.

DV Act 2005
In the Court of Shri Vidya Prakash: Addl Sessions Judge 04, Rohini Court

on

2015-11-14
Crl App No 38 of 2014J.Vidya PrakashSmt Kanta vs Sh. Pawan KumarDV Act 2005

BEATEN MIL GET INTERIM RELIEFS UNDER PWDVA : What emerges from the above discussion is that appellant who is an old lady, is out of possession of her own property and despite approaching the Competent Court of Law, no interim reliefs have been granted to her by the Court below. The view taken by trial Court while declining to grant interim reliefs, is not sustainable under the law for the reasons already mentioned herein above in the preceedings paras. This is more so when the averments made by appellant regarding acts of domestic violence committed by respondents, got prima facie supported from DIR, status report filed by SHO and MLC placed on record.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
99.

Misc
HC ALLAHABAD

on

2015-11-03
Writ Petition No 8210 of 2015Shabihul Hasnain J.----- vs -----Misc

Child born out of rape will have inheritance rights to biological father's property
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
100.

DV Act 2005
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE /SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI­03 (PC ACT) SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI

on

2015-09-26
Cri Appeal No 06 of 2015Addl. Sessions Judge, Sh Sanjeev Jain----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Woman earning equal to hubby does NOT get anything under DV. Neither maint nor residence.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
101.

Misc
HC of MADRAS

on

2015-09-25
Crl R. C. Nos 993 and 994 of 2015J. S. Vaidyanathan----- vs -----Misc

Judicial process should not be used to harass litigants and said insistence on appearance of the parties before the Court is needed only if it becomes absolutely necessary for some purpose.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
102.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2015-08-07
Crl M.C. No 3497 of 2008J.Suresh KaitEkta Kapoor vs Ajay AroraDV ACT 2005

In-Laws Property is not shared household : (1) Bare reading of the 'Will' transpires that after death of husband of respondent No.2, said property will be vested in respondent No.2. Perusal of the same reveals that it is nowhere stated that respondent No.2 has limited right only to live therein. Moreover, it is nowhere stated in the 'Will' that the respondent No.2 would not dispose of the property. Therefore, during her lifetime, she is absolute owner of the property in question. However, if she dies intestate, certainly it will devolve upon respondent No.1, husband of petitioner herein. Moreover, it is specifically mentioned in the 'Will' that neither of daughters of late Sh. Rajinder Paul Arora shall be entitled to receive any of his assets after his death. (2) Considering the facts noted above, it is clear that during the lifetime of respondent No.2, she is the absolute owner of the property in question and till then, said property cannot be held as a 'shared household'.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
103.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2015-08-07
Crl.M.C.No 3497 of 2008J. Suresh KaitEkta Arora vs Ajay AroraDV ACT 2005

In Law's Property is not Shared Household

1) Considering the facts noted above, it is clear that during the lifetime of respondent No.2, she is the absolute owner of the property in question and till then, said property cannot be held as a 'shared household'.

2) In view of the above discussion and on the basis of the 'Will', the petitioner has no right in the property during the lifetime of her mother-in-law, i.e., respondent No.2 herein. The property will devolve upon respondent No.1 only after her death. Before that, the petitioner cannot claim any right or title in the property. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 25.08.2008 passed by the learned ASJ, whereby the order on residence dated 29.09.2007 passed by the learned Trial Court was set aside, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
104.

Adultry
HC of MADRAS

on

2015-07-16
Ccl.RC. (MD) No 142 of 2012J.S.NagamuthuM.Chinna Karuppasamy vs KanimozhiAdultry, CrPC 125, Sec 41 of Evidence Act

Adulterous Wife entitled for Maintenance in CrPC 125 of Not : (1) An interesting question, as to whether a woman, against whom a decree dissolving her marriage has been passed by the Civil Court on the ground of adultery, is entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from her divorced husband, has arisen for consideration.
(2) In view of Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if once the decree for divorce is granted on the ground of adultery, such finding is relevant for deciding the issue of adultery in the present case. This Court cannot sit in an appeal over the said decree for divorce granted by the Civil court, when the same has not been challenged by the aggrieved party. There can be no difference between a decree on contest and an ex-parte decree, since, like a decree on contest, an ex-parte decree is also a decree passed on proof of the claim made by means of sufficient evidence. It is well known that though simply because the defendant has remained ex-parte, the Court shall not grant decree, unless the claim made in the plaint is proved, by means of evidence either oral or documentary or both. In the case on hand, therefore, there can be no doubt that the decree for divorce granted by the Civil court in favour of the petitioner is sufficient proof that the respondent was living in adultery.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
105.

Maintenance
HC of MADRAS, MADURAI BENCH

on

2015-07-06
CRL.RC.(MD) No.142 of 2012J. S.NAGAMUTHU----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : No maintenance 2 adulterous wife. If adultery continues AFTER divorce, maintenance denied AFTER divorce as well
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
106.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2015-07-01
Cri Appeal No 1743 of 2009Uday Umesh Lalit----- vs -----Misc

1995 Republic Day Blasts in Jammu Acquittal Judgment
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
107.

Misc
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI

on

2015-06-25
Writ Petition No 5343 of 2015J.R.G.KetkarMehendara P.Shah vs Gurupreet KamaljeetArticle 227 of Constitution

Whether Litigant Can Disown His Advocate at any Time and Seek Relief from Court : The advocate is the agent of the party. His acts and statements, made within the limits of authority given to him, are the acts and statements of the principal i.e. the party who engaged him. It is true that in certain situations, the Court may, in the interest of justice, set a side a dismissal order or an ex­parte decree notwithstanding the negligence and/or misdemeanour of the advocate where it finds that the client was an innocent litigant but there is not such absolute rule that a party can disown its advocate at any time and seek relief. No such absolute immunity can be recognised. Such an absolute rule would make the working of the system extremely difficult. The observations made in 'Rafiq' must be understood in the facts and circumstances of that case and cannot be understood as an absolute proposition. As we have mentioned hereinabove, this was an on­going suit posted for final hearing after a lapse of seven years of its institution. It was not a second appeal filed by a villager residing away from the city, where the Court is located. The defendant is also not a rustic ignorant villager but a private limited company with its head­ office at Calcutta itself and managed by educated businessmen who know where their interest lies. It is evident that when their applications were not disposed of before taking up the suit for final hewing they felt piqued and refused to appear before the court. May be, it was part of their delaying tactics as alleged by the plaintiff. May be not. But one thing is clear they 'chose to non­cooperate with the court. Having adopted such a stand towards the Court, the defendant has no right to ask its indulgence. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings is a theory which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
108.

IPC 498A
HC of Gujrat

on

2015-06-21
Circular No C. 2703/81 of 2015*****----- vs -----IPC 498A

Gujrat HC order to Follow SC Order in Arnesh Judgment Circular.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
109.

DV Act 2005
HC of GUJRAT at AHMEDABAD

on

2015-06-09
Special Civil App No 4435 of 2015J.N.V.AnjariaGaurav Babulal vs State of GujratDV ACT 2005, IPC 498A

498A STAYED, FILE DV, COURT SAYS ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW : (1) Learned advocate Mr. B. P. Gupta for the petitioners submitted that the proceedings initiated are abuse of process of law and factuated with in order to harass the petitioners. In that regard, it was submitted that the husband and wife have been staying separately since 2010. A complaint under Section 498A was filed by the wife in April 2014. The same was subjected to a proceedings before this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Application No. 4247 of 2014 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This Court has stayed the proceedings pursuant to the said complaint by order dated 08.01.2015. The complaint under the Domestic Violence Act was filed thereafter.

2. From the above uncontroverted facts, a prima facie case is made out showing abuse of process in initiating the domestic violence proceedings.Therefore, RULE, returnable on 30th July, 2015. Till the next date, there shall be no further proceedings before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate in respect of Criminal Case No. 85 of 2014.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
110.

Misc
HC of Madras, Madurai Bench

on

2015-06-08
W.P.(MD) No 8646 of 2015J. S. Vaidhnathan----- vs -----Misc

Madras HC expressed his view regarding Misuse of Domestic Violence Act-2005 and also declared Daughter-in-Law as third part in matter of Father-in-Law's promotion, hence fined by 5000/-
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
111.

Maintenance
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT MUMBAI AT BANDRA

on

2015-05-30
Petition No A-3017 of 2014Dr. Laxmi P. RaoS vs MHMA 24

Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act cannot be misused for squeezing estranged Husband for Alimony

(1) Upon considering the rival contentions, I am of the considered view that the applicant-wife is not entitled to maintenance firstly because she has earlier filed the petition u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. Secondly, because she has not approached the Court for maintenance from the time of separation in December 2012 till March 2015. Thirdly, she has not relied upon any of employment documents to show that she is no more in service. Fourthly, she is a highly qualified lady and she is further persuing her MBA.

(2) It is held in the ruling of MAMTA JAISWAL VS. RAJESH JAISWAL II(2000) DMC. 170 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT as follows : 'Whether a spouse who has capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should be permitted to saddle other spouse with his or her expenditure ? Whether such spouse should be permitted to get pendente lite alimony at higher rate from other spouse in such condition ? According to me, Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself or herself in spite of sincere efforts. Spouse is well qualified to get service immediately with less efforts, is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendente lite alimony. The law does not expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversory by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose. It impliedly means that she was possessing sufficient experience. How such a lady can remain without service ? It really puts a bug question which is to be answered by Mamta Jaiswal with sufficient cogent and believable evidence by proving that inspite of sufficient efforts made by her, she was not able to get service and, therefore, she is unable to support herself. A lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and put her burden on the husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of such matrimonial petition. Section 24 is not meant for creating an army of such idle persons who would be sitting idle waiting for a dole to be awarded by her husband who has got a grievance against her and who has gone to the Court for seeking a relief against her.'
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
112.

DV Act 2005
Metropolitan Magistrate 01, Saket District Court, New Delhi

on

2015-05-27
CC No. 316/3/2007 of 2007Ms. Shivani Chauhan----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

False Domestic Violence 1 Lakh fine Imposed on Wife
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
113.

Maintenance
IN THE FAMILY COURT MUMBAI AT BANDRA

on

2015-05-27
Petition No A 932 of 2015Shri P.L. PalsingankarMrs A vs Mr TMAINTENANCE

No Visitation no Maintenance Judgment. Shared parenting

(1) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nil Ratan Kundu Vs Abhijit Kundu, AIR 2009 SC 732 has said that the welfare of a child is not to be measured merely be money or physical comfort, but the word welfare must be taken in its widest sense that the tie of affection cannot be disregarded. So considering this judgment referred above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has underlined the proposition that wealth of the husband has nothing to do with his competency to hold the custody and if that principle is applied here, then merely because the respondent is a busy doctor and having ability to generate more income cannot claim to be better parent.

(2) The concept of parenting plan, joint parenting, shared parenting, child support by way of parenting plan is a new concept not only to the parties, but also to the advocates practicing in the Family Court Mumbai. No doubt, it is also a new concept for the Family Court Judges also. The Hon'ble High Court has approved draft parenting plan proposed by the Family Court, Mumbai and that now plan is available on the website. So the concept of joint parenting plan has found favors with the Hon'ble High Court. With this recent report of the Law Commission, the legal fraternity all over India has made up its mind to accept this concept of joint parenting, but it will take time to digest this idea. Therefore, there will be problems in working this parenting plan for these parties. So in case of any disagreement or non compliance of any term, parties need not come to the court every time, rather they were asked to suggest the name of one mediator, who can find the way in case of disagreement. Parties have not suggested any name, I, therefore, direct that Ms Freni Italia, Psychiatric Social Worker from MUSKAAN, an undertaking of Tata Institute of Social Science is appointed as a mediator who shall sort out any issue regarding disagreement or non compliance and the parties shall be bound by that suggestion. The mediator may seek opinion of the court in writing. All these observations made hereinabove are incorporated in final parenting plan attached to this order as Annexture A. The parties shall comply with this parenting plan till the rights of the parties regarding custody access, visitation rights over the daughter Mukta are finally decided after a full trial.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
114.

Misc
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2015-05-22
Crl M.C. No 2143 of 2015J.Manmohan SinghSuresh Kalmadi vs CBICrPC 91

CALL DETAILS RECORD AFTER 6 YEAR : It is submitted by the petitioner that the nexus that the call records will demonstrate strikes at the foundation of the Prosecution's case, and which would show that there was no conspiracy between the petitioner and other accused persons to favour M/s Swiss Timing, and that in fact other officials of the OC, i.e. Prosecution witness PW- 18 Sujit Panigrahi attempted to favour MSL as a bidder and these facts in support of this are evident and demonstrable, but have been deliberately overlooked or concealed by the Prosecution and therefore, the petitioner has a right to an effective opportunity to establish this case with the aid of relevant documents such as the Call Detail Records of Mr. Jyoti Chhabra. At this stage, the Court is not concerned whether the averments made in the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. may be gospel truth or not. If the documents are necessary in order to decide the real controversy, the same cannot be thrown particularly when the application is filed by the accused.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
115.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2015-05-13
Writ Petition Civil No 13 of 2003J.Ranjan Gogoi----- vs -----Misc

Photos of Prime Minister, President, Chief Justice of India only now allowed in govt ads
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
116.

DV Act 2005
OC of MAHARASTRA, MUMBAI

on

2015-05-08
Cri. WP NO 1865 of 2010J.R.P.SondurBaldota----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Time Limit Judgment on DV from Mahastra
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
117.

Misc
In the Court of SESSIONS for GR.BOMBAY at BOMBAY

on

2015-05-06
C.C.No. 490/PS of 2005J.D.W.Deshpande----- vs -----Misc

Salman Khan's Judgment in Hit and Run Case from Session Court Mumbai
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
118.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CIC

on

2015-04-01
File No CIC/DS/A2013/001589-SA of 2013Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu----- vs -----CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

CIC threatens to invoke IPC against Officer
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
119.

IPC 304B
Addl Session Judge, Rohini Delhi

on

2015-03-30
Session Case 36-1 of 2014J.Manoj Jain----- vs -----IPC 304B

Minor incidents of beatings do not amount to cruelty upon wife, a trial court on Monday said while acquitting a man in the dowry death case of his wife. Giving the benefit of doubt
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
120.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2015-03-24
Writ Petetion No 21 of 2013J. R.F.Nariman----- vs -----Misc

IT ACT 66A is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
121.

IPC 498A
SC of India

on

2015-03-19
Cri App No 781 of 2012J. Dipak MishraMrs. Priyanka Srivastava vs State of U.P. and OthersIPC 498A, CrPC 156(3)

Shield Against False Cases, SC od INDIA Says Proof Must

(1) In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an the application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.

(2) The present lis can be perceived from another angle. We are slightly surprised that the financial institution has been compelled to settle the dispute and we are also disposed to think that it has so happened because the complaint cases were filed. Such a situation should not happen.

(3) In the present case, we are obligated to say that learned Magistrate should have kept himself alive to the aforesaid provision before venturing into directing registration of the FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is because the Parliament in its wisdom has made such a provision to protect the secured creditors or any of its officers, and needles to emphasize, the legislative mandate, has to be kept in mind.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
122.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2015-03-16
Cri App No 456 of 2015J. Aadarsh Kumar GoelTARAMANI PARAKH vs State of M.P.IPC 498A

Just Naming Distance Relative in not Enough to Summon them without the Mention of Specific Role in 498A

(1) There are allegations against Respondent No.2 and his parents for harassing the complainant which forced her to leave the matrimonial home. Even now she continues to be separated from the matrimonial home as she apprehends lack of security and safety and proper environment in the matrimonial home. The question whether the appellant has infact been harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of trial but at this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made out. Thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial is not permissible.

(2) The decisions referred to in the judgment of the High Court are distinguishable. In Neelu Chopra, parents of the husband were too old. The husband Rajesh had died and main allegations were only against him. This Court found no cogent material against other accused. In Manoj Mahavir, the appellant before this Court was the brother of the daughter-in-law of the accused who lodged the case against the accused for theft of jewellery during pendency of earlier 498A case. This Court found the said case to be absurd. In Geeta Mehrotra, case was against brother and sister of the husband. Divorce had taken place between the parties. The said cases neither purport to nor can be read as laying down any inflexible rule beyond the principles of quashing which have been mentioned above and applied to the facts of the cases therein which are distinguishable. In the present case the factual matrix is different from the said cases. Applying the settled principles, it cannot be held that there is no triable case against the accused.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
123.

DV Act 2005
ASJ-02 Karkardooma Court Delhi

on

2015-03-12
CA No 37 of 2014J. Anuradha Shukla Bhardwaj----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Husband pay maintenence for ONE YEAR during that time WIFE must find job and then no maintenence.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
124.

IPC 304B
HC of MADRAS

on

2015-03-06
Cri App No 586 of 2006J.M.Sathyanarayanan----- vs -----IPC 304B

Madras HC acquits man who criticised wife for being DARK
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
125.

Maintenance
Family Court Bandra

on

2015-02-20
Petetion No E-119 of 2013S.A.Morey----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 :: Qualified Spouse Can't Remain Idle and Claim Maintenence
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
126.

IPC 304B
SC of INDIA

on

2015-02-18
Cri Appeal No 262 of 2009J. Deepak Mishra----- vs -----IPC 304B

306 abetment to suicide. It was warring couple on the verge if divorce, it was in these circumstances when wife committed suicide claiming reason illicit relations of husband, for which he was prosecuted u/s 306. SC said in those abnormal and warring circumstances, husband's illicit relation cannot be construed to be cruelty towards wife. SC has not justified illicit relations, but has only said that under those circumstances, he was not liable to be punished u/s 306
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
127.

BAIL
HC of MADRAS at MADARIA

on

2015-02-05
Crl.O.P. (MD) Nos.19196 of 2014J. S.VaidyanathanAmaldoss vs StateCrPC 482

Courts can't Impose Onerous & Unreasonable Conditions (huge cash deposit) Before Bail

Therefore, the practice of imposing condition for depositing of money for granting the bail has been deprecated by the High Courts and the Hona'ble Supreme Court. Of course, while granting the bail, the Court of law is entitled to put certain conditions at its discretion, however, it should not be ignored that such conditions must be reasonable and judicious and should not be arbitrary. In fact, no provision in Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates cash deposit as a condition precedent for grant of bail, but may permit the person to deposit a sum of money in lieu of executing a bond and giving surety of one or two persons. It is needless to state that granting or denying the bail depending upon the circumstances of each case, is within the exclusive discretion of the Court of law or authority, however, such discretion should not be exercised arbitrarily. Once the court comes to the conclusion on the facts and circumstances of the case that a person is entitled to the benefit of bail, then no condition other than those enumerated in Section 437(3) or 438(2) can be imposed. Imposition of such unreasonable condition is not only beyond the purview of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure but also beyond the powers of the court. Discretion does not mean that it has no arena or boundary. No Court having howsoever absolute power can traverse beyond the arena carved out for it. Even absolute discretion does not admit element of arbitrariness or whimsicality or capriciousness.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
128.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

on

2015-02-03
No. CIC/SA/A/2014/000433 of 2014Prof. M. Sridhar AcharyuluPrashansa Sharma vs Delhi Transco LtdRTI ACT 2005

Can access income details of your spouse under RTI : CIC

(1) The spouses have right to information between them as listed by Delhi High Court in paragraph 20 above.

(2) The husband in this case, has a duty to provide all that information listed above to his wife, and the appellant wife has right to information as established by Delhi High Court based on rights of marriage as provided by various statutes of family law. who he is not maintaining and public authority has authority and power to enforce that duty, which is supported by the CCS Rules.

(3) Though certain documents like annual returns of assets, investments, IT returns etc were earlier declared as private/ personal or third party information, as far as spouses are concerned they are not private or personal or third party information between them, in the context of marital disputes especially for maintenance purposes.

(4) The PIOs cannot reject the request for such information, if filed by spouses, on the ground of Section 8(1)(j) saying it is personal information, because the protection of privacy is overridden by the huge public interest in maintaining wives, as provided in the proviso to exception 8(1)(j). The larger public interest in maintenance of wives and children, prevention of domestic violence, etc., for the purposes of the disclosure of such information, which was strongly established by the Delhi High Court in two landmark judgments referred above.

(5) The information related income details in the context of nonmaintenance of the spouse, becomes the life related information which should be given within 48 hours according to proviso to Section 7(1) of RTI Act, 2005.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
129.

Maintenance
HC of KARNATAKA at BENGALURU

on

2015-01-31
RFA 960 of 2003N. KumarSyed Basheer Malik vs Jameela BegumSection 96 of CPC

MAINTENANCE AFTER SETTLEMENT AND ONE TIME PAYMENT : Merely because, the Court while deciding the case on merits took note of the terms of the compromise and did not record a finding on merits in respect of the subject matter of compromise, that would not render the judgment and decree, a compromise decree. Admittedly, defendants-9 and 10 are not parties to the compromise. Their claim and contentions are decided on merits. As they are aggrieved by the said finding, they have a right to prefer an appeal under Section 96 of CPC. Therefore the appeal filed is maintainable and we do not see any substance in the contention that the appeal is not maintainable.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
130.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2015-01-20
Cri App No. 141 of 2015R.Bhanumathi----- vs -----Misc

Posting one's Grievance on Social Media like Facebook on Govt Page is not amount to Criminal Offence
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
131.

DIVORCE
SC of INDIA

on

2015-01-08
Transfer Petetion No 683 of 2014J. A. K. Sikri----- vs -----HMA 13

Transfer Petition in divorce petition is rejected based on no merits by SC of INDAI
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
132.

IPC 498A
HC of MADRAS

on

2014-12-23
CRL. R.C. NO. 684 of 2014S. NagamuthuE.Kalivarathan vs The StateIPC 498A

Madras HC judgement on Increasing FakeCases of Dowry and Rape

(1) Before parting with this order, I wish to mention that the incidence of false criminal cases is on the increase. The National Crime Records Bureau, in its Report on Crime in India for the year 2000, has stated that 7.55% of the total cases registered in the Country are false cases. The latest report on Crime in India for the year 2012 has been released by National Crime Record Bureau, which shows roughly 48% of complaints were frivolous as the accused were either acquitted by the court or the complaints were found to be false at the investigation stage itself. For example, so far as the crimes against the women are concerned, the statistics shows that in rapes, dowry deaths, harassment to married women, and outraging of modesty of women, the percentage of false cases are 7.4%, 6.6%, 9.6% and 5.8% respectively.

(2) The above statistics, if compared to the statistics of the year 2000, would go to show that the registration of false cases is phenomenally on the increase. Those who are implicated in these false cases suffer in terms of humiliation, loss of money, loss of working hours, loss of mental peace and at last, loss of employment as well. Most of the accused implicated in these false cases hail from poor strata of the society for whom some hearts bleed.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
133.

Govt Employee
HC of MADRAS

on

2014-12-19
W.P.No.33748 of 2014J.D.Hariparanthaman----- vs -----Govt Employee

The Judge observed that a family dispute between the petitioner and his wife relating to their marriage cannot be put against the petitioner for promotion. The Judge while disposing of the petition said that once the petitioner was restored to duty he has to earn the increments automatically.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
134.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2014-12-16
W.P.(C) 3543 of 2014J.Vibhu BakhruADESH KUMAR vs Union of IndiaSec 3 of RTI

The learned counsel for the respondents contended that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner as a result of denial of information, as all material relied upon by the prosecution to prosecute the petitioner would be available to the petitioner. In my view, this cannot be a ground to deny information to the petitioner. First of all, the question whether the information sought by the petitioner is relevant or necessary, is not relevant or germane in the context of the Act; a citizen has a right to information by virtue of Section 3 of the Act and the same is not conditional on the information being relevant. Secondly, the fact that the petitioner has access to the material relied upon by the prosecution does not prevent him from seeking information, which he considers necessary for his defence.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
135.

Misc
FAMILY-COURT MUMBAI

on

2014-12-16
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

Compilation of Family Court Mumbai Cases
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
136.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2014-12-09
Crl App No 892 of 2009J. Prafulla C.PantSelvaraj vs Inspector of PoliceMisc

Benefit of doubt goes with Accused

It is settled principle of law that benefit of reasonable doubt is required to be given to the accused only if the reasonable doubt emerges out from the evidence on record. Merely for the reason that the witnesses have turned hostile in their cross-examination, the testimony in examination-in- chief cannot be outright discarded provided the same (statement in examination-in-chief supporting prosecution) is corroborated from the other evidence on record. In other words, if the court finds from the two different statements made by the same accused, only one of the two is believable, and what has been stated in the cross-examination is false, even if the witnesses have turned hostile, the conviction can be recorded believing the testimony given by such witnesses in the examination-in-chief. However, such evidence is required to be examined with great caution.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
137.

Maintenance
SC of INDIA

on

2014-11-19
Cri Appeal No 2435 of 2014J.S.A.Bobde----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 -- Wife is entitled to maintenance from the date of application not from the date of order
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
138.

Misc
In the Court of Vikas Dhull, Add. Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi

on

2014-11-17
CR No:82/2014 of 2014Vikas Dhull----- vs -----Misc

Getting Ex Partee Decree of Divorce Amount to Mental Cruielty
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
139.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

on

2014-11-03
CIC/DS/A/2013/001754-SA of 2013Prof. M. Sridhar AcharyuluUsha Kant Asiwal vs Directorate of Vigilance, GNCTDCIC Section 8

CHARGSHEET IS PUBLIC DOCUMENT : Considering the provisions of Cr.P.C., Evidence Act, RTI Act, erudite judicial pronouncements, certain transparency practices in CVC, facts and circumstances of the case and contentions raised, the Commission holds that the charge sheet is a public document and it shall be disclosed subject to other restrictions provided under RTI Act. There cannot be a general hard and fast rule that every charge­sheet could be disclosed or should not be. Each RTI request for copy of Charge­sheet required to be examined and only permissible part should be given. The Commission, hence, directs the respondent to examine the content of charge­sheet and to provide appellant the copy of those portions of charge­sheet, which would answer the queries raised by appellant in his RTI application, within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
140.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2014-10-24
Civil Appeal No. 9486 of 2014A.K.Sikri----- vs -----Misc

Promotion was restored by this order
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
141.

CHILD CUSTODY
Family Court Mumbai at BANDRA

on

2014-09-16
***** of *********----- vs -----CHILD CUSTODY

Do Not Poison Mind of Childrens
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
142.

Misc
HC of MAHARASTRA, MUMBAI

on

2014-09-09
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

Judgment where VIDEO CONFERENCING is allowed
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
143.

Misc
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2014-09-04
Crl App 1171 of 2012J. Pradeep NandjarogAchachey Lal Yadav vs StateIT ACT 65B

ELECTRONIC EVIDENCES : (1) A nice judgment to explain how to use electronic evidences in court, during trail (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
144.

IPC 304B
HC of MADRAS

on

2014-08-27
Cri App No 412 of 2009M. Venugopal----- vs -----IPC 304B

Man can't be prosecuted if hypersensitive wife ends life
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
145.

IPC 304B
HC of MADRAS

on

2014-08-27
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 304B

Man can’t be prosecuted if 'hypersensitive' wife ends life
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
146.

IPC 498A
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2014-08-14
Crl. A. 210 of 2013J.Pradeep NandrajogDinesh Kumar vs State NCT of DelhiIPC 498A, IPC 304B

Aquital in IPC 498A or DOWRY CASE

(1) The serious consequence which may ensue to the accused in such a situation can be limned through an illustration: If a bride was murdered within seven years of her marriage and there was evidence to show thateither on the previous day or a couple of days earlier she was subjected to harassment by her husband with demand for dowry, such husband would be guilty of the offence on the language of Section 304-B IPC read with Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. But if the murder of his wife was actually committed either by a dacoit or by a militant in a terrorist act the husband can lead evidence to show that he had no hand in her death at all. If he succeeds in discharging the burden of proof he is not liable to be convicted under Section 304-B IPC. But if the husband is charged only under Section 302 IPC he has no burden to prove that his wife was murdered like that as he can have his traditional defence that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of murder against him and claim an order of acquittal.

(2) The above illustration would amplify the gravity of the consequence befalling an accused if he was only asked to defend a charge under Section 302 IPC and was alternatively convicted under Section 304-B IPC without any notice to him, because he is deprived of the opportunity to disprove the burden cast on him by law.

(3) In such a situation, if the trial court finds that the prosecution has failed to make out the case under Section 302 IPC, but the offence under Section 304-B IPC has been made out, the court has to call upon the accused to enter on his defence in respect of the said offence. Without affording such an opportunity to the accused, a conviction under Section 304-B IPC would lead to real and serious miscarriage of justice. Even if no such count was included in the charge, when the court affords him an opportunity to discharge his burden by putting him to notice regarding the prima facie view of the court that he is liable to be convicted under Section 304-B IPC, unless he succeeds in disproving the presumption, it is possible 'Crl.Appeal No. 210/2013 Page 15 of 16 for the court to enter upon a conviction of the said offence in the event of his failure to disprove the presumption.'

(4) Thus Sections 304B or 498A IPC not being minor offences of Section 302 IPC, in the absence of an appeal by the complainant or the State, it is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to convert the conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304B or 498A IPC.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
147.

DV Act 2005
HC of PUNJAB & HARYANA at CHANDIGARH

on

2014-08-05
Crl Misc No M-36559 of 2013J.Paramjeet SinghAnup vs VanishreeDC ACT,482

ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW : Petitioners are not the members of intra-family of husband of the complainant rather are members of the extended family related to father of the husband of the complainant, who are not in anyway residing in the shared household as defined in the Act. Even no specific allegations have been leveled against the petitioners, only their names have been mentioned in the complaint and allegations are general in nature. In earlier proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent-complainant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and FIR under Sections 406/498-A IPC no such allegations have been levelled. These allegations are afterthought. In my opinion, complaint against the petitioners is clearly an abuse of process of law.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
148.

DIVORCE
HC of MUMBAI

on

2014-07-31
***** of *********----- vs -----HMA 13

HMA-13 : Refusing to cohabit shows wife's intention to desert husband: HC
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
149.

IPC 498A
HC of MUMBAI

on

2014-07-28
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

Recent Judgment on 498A
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
150.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2014-07-25
RFA 299/2014 of 2014A.K. Pathak----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

DIL can't stay in MIL and FIL's aquired property. She has to leave
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
151.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2014-07-25
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

DIL can't stay in MIL and FIL's aquired property. She has to leave
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
152.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2014-07-25
RFA 299 of 2014JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

DIL can't stay in MIL and FIL's acquired property. She has to leave
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
153.

IPC 498A
HC on MUBAI

on

2014-07-25
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

Another SLAP by Mumbai HC
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
154.

Misc
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2014-07-25
RFA 299/2014 of 2014A.K. Pathak----- vs -----Misc

DIL can't stay in MIL and FIL's aquired property. She has to leave
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
155.

DV Act 2005
HC of KERLA

on

2014-07-24
Cri Rev Pet No 366 of 2014P. UBAID----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Husband can sell his Hoouse anytime, does not matter if DV if filled or not
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
156.

DV Act 2005
HC of KERLA

on

2014-07-24
Crl.Rev.Pet.No 366 of 2014J.P.UbaidRajan vs SijiDV ACT 2005

Husband can sell his house when he wants!! DV can’t stop that : Most objectionable part of the order - The husband is restrained from alienating the shared house hold and the property wherein the building stands. Of course, the definite case of the husband is that the property was in fact purchased by his mother with her own funds and that the said direction will not bind the mother. Now, it is submitted that the mother is no more, and that the husband has inherited the property including the shared house hold, as the sole legal heir. Of course, it is true that the said direction was not in fact binding on the mother. Any way, now, the property has come in his hands as the legal heir. Once the property has come in his hand as the sole legal heir, he will have to obey the order. But the material question is whether the wife is entitled to get such an order. In fact, what she claims is merely a civil right over the property. Her case is that, the said property was in fact purchased by the mother-in-law by utilising her funds also. It appears that she claims right to continue there as a co- owner, on a claim of right, on the basis of what she contributed, and not simply as the wife having right to live in the shared household. There is reason to believe that the relationship between the parties is really strained. If what the wife claims is some civil right over of the property, she will have to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate civil remedy. However, she can continue in the shared household along with the husband so long as the shared house hold continues in the possession of the husband. The husband cannot be prohibited or restrained from alienating his property because it is his civil right. However, in case the husband proceeds to alienate the shared house hold, she can approach the court below for appropriate relief like alternative accommodation, and when such a claim comes, it will have to be decided by the trial court on merits. Subject to this, the second part of the order will have to be set aside.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
157.

DV Act 2005
HC of M.P., JABALPUR BENCH

on

2014-07-22
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

DV must be filled within 1 year from incident
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
158.

DV Act 2005
HC of M.P.

on

2014-07-22
Misc Cri. Case No 8955 of 2013J. Jarat Kumar Jain----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

DV must be filled within 1 year from incident
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
159.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2014-07-21
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

Case Registred in IPC 498A QUASHED
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
160.

CHILD CUSTODY
HC of MUMBAI

on

2014-07-18
***** of *********----- vs -----CHILD CUSTODY

No Visitation Allowe ... No Maintenence
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
161.

Maintenance
HC of MUMBAI

on

2014-07-18
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

No Visitation Allowe ... No Maintenence
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
162.

CHILD CUSTODY
Court no 24

on

2014-07-15
***** of *********----- vs -----CHILD CUSTODY

Custody not to Characterless MOTHER
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
163.

DIVORCE
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI

on

2014-07-13
Family Court Appeal No 70 of 2007J. A. S. Oka----- vs -----HMA 13

Refusing to cohabit shows wife's intention to desert husband
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
164.

Misc
HC of M.P.

on

2014-07-08
First Appeal No.119 of 2010S.K. Gangele----- vs -----Misc

The application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. is disposed of without going into merits. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 26.02.2010 is set-aside.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
165.

IPC 498A
HC of KERLA

on

2014-07-03
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

Release KIN if Innocent in CRUELTY Cases
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
166.

IPC 498A
SC of India

on

2014-07-02
Cri App No 1277 of 2014Chandramauli Kumar----- vs -----IPC 498A

No arrests under anti-dowry law without magistrate's nod
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
167.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2014-07-02
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

No arrests under anti-dowry law without magistrate’s nod
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
168.

Misc


on

2014-07-02
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

No arrests under anti-dowry law without magistrate’s nod
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
169.

Maintenance
HC of KARNATKA at BANGALORE

on

2014-06-13
WRIT PETITION NO.21353 of 2014JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANAK.H.Shiva Kumar vs KUM. NANDINI K.SMAINTENANCE

SHARED EXPENDITURE OF KIDS : Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and respondents. Perused the orders impugned and the material available on record. On going through the same, it is seen that both the courts below have not taken in to consideration the ability of petitioner's wife, who is the mother of respondents 1 and 2 herein to take care of them, at whose instance the criminal miscellaneous proceeding is initiated. When admittedly, she is a Senior Lecturer in a Government College, drawing more than Rs.50,000/- salary p.m., the allegation that the entire exercise, which is started by her in filing the criminal miscellaneous petition, is with an intention to cause harassment to the petitioner, cannot be disbelieved. However, this court would not like to go in to the merits of the case. But, in the instant case, even assuming that both the courts below have come to the conclusion that both the children are required to be maintained by the petitioner, this Court find that the responsibility of maintaining the children is not that of the petitioner exclusively, instead it is equal responsibility on the part of petitioner and his wife, who is representing them as guardian and next friend in this proceeding. Therefore, if Rs.4,000/- pm., is the amount which is required for the maintenance of one child, this Court feel it is required to modify the order passed by the courts below in fixing the liability at 50% on the wife and another 50% on the husband.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
170.

Misc
HC of KARNATKA

on

2014-06-03
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

Transfer Application by WIFE is dismissed on the GROUND that cities are nearby and well connected
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
171.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2014-05-26
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Pendency of Proceedings under Domestic Violence Act, not a ground to deny Appointment
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
172.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2014-05-26
CM 15769 of 2013J. P. K. Basin----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Pendency of Proceedings under Domestic Violence Act, not a ground to deny Appointment
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
173.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2014-05-09
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

498A Quashed on the ground of Sepration and Vague alligations
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
174.

DV Act 2005
HC on MUBAI, NAGPUR BENCH

on

2014-05-06
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

First Explore all possible options, then issue NBWs
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
175.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2014-05-06
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

Judge can recall the Order dictated in the open Court and change his mind even if a draft copy is signed; says SC
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
176.

DV Act 2005
HC on MUBAI, NAGPUR BENCH

on

2014-05-05
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

If there is no Domestic Violence on Woman then the children are not entitle for relief
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
177.

DV Act 2005
HC of MUMBAI, Nagpur

on

2014-05-05
Cri Writ Petition 32 of 2014M.L. Tahaliyani----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

No monetary relief under Section 20 of DV Act (PWDVA) unless domestic violence proved
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
178.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2014-04-26
***** of *********----- vs -----CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Answer papers only at Rs 2 per page - as per RTI Rules and Fees
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
179.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
SC of INDIA

on

2014-04-20
***** of *********----- vs -----CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

PIO to be heard before recommending action under Sec 20(2)
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
180.

IPC 304B
SC of INDIA

on

2014-04-15
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 304B

In Karan Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana , the supreme court has ruled that mere general allegation of dowry demand is not sufficient in dowry death cases.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
181.

Misc
HC of KARNATKA

on

2014-04-03
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

Mother In law gets transitory bail from her state in dowry case filed by DIL in another state
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
182.

Govt Employee
HC of MADRAS

on

2014-04-02
W.P.NO. 11851 of 2012D. Hari Paranthaman----- vs -----Govt Employee

An excess amount credited to the salary account of government employees cannot be recovered from them, especially after their retirement, if it is due to miscalculation and not due to misrepresentation on the part of the employee
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
183.

Misc
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2014-04-01
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

कई बार सुबूत किसी व्यक्ति के खिलाफ अपराध में शामिल होने का संदेह पैदा करते हैं, लेकिन इसका मतलब यह नहीं कि जिस पर संदेह हो वह अपराधी ही हो। संदेह कभी भी सुबूत नहीं बन सकता और उसके आधार पर किसी को सजा नहीं दी जा सकती।
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
184.

BAIL
SC of INDIA

on

2014-03-27
Crl App No 689 of 2014J.Vikramjit SenSandeep Kumar Bafna vs State of MaharastraCrPC 439

Accused can directly approach the High Court and Sessions Court for regular Bail, not necessary that accused should apply to the Magistrate first : The upshot of this analysis is that no vested right is granted to a complainant or informant or aggrieved party to directly conduct a prosecution. So far as the Magistrate is concerned, comparative latitude is given to him but he must always bear in mind that while the prosecution must remain being robust and comprehensive and effective it should not abandon the need to be free, fair and diligent. So far as the Sessions Court is concerned, it is the Public Prosecutor who must at all times remain in control of the prosecution and a counsel of a private party can only assist the Public Prosecutor in discharging its responsibility. The complainant or informant or aggrieved party may, however, be heard at a crucial and critical juncture of the Trial so that his interests in the prosecution are not prejudiced or jeopardized. It seems to us that constant or even frequent interference in the prosecution should not be encouraged as it will have a deleterious impact on its impartiality. If the Magistrate or Sessions Judge harbours the opinion that the prosecution is likely to fail, prudence would prompt that the complainant or informant or aggrieved party be given an informal hearing. Reverting to the case in hand, we are of the opinion that the complainant or informant or aggrieved party who is himself an accomplished criminal lawyer and who has been represented before us by the erudite Senior Counsel, was not possessed of any vested right of being heard as it is manifestly evident that the Court has not formed any opinion adverse to the prosecution. Whether the Accused is to be granted bail is a matter which can adequately be argued by the State Counsel. We have, however, granted a full hearing to Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate and have perused detailed Written Submissions since we are alive to impact that our opinion would have on a multitude of criminal trials.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
185.

DV Act 2005
ASJ-02 Karkardooma Court Delhi

on

2014-03-18
CA No 135 of 2013Ms. Anuradha Shukla----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Delhi sessions court denies woman maintenance under DV Act on grounds that she was capable of working and without child
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
186.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2014-03-14
Cri Appeal No 445 of 2013J.Jagdish Singh KheharState of Maharastra vs Kamal Ahmed Mohamad Vakil

Judgment of Hearsay Evidences
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
187.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2014-03-14
Civil Appeal No 3867 of 2014J.Surinder Singh NijjarKesharbai vs TarabaiCPC

PROPERTY OF JOINT HINDU FAMILY : It is a settled principle of law that once a partition in the sense of division of right, title or status is proved or admitted, the presumption is that all joint property was partitioned or divided. Undoubtedly the joint and undivided family being the normal condition of a Hindu family, it is usually presumed, until the contrary is proved, that every Hindu family is joint and undivided and all its property is joint. This presumption, however, cannot be made once a partition (of status or property), whether general or partial, is shown to have taken place in a family. This proposition of law has been applied by this court in a number of cases. We may notice here the judgment of this Court in Bhagwati Prasad Sah & Ors. Vs. Dulhin Rameshwari Kuer & Anr. 1
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
188.

IPC 498A
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2014-03-03
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

Mere demand of a car, without subjecting the deceased to any cruelty or without harassing her in any manner in connection with the said demand does not constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC particularly when it was not linked to the marriage and was sought for the purpose of convenience alone though it may possibly constitute an offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
189.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI & NEW DELHI

on

2014-02-11
CRL.REV.P. 637 of 2013J. Indeermeet Kaur----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

No Maintenence if Wife Earning Smart Enough ... ... for misuse fined by 5000
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
190.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2014-02-11
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

No Maintenence if Wife Earning Smart Enough ... ... for misuse fined by 5000
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
191.

Maintenance
HC of MUMBAI

on

2014-02-11
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

Only a wife with no sufficient source of permanent income can claim maintenance from her husband, the Bombay high court has ruled.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
192.

DIVORCE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

on

2014-02-07
***** of *********----- vs -----HMA 13

HMA-13 : False allegation, false 498a ground for Divorce
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
193.

DIVORCE
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI

on

2014-02-07
FCA 71 of 2006J. A. S. Oka----- vs -----HMA 13

False allegation, false 498a ground for Divorce
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
194.

DIVORCE
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI

on

2014-02-07
Family Court Appeal No 71 of 2006A.S.OkaMr.M vs Mrs.MHMA 13

Divorce without Alimony for False 498a where all acquitted. Not necessary for trial court call 498A false

(1) Now turning to the impugned judgment, we find from Paragraph 16 thereof, the learned Judge seems to have proceeded on the footing that merely because there was an order of acquittal, it was not sufficient to draw an inference that the case is false.

(2) The learned Judge of the Family Court has not at all appreciated the case in the right prospective and he seems to have over simplified the matter.

(3) As the Respondent has failed to prove the allegations of cruelty against the Appellant and she has failed to prove that it was the Appellant who had deserted the Respondent, the bar under Section 23(1) of the said Act will not apply in the present case.

(4) Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has made submissions on the issue of grant of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the said Act. The learned Judge of the Family Court decided the case in the year 2006. There is no evidence on record as regards the present income of the Appellant. Under Section 25 of the said Act, the wife can seek permanent alimony even after passing of a rdecree of divorce. In this Appeal, it will be unjust to record a finding regarding entitlement of the Respondent to receive permanent o alimony. We, therefore, propose to grant liberty to the Respondent to file a separate application under Section 25 of the said Act by keeping all the contentions of the parties open. It is obvious that the concerned Court will have to take into consideration the findings recorded in this judgment while deciding the application made by the Respondent.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
195.

CHILD CUSTODY
JMFC Vashi

on

2014-01-31
Cri.M.A.No 116 of 2012MANOD V. TOKALE----- vs -----CHILD CUSTODY

Child Access Granted in DV by Lower Court
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
196.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2014-01-20
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

Punish COPS who file FALSE charges
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
197.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2014-01-10
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

At What Time Chargsheet can be SUBMITTED in UP, Point 25
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
198.

Misc
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI beanch at NAGPUR

on

2014-01-09
First Appeal No 544 of 2013J. S.B.ShukreSmt. Varsha vs Smt. VandanaSec 8(4) of Workmens Compensation Act 1923

Whether a Divorced Wife is Widow After Death of Husband

(1) A widow is a woman, as we understand from the meaning of the term in its ordinary sense, whose husband is dead and who has not married again. A man is husband of a woman only as long as there is no snapping of matrimonial relations by a divorce a vinculo or dissolution of marriage or death.

(2) In the case of Smt. Rambai Vs. Ramesh Kumar reported at AIR 1996 M.P. 144 cited before me by learned Counsel for the appellants, the meaning assigned to the word 'widow' in 'Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, Vol.45 page 141 has been approved by the learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court. The learned Judge has held that, Where husband and wife are divorced a vinculo, the wife after the husband's death is not his 'widow' .... The relevant observations of the learned Judge are to be found in paragraph 12 and same are reproduced thus;

.......In 'Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, Vol.45 page 141 under the heading 'divorced wife', the word 'widow' means a woman who has lost her husband by death and has no application to a divorced woman. Where husband and wife are divorced a vinculo, the wife after the husband's death is not his 'widow' and entitled to dower..

(3) In view of the above, the argument of learned Counsel for the respondent that respondent is a widow and dependant of the deceased cannot be accepted and argument of learned Counsel for the appellants in this regard needs to be upheld. I, therefore, find that in the instant case, for the purpose of enquiry under the Act, 1923, the respondent cannot be said to be enjoying the status of widow of deceased Kishore. Once we find that so far as the enquiry under the Act, 1923 is concerned, the respondent was not the widow of deceased Kishore, she would be out of the scope and ambit of the definition of the term, 'dependent' as given in Section 2(1)(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which describes, inter alia, a widow of a deceased workman as his dependant.

(4) Learned Commissioner in his first impugned order has found that the respondent, being widow of deceased Kishore, was entitled to receive 50% of the compensation amount. However, he has not assigned any reason as to how the respondent could be given the status of a widow in the instant case. I have already discussed earlier in details as to how the respondent cannot be termed as a widow in this case and as such the first impugned order passed by learned Commissioner, Chandrapur cannot be sustained in law. It would then follow that the subsequent order refusing to revise the first order can also be not upheld. The substantial question of law is thus answered accordingly.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
199.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

on

2014-01-07
CIC-AD-A-2012-003341-SA of 2012Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu----- vs -----CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Information about salery of employee of public authority not third party. Spouse has right to get information about salery particulars
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
200.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CIC

on

2014-01-07
File No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003341-SA of 2014M. Sridhar Acharyulu----- vs -----CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Information about the salary of a PUBLIC AUTHORITY is not THIRT PARTY
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
201.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

on

2014-01-07
***** of *********----- vs -----CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Information about salery of employee of public authority not third party. Spouse has right to get information about salery particulars
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
202.

Misc
CIC

on

2014-01-07
File No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003341-SA of 2014M. Sridhar Acharyulu----- vs -----Misc

Information about the salary of a PUBLIC AUTHORITY is not THIRT PARTY
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
203.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2013-12-27
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

Judge can recall the Order dictated in the open Court and change his mind even if a draft copy is signed; says SC
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
204.

Misc
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI

on

2013-12-24
Crl Writ Petition No 4429 of 2013J.M.L.TahaliyaniArunkumar N.Chaturvedi vs State of MaharastraSec 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

There is no Law that the Accused Shall Personally Remain Present for Cancellation of Warrant : In my considered opinion, i there is no law that the accused shall personally remain present for cancellation of warrant. If the lawyer makes an application for cancellation of warrant, the same needs to be considered on merits by the learned Magistrate without insisting the for appearance of the Applicant/accused. It is noted by this Court that many a Writ Petitions are filed in this Court only because the learned Magistrate unless b accused straight appears way before take the a view Court. that The warrant view taken cannot bybe a few cancelled of the Magistrates correct. It is particularly high time that in the this city Court of lets Bombay, the Magistrate in my opinion, note that is not the appearance of the applicant/accused is not necessary when application for following cancellation order of warrant is made.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
205.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
HC of Punjab and Haryana

on

2013-12-18
***** of *********----- vs -----CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Details of VAT Tax evasion disclosable under RTI
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
206.

DV Act 2005
SC of INDIA

on

2013-11-26
Crl App No 2009 of 2013J.K.S.RadhakrishnanIndra Sharma vs V.K.V. SharmaDV ACT 2005

All Live-in Relations can't be relationship in the nature of Marriage

1) Live-in or marriage like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in this country. The decision to marry or not to marry or to have a heterosexual relationship is intensely personal.

2) We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether a “live-in relationship” would amount to a “relationship in the nature of marriage” falling within the definition of “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the DV Act”) and the disruption of such a relationship by failure to maintain a women involved in such a relationship amounts to “domestic violence” within the meaning of Section 3 of the DV Act.

3) 65. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant, having been fully aware of the fact that the respondent was a married person, could not have entered into a live-in relationship in the nature of marriage. All live-in-relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage.

4) We are conscious of the fact that if any direction is given to the respondent to pay maintenance or monetary consideration to the appellant, that would be at the cost of the legally wedded wife and children of the respondent, especially when they had opposed that relationship and have a cause of action against the appellant for alienating the companionship and affection of the husband/parent which is an intentional tort.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
207.

DV Act 2005
SC of INDIA

on

2013-11-25
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

SC Judgment of Timeperiod in Domestic Violence Cases
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
208.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
HC of CALCUTTA

on

2013-11-20
***** of *********----- vs -----CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

HC Calcutta allows anonymous RTI applications using post box nos
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
209.

DV Act 2005
HC of MAHARASTRA at NAGPUR

on

2013-11-19
Cri Appeal No 527 of 2013A.B. Chaudhari----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

HC of Maharastra found the alligation against a few respondent are not of the catagory defined in Domestic Violence.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
210.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2013-11-11
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

The question for consideration is whether the appellant Bhola Ram was rightly convicted by both the Trial Court and the High Court for having caused the dowry death of Janki Devi, an offence punishable under Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In our opinion, Bhola Ram deserves an acquittal since there is no evidence inculpating him.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
211.

DV Act 2005
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

on

2013-11-06
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

(1) No share in FIL and MIL property (2) Wife is capable of maintaining.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
212.

Maintenance
SC of INDIA

on

2013-10-13
Crl Misc Petition No 19530 of 2013J. A.K. SikriBadshah vs Urmila BadshahCrPC 125

Second wife without taking divorce from first, at least for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., such a woman is to be treated as the legally wedded wife.

Thus, while interpreting a statute, the court may not only take into consideration the purpose for which the statute was enacted, but also the mischief it seeks to suppress. Supreme Court also said that under the Hindu Marriage Act the children who born on second marriage has also rights for maintenance claims.

A wife has the right to ask for the maintenance from her husband in the case of divorce under Section 125 of CrPC. If a person has treated that particular person as his wife, then that can be treated as a proof of their marriage.

In the case of, Mallika and Anr v. P Kulandi , it was held that in case the husband misrepresented his first wifes death, his second wife, would have the right to maintenance.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
213.

CHILD CUSTODY
HC of KARNATKA

on

2013-09-13
***** of *********----- vs -----CHILD CUSTODY

Shared Custody : Minor Son shall be given to both the parents. Education and Other Expenditure have to be shared equally by the appellant and respondent. Both will have visitation right on every saturday and sunday.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
214.

BAIL
HC of U.P. at ALLAHABAD

on

2013-09-12
Application No 31714 of 2013J. Het Singh YadavSmt. Rajeshwari vs State of U.P.CrPC 482

Needless to say that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is law of land and is binding on all courts, therefore, seeking direction from this Court for expeditious/same day disposal of bail application likely to be moved by the applicant in the court below under inherent jurisdiction of this Court would be a futile exercise. The courts below are bound to follow the law laid down as above by this Court in Amrawati's Case (Supra) and the ratio has been approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh's Case (Supra) in letter and spirit.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
215.

IPC 498A
HC of Maharastra

on

2013-09-05
Writ Petition No 2999 of 2013J. S.C. Dharmadhikari and J. G.S. Patel----- vs -----IPC 498A

Case Registred under IPC 498A in Nagaland and Stay given by HC of Maharastra under the power given to HC in Article 226 of Constitution
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
216.

Misc
HC of JUDICATURE at ALLAHABAD

on

2013-09-03
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

Hon'ble Court took serious note on Hostility of witnesses
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
217.

Govt Employee
SC of INDIA

on

2013-08-27
Civil Appeal No. 7706 of 2013H.L. Gokhale----- vs -----Govt Employee

Regarding Govt Servents Promotion and Appointment
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
218.

DIVORCE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

on

2013-08-16
***** of *********----- vs -----HMA 13

HMA-13 : PHONE Affair Ground for DIVORCE
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
219.

DV Act 2005
HC of GUJRAT

on

2013-08-01
R/SCR.A/1263 of 2013S.R. Brahmbhatt----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

No Maintainance in DV filed after 1 year from sepration
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
220.

Misc
HC of U.P. at ALLAHABAD

on

2013-07-09
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 20215 of 2013J.Sudhir AgarwalDr.Rajesh Talwar vs CBICrPC 482, 91

ALLOWS CALL DETAILS RECORDS : 106. In view of the above discussion, the two applications are allowed partly. The applicants' request for documents mentioned in paras 10, 11 and 12 of application no.405Kha is hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to produce aforesaid record before Trial Court. Similarly application no.407Kha, in so far as it has named witnesses in paras 2.10 and 2.11, is allowed. The court below shall take appropriate steps in this regard.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
221.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

on

2013-06-03
***** of *********----- vs -----CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Marriage Subsists Then Spouse is not Third Party
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
222.

DIVORCE
SC of INDIA

on

2013-05-23
FAO 108 of 2013J.Pradeep NandrajogSuman Singh vs Sanjay SinghHMA 13A

Divorce Garnted to Husband because Wife Filled False Cases

DeepasApplying the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case (supra), we have no hesitation in holding that by filing numerous false complaints against Sanjay and his family members with the police and in the office of Sanjay that Sanjay and his family members used to demand dowry from her and treated her with cruelty when she failed to fulfill their demands and that Sanjay was having an illicit relation with his colleague, Suman has caused mental cruelty to Sanjay thereby entitling him to a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
223.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2013-05-06
Cri. Appeal No 931-932 of 2009J.B.S.Chauhan----- vs -----Misc

Statement of Accused Under Section 313 CrPC can't be made basis of his Conviction
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
224.

Govt Employee
Civil Appeal No. 2537

on

2013-03-15
Civil Appeal No. 2537 of 2013P. Sathasivam----- vs -----Govt Employee

Informative discussion
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
225.

DV Act 2005
HC of MUMBAI

on

2013-03-07
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

DV Act only if wife in domestic relationship and hence it has to be filed in reasonable time
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
226.

DV Act 2005
HC of MAHARASTRA

on

2013-03-07
Cri. Application No 160 of 2011J. Roshan Dalvi----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

No DV can be registred after one Year
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
227.

DV Act 2005
HC of MUMBAI

on

2013-03-07
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

DV can't be filled after one year of sepration
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
228.

DIVORCE
HIGH COURT of KERALA at ERNAKULAM

on

2013-02-28
Mat Appeal No 324 of 2013J. Antony Dominic----- vs -----HMA 13

PHONE Affair Ground for DIVORCE
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
229.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2013-02-22
Civil Appeal No 1787 of 2013J.P.SathasivamM/s Bagai Construction Thr. vs M/s Gupta Building Material StoreCPC 151

Adjournments, reopening of case and recalling of witnesses should be allowed in compelling circumstances : After change of various provisions by way of amendment in the CPC, it is desirable that the recording of evidence should be continuous and followed by arguments and decision thereon within a reasonable time. This Court has repeatedly held that courts should constantly endeavour to follow such a time schedule. If the same is not followed, the purpose of amending several provisions in the Code would get defeated. In fact, applications for adjournments, reopening and recalling are interim measures, could be as far as possible avoided and only in compelling and acceptable reasons, those applications are to be considered. We are satisfied that the plaintiff has filed those two applications before the trial Court in order to overcome the lacunae in the plaint, pleadings and evidence. It is not the case of the plaintiff that it was not given adequate opportunity. In fact, the materials placed show that the plaintiff has filed both the applications after more than sufficient opportunity had been granted to it to prove its case. During the entire trial, those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff, still plaintiff has not placed those bills on record. It further shows that final arguments were heard on number of times and judgment was reserved and only thereafter, in order to improve its case, the plaintiff came forward with such an application to avoid the final judgment against it. Such course is not permissible even with the aid of Section 151 CPC.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
230.

IPC 498A
HC of M.P.

on

2013-02-11
M.Cr.C.No. 11962 of 2012J. Anil Kumar----- vs -----IPC 498A

J. Anil Kumar said, today wife try to trap all family members of Husband to get Revange, just because she is hurt by Husband and Quashed a case against family Members of Husband. Case will continue only Against Husband.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
231.

RAPE
SC of INDIA

on

2013-01-23
Crl App No 175 of 2013J. Jagdeesh Singh KheharPrashant Bharti vs State of NCT of DelhiIPC 376, 482

FALSE RAPE COMPLAIN? : SC of INDIA quashed a false Rape Complaint by considering (1) Mobile Call Details confirm the false statement (2) AIIMS medical report doesn't confirm the incident of Rape or poisoning in PEPSI.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
232.

DV Act 2005
SC of INDIA

on

2013-01-07
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Wife Cannot Implicate one and all in Domestic Violence case
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
233.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

on

2013-01-02
***** of *********----- vs -----CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

RTI and TEP : Information required for TEP is given
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
234.

Adultry
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2012-12-14
Crl.M.C.4231 of 2012J.Manmohan SinghNandini Bhatnagar vs State Govt of NCT of DelhiIPC 498A, Article 21

Right to Travel is Constitutional Right, IPC 498A Accused can Travel Abroad without Permission

(1) It is settled law that right to travel is a facet of personal liberty and is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (See Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India & Anr., (1978) 1 SCC 248 and Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India, New Delhi & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1836).

(2) Undoubtedly, the accused's right to travel can be curtailed by a reasonable, transparent and fair procedure, but in the opinion of this Court such a restriction should be rarely imposed by the trial court while granting bail and that too, for cogent reasons.

(3) The SHO/Investigating Officer is directed to release the petitioner's passport forthwith.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
235.

Govt Employee
KOLKATA

on

2012-12-12
O.A.763 of 2011S.K. Chakrabarti----- vs -----Govt Employee

An order about the promotion of Govt Servent facing criminal charges
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
236.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
SC of INDIA

on

2012-11-03
Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) No 27734 of 2012J.K.S.RADHAKRISHNANGirish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Cen. Information Commr. & Ors.Sec 8 of RTI

SECOND APPEAL : (1) The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. (2) The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
237.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2012-10-17
Criminal Appeal No 1674 of 2012J. Gyan Sudha MisraGeeta Mehrotra vs State of U.P.IPC 498A

Merely by Making a General Allegation That They Were also Involved in Physical and Mental Torture of the Complainant in not enough for Trail.

(1) The High Court in our considered opinion appear to have missed that assuming the trial court had territorial jurisdiction, it was still left to be decided whether it was a fit case to send the appellants for trial when the FIR failed to make out a prima facie case against them regarding the allegation of inflicting physical and mental torture to the complainant demanding dowry from the complainant. Since the High Court has failed to consider all these aspects, this Court as already stated hereinbefore, could have remitted the matter to the High Court to consider whether a case was made out against the appellants to proceed against them. But as the contents of the FIR does not disclose specific allegation against the brother and sister of the complainants husband except casual reference of their names, it would not be just to direct them to go through protracted procedure by remanding for consideration of the matter all over again by the High Court and make the unmarried sister of the main accused and his elder brother to suffer the ordeal of a criminal case pending against them specially when the FIR does not disclose ingredients of offence under Sections 498A/323/504/506, IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2) We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of the complainant-respondent No.2 without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainants husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in so far as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled. The appeal accordingly is allowed.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
238.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

on

2012-10-13
***** of *********----- vs -----CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

RTI-Compendium by CIC-Major Court Judgements
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
239.

DIVORCE
HC of U.P. at ALLAHABAD

on

2012-09-14
Transfer Application (CIVIL) No 70 of 2011J.Pankaj MithalSmt Suchitra Gupta vs Principle Judge, Family Court and AnrSection 24 of CPC

TRANSFER APPLICATION REJECTED : Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that the trial of a petition under this Act shall, so far as is practicable, be continued from day to day until its conclusion and every petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavor be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of service of notice of the petition on the respondent. In view of the above mandate of Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur is directed to proceed with the divorce petition and decid it within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, provided there is no legal impediment in deciding the same.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
240.

DV Act 2005
HC of KARNATKA

on

2012-08-01
Cri Rev No 382 of 2012J. A.N. Venugopal Gowda----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

If Notice is Returned as Unclaimed then it is deemed as served in DV Case
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
241.

DV Act 2005
HC of PUNJAB & HARYANA

on

2012-08-01
CRM NO. M-9277 of 2012J. Jitendra Chauhan----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Disowning Son can not help him in Matrimonial Cases
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
242.

DV Act 2005
HC of KARNATKA

on

2012-08-01
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

If Notice is Returned as Unclaimed then it is deemed as served in DV Case
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
243.

DV Act 2005
HC of PUNJAB and HARYANA

on

2012-08-01
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Disowning Son can not help him in Matrimonial Cases
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
244.

IPC 498A
HC of HARYANA

on

2012-05-21
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

It is now well settled principle of law that, in order to attract the penal provisions of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, there must be specific allegations/overt acts and prima facie material against the petitioner to indicate that the dowry articles were actually entrusted to him and he misappropriated the same. The in-laws and other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases, where such accusation is made, the overt acts attributed to such persons, other than husband, are required to be prima facie established. By mere conjectures and implications, such relations cannot be held to be involved for the offences relating to the demand of dowry.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
245.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI

on

2012-05-14
Crl. Rev. P. 344 of 2011J.Pratibha Rani----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

No interim maintenance, in DV case, to well qualified wife sitting idle. Was she forced to resign etc is for trial, NOT interim. Delhi HC
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
246.

DIVORCE
HC of RAJASTHAN

on

2012-05-10
S.B.Civil Misc Appeal No 1250 of 2008J. Vineet Kothari----- vs -----HMA 13

Rejection of 13B application by district court set aside by High Court
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
247.

IPC 498A
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH­WEST)­ 01, ROHINI : DELHI

on

2012-05-08
Session Case No 378 of 2007MS. ILLA RAWATState vs Raghu RaiIPC 498A, 304B

ACQUITTAL FROM IPC 304B : (1) It is apparent that the entire investigations have been carried out to conceal the actual truth from the court and to give color of dowry death to poisoning of deceased Sushma, even though her husband Ramesh was also afflicted by poisoning for which, no explanation is forthcoming from the prosecution. (2) In the nutshell, in view of the above discussion and observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons on record, beyond the reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I acquit all the three accused persons – Raguraj, Samarthi and Ramesh of the charged offenses, giving them the benefit of doubt.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
248.

DIVORCE
SC of INDIA

on

2012-04-30
Cont Cas (c) 559 of 2011J.Vipin Sanghi----- vs -----HMA 13

Respondent can be Charged with COC if she disagree for 2nd motion in MCD
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
249.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

on

2012-04-27
Appeal: No. CIC-DS-A-2012-000174 of 2012Smt Deepak SanduSumit Kumar Agarwal vs Income Tax DepartmentRTI, CIC

PROVIDE NET TAXABLE INCOME : Commission directs respondent CPIO to provide the appellant with the net taxable income in respect of Shri Ajay Kumar Tulsiyan for the financial years 2003 – 04 and 2004­ 05. Disclosure of information is considered necessary for the speedy dispensation of justice and also to provide a level playing field to the appellant to defend himself in a criminal case in which the State is arraigned against him based on a complaint made by the third party.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
250.

CHILD CUSTODY
ICHALKARAJI COURT

on

2012-04-07
Misc Criminal case No 284 of 2011JUSTICE J.M.F.C. ICHALKARAJI----- vs -----CHILD CUSTODY

Child Access in DV by Lower Court
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
251.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

on

2012-03-21
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000371 of 2012Shailesh GandhiMr. R. Govindarajan vs Mr. Ujjawal KumarCIC, Sec 8 of RTI

SECOND APPEAL : Denial of a citizen’s fundamental right must be justified and the mere act of continuing an investigation cannot be used to deny citizens’ rights. In view of this, the Commission does not accept the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
252.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2012-02-21
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Wife fined 2 lakh wrt DV Act proceedings for making mockery of the judicial process, Contempt and for suppression of facts
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
253.

DV Act 2005
SC of INDIA

on

2012-02-07
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

A wife who lived with her husband before the law came into force but got seperated after the law was enforced, will be entitled to the right to share her husband's house under the law.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
254.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2012-02-07
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

If family members did not stay together with complainant as joint family,they can not be respondent in the domestic violence Act
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
255.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

on

2011-12-29
File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/902758 of 2011K.L.DasShri Yash Pal vs Telecom Regulatory Authority of IndiaCIC

CDR FOR 6 YEAR : I have no reason to deviate from the ratio of the decision extracted above. The objections raised by the TRAI officers present before the Commission are rejected. The TRAI is hereby directed to write to the service providers concerned in exercise of its powers u/s 12 (1) of the TRAI Act, 1997, and call for the requisite information, of course, subject to its availability with the Service providers, and pass on this information to the appellant herein. In case the service providers inform the CPIO that they are not holding the requested information, the appellant may be informed accordingly.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
256.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2011-12-15
Crl App No 1068 of 2006J.T.S.ThakurKailash Gour vs State of AssamIPC 448, 324, 302, 34

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE : (1) Every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved. The Presumption of innocence is human right. Subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence in India.

(2) We are conscious of the fact that three innocent persons including two young children have been done to death in the incident in question which needs to be deprecated in the strongest terms but unless proved to be the perpetrators of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellants cannot be convicted and sentenced for the same. We accordingly allow this appeal and acquit the appellants giving them the benefit of doubt. They shall be set free forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
257.

IPC 498A
HC of UP

on

2011-12-14
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

No arrest to be made in UP in any 498a IPC case
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
258.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2011-11-08
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Daughter in Law Can' Stay in Mother-in-Law's House
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
259.

Misc
HC of JUDICATURE at ALLAHABAD

on

2011-10-11
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

Police not to arrest accused persons for offences punishable upto imprisionment upto 7 years - provisions of 41(1) b,41A discussed and directions issued
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
260.

IPC 498A
HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE at ALLAHABAD

on

2011-09-30
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

(1) Whether registration of an FIR is mandatory ? (2) Whether arrest of husband and family members mandatory once FIR is lodged, (3) Whether distinction possible between cases necessitating immediate arrest, and cases where attempt for mediation should first be mad, (4) Appropriate place where mediation should be conducted, (5) Need for time frame for concluding the mediation proceedings, (6) Who should be the members of the mediation cell in the district ?, (7) Procedure to be followed by the police when a report of a cognizable offence under section 498A IPC or allied provisions is reported, (8) Necessity of training to mediators, (9) Should offences under section 498-A IPC be made compoundable ?
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
261.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2011-09-02
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

(1) Mothers, Sisters can file DV on daughter in law (2) As per Section 2 Clause (q) the respondent means any adult male person who is or has been in a domestic relationship. Hence, a plain reading of the Act would show that an application will not lie under the provisio ns of this Act against a female. But, when Section 19(1) proviso is perused, it can be seen that the petition is maintainable, even against a lady. Often this has taken as a cont ention, when ladies are arrayed as respondents and it is contended that petition against female respondents are not maintainable. This is a loophole which should be plugged.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
262.

DV Act 2005
SC of INDIA

on

2011-08-23
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

(1) Domestic Violence Semi Crimal in nature and set time limit of 1 yr (2) In view of the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., that the complaint could be filed only within a period of one year from the date of the incident seem to be preponderous in view of the provisions of Sections 28 and 32 of the Act 2005 read with Rule 15(6) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 which make the provisions of Cr.P.C. applicable
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
263.

CHILD CUSTODY
HC of MAHARASTRA, MUMBAI

on

2011-08-22
***** of *********----- vs -----CHILD CUSTODY

Good Findings for Child Custody by HC of MAHARASTRA, MUMBAI
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
264.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2011-07-04
Cri App. No 982 of 2008J. B.S.CHOUHAN----- vs -----IPC 498A

Deliberate Delay in Filing an FIR Can Be Seen as Abuse of Court Process
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
265.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

on

2011-07-01
Complaint No. CIC/SM/C/2011/000117/SG of 2011Shailesh GandhiMr. Justice R N Mishra vs Mr. Nirbhay KumarSec 8,10 of RTI

SECOND APPEAL : In the instant case, the PIO has denied the information simply on the basis that such disclosure would impede the process of prosecution. However, he has failed to explain how such disclosure would actually be an impediment to the process of prosecution, as laid down above by the High Court of Delhi. The denial of information by the PIO appears to be a mere blanket statement not supported by any cogent evidence or material on the basis of which it can be clearly demonstrated that such disclosure would in fact attract the exemption contained in Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. In other words, the PIO has failed to discharge the burden placed upon him under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act to prove that the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act was justified. On this basis, the Commission rejects the contention of the PIO that the information sought was exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Under Section 10 of the RTI Act, it is possible to severe certain portions of the information before disclosing it to an applicant to ensure that information that is exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act is not disclosed. Therefore, this Commission has decided to apply Section 10 of the RTI Act to the information sought by the Complainant.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
266.

CHILD CUSTODY
HC of KERLA

on

2011-06-15
OP (FC) No 106 of 2011J. K. M. Joseph----- vs -----CHILD CUSTODY

As Long As Mothers Visiting Right Not Violating Father is Free to Take Kids Abroad
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
267.

IPC 498A
HC of UTTRAKHAND

on

2011-05-26
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

498A Stayed on the Ground that it is Love Marriage
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
268.

Misc
HC of KARNATKA

on

2011-04-28
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

Bail Granted and Accepted misuse of 376 (Rape), 498A (Dowry) etc
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
269.

DV Act 2005
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL) TIS HZARI COURTS, DELHI

on

2011-04-15
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Maintenance Order by Metropolitan Magistrate set Aside because order was based on Affidavit not on Evidences.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
270.

Maintenance
In the Court of ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE TIS HAZARI COURTS

on

2011-04-15
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

Maintenance claim based on Affidavit dismissed
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
271.

CHILD CUSTODY
HIGH COURT of GUJRAT

on

2011-04-06
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 1200 of 2011J. M. D. SHAH----- vs -----CHILD CUSTODY

Gujrat High Court Granted Child Access
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
272.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2011-03-31
CM (M) 169 of 2009J. G.S. SistaniRani Sethi vs Sunil SethiHMA 24

MAINTENANCE TO HUSBAND GRANTED : (1) It is settled position of law that the law makes provision to strike a balance between the standard of living, status and luxuries that were enjoyed by a spouse in the matrimonial home and after separation. It has been held by the Apex Court that the needs of the parties, capacity to pay etc. must be taken into account while deciding quantum of maintenance. (2) The purpose of section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is to provide support to a spouse who has no independent source of income and is incapable of maintaining himself/herself.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
273.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2011-03-31
CM(M) 169 of 2009J.G.S.SistaniRani Sethi vs Sunil SethiHMA 24

HUSBAND GET MAINTENANCE : . Taking into consideration the documents, which have been filed on record of this court and the affidavit of the petitioner, the balance sheet, the Profit and Loss Account of the guest house and the income and expenditure of the guest house, it is clear that the petitioner has a substantial income from the business, which was at one time started jointly by both the petitioner and the respondent. The purpose of section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is to provide support to a spouse who has no independent source of income and is incapable of maintaining himself/herself. It is trite law that the term „support‟ is not to be construed in a narrow manner so as to mean bare subsistence. It means that the other spouse, who has no independent source of income, is provided with such maintenance so as to live in a similar status as was enjoyed by them in their matrimonial home. It is the purpose of section 24 that the wife or the husband who has no sufficient source of income for her or his support or for the expenses of the proceedings must be provided with such reasonable sum that strikes equity between the spouses.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
274.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2011-03-31
CM(M) 169 of 2009G.S. Sistani----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

HMA 24 :: Support to supouse in section HMA 24
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
275.

Misc
HC of JUDICATURE at PATNA

on

2011-03-28
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

Dowry Case Filled after Divorce and Bail Granted after Accpeting Maintenence Order
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
276.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CIC

on

2011-03-24
***** of *********----- vs -----CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Net taxable income to be disclosed under RTI
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
277.

Maintenance
HC of UTTARAKHAND at NAINITAL

on

2011-03-17
Appeal From Order No 356 of 2010J. Prafulla C. PantSmt Pratiksha Arya vs Sh Deepak Kumar AryaHMA 24

MAINTENANCE ORDER QUASHED : HMA 24 applies equally to both spouses. It provides that where in any proceeding under the Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support, it may, on the application of wife or the husband, order the other party to pay monthly maintenance during the proceeding initiated under the Act. Normally, in the Indian society, we see husband as an earning member in the family and wife dependent on him. But Section 24 takes note of all kinds of situation including the one in which husband is unable to maintain himself and dependent on his wife. As such, as far as maintainability of the application moved by the husband is concerned, the same was maintainable, seeking maintenance from the wife. (2) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, we are of the view that though the application by the husband was maintainable under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not a fit case for granting maintenance to the husband by the wife. Therefore, without observing any opinion as to the final merits of the case pending before the trial court, this appeal is allowed, and the order dated 16.08.2010, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital, in Civil Suit No. 148 of 2009, is set aside so far it relates to the direction to the present appellant to pay maintenance at the rate of 2,500/- per month to her husband.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
278.

Maintenance
HC of UTTARANCHAl

on

2011-03-17
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

Maintenence Judgement Quashed on the Ground that Status was not Considered by Train Court Before Granting
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
279.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2011-02-23
Crl App No 1323 of 2004J. Markandey KatjuVishnu Agarwal vs State of U.P.CPC 151

RECALL ORDERS : There is a distinction between ...... a review petition and a recall petition. While in a review petition, the Court considers on merits whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record, in a recall petition the Court does not go into the merits but simply recalls an order which was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to an affected party. We are treating this petition under Article 32 as a recall petition because the order passed in the decision in All Bengal Licensees Association Vs. Raghabendra Singth & Ors. [2007(11) SCC 374] cancelling certain licences was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the persons who had been granted licences.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
280.

Misc
HC of GUJRAT

on

2011-02-04
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

Transfer Application by WIFE in DV case is dismissed on the GROUND that one of RESPONDENT is also WOMEN
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
281.

BAIL
HC of MAHARASTRA

on

2011-01-24
Writ Pet No 584 of 2010J.V.M.KanadeSanjay Mitra vs State of MaharastraCrPC 445

BAIL WITHOUT LOCAL SECURITY : Government of Maharashtra has, by a Notification, directed that verification of the sureties should be done by the Tahsildar. This has further added to the difficulties of the persons who are released on bail since it takes long time for Tahsildar to complete the process of verification of documents tendered by the sureties and even though the accused is released on bail he remains inside for 2/3 weeks and some times one month since the verification of surety is not completed within that period. The learned Magistrates have power to release the accused on bail initially on furnishing cash bail and, thereafter, asking him to furnish solvent sureties in appropriate cases.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
282.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2011-01-18
Civil Appeal No 4820 of 2007J.J.M.PanchalKalyan Kumar Gogoi vs Ashutosh Agnihotri

The rule of appreciation of hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is excluded on the ground that it is always desirable, in the interest of justice, to get the person, whose statement is relied upon, into court for his examination in the regular way, in order that many possible sources of inaccuracy and untrustworthiness can be brought to light and exposed, if they exist, by the test of cross-examination. The phrase “hearsay evidence” is not used in the Evidence Act because it is inaccurate and vague. It is a fundamental rule of evidence under the Indian Law that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
283.

Maintenance
SC of INDIA

on

2011-01-11
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : Amendments in CrPC 125 at State level are INVALID
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
284.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2011-01-03
Crl App No 989 of 2003J.B.S.ChauhanS. Ganeshan vs Rama RaghuramanIPC 300, 100

Presumption of Innocence : In the instant case, the prosecution did not establish any motive to commit the crime. There is nothing on record to show as to whether Rama Raghuraman (A.1) had indulged in any physical intimacy with the deceased. The evidence of the doctor who examined the deceased, remained far from satisfactory and as he changed his version, he has been declared hostile. If the case of the prosecution is taken to be true, we have to examine as to whether the case of the respondents falls within the ambit of Section 100 and Exception II to Section 300 IPC and as to whether the High Court has dealt with the same taking into consideration all these incriminating circumstances considered by the trial court.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
285.

Misc
HC of MADRAS

on

2010-12-16
C.R.P.(NPD) No. 4361 of 2010J.S.ManikumarTerance Alex vs Mary Sowmya RoseFamily Court

Husband can appoint agent to appear at family court. Need NOT appear in person for all dates : it is now well settled legal position that there is no legal impediment under the Family Courts Act, for a Power of Attorney to appear on behalf of the Principal and the only legal embargo is that the recognised agent should not be a legal practitioner. Any person, not being a legal practitioner, can be nominated as an agent under Order 3 Rule 2 CPC, to prosecute or defend the parties and until the Family Court passess any specific order, directing appearance of the party, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
286.

DV Act 2005
HC of KERLA

on

2010-12-10
Crl Rev Pet No 461 of 2010J.V.RamkumarSunitha vs State of KerlaDV ACT 2005

MISUSE OF DV ACT : In order to constitute a complaint there should be an allegation made to a Magistrate that some person has committed an offence . Here, except where a respondent is prosecuted under Sec. 31 of the Act for committing breach of a protection order under Sec. 18 or where a protection officer is prosecuted under Sec. 33 of the Act for not discharging his duty, the Magistrate is approached by a person for any of the aforementioned reliefs by filing an application under Sec. 12 read with Rule 6 of the Rules and Form II. The respondent who is the opposite party to such an application is not an accused. (Vide Sreedivya vs Sudheer - 2009 (3) KLT 477) . Since he is not ​an accused , he cannot be arrested and produced or ordered to be arrested and produced before the Magistrate. The expression complaint found in the Act and the Rules has been used in a generic sense and is not to be understood in the context of a complaint as defined under the Cr.P.C.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
287.

DV Act 2005
HC of KERLA

on

2010-12-10
Crl M.C. No 4943 of 2010J. M.Shashidharan NambiarShanvas vs RaseenaDV ACT 2005, SEC 23

NO NON BAILABLE WARRANT UNDER SECTION 23(1) FOR NON-PAYMENT : When first respondent appeared through a counsel, he was directed to appear in person and pay the maintenance. It is on the failure to appear and pay maintenance as ordered, the non bailable warrant was issued. Learned Magistrate cannot order non bailable warrant for the failure to pay maintenance as has been done in this case. It is made clear that Magistrate can proceed against the petitioner or other respondents for non payment of the interim maintenance only as provided under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and such an order cannot be enforced as has been done by the learned Magistrate. In such circumstances, the order issuing non bailable warrant can only be quashed.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
288.

DV Act 2005
HC of KERLA

on

2010-12-10
Crl M.C.No. 4843 of 2010J.M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIARSHANAVAS vs RASEENASection 23 of DV ACT

NON-BAILABLE WARRENT : A Magistrate, on passing an order under Section 23(1) or an ex parte order under Section 23(2) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, cannot direct arrest of the respondent by issuing non bailable warrant before taking cognizance of the offence, if an offence is committed under sub-section (1) of Section
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
289.

CHILD CUSTODY
SC of INDIA

on

2010-11-30
***** of *********----- vs -----CHILD CUSTODY

Findings for Child Custody by SC of INDIA
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
290.

DV Act 2005
DISTRICT COURT, SAKET, DELHI

on

2010-11-18
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

No Intrim Maintenence to Wife if she is capable of Earning
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
291.

IPC 498A
HC of GUJRAT at AHMEDABAD

on

2010-11-16
Crl Rev App No 259 of 2010J.M.R.ShahSHOBHNABEN vs SHEKHARIPC 498A

No Independent Witness Examined Acquittal in 498A : applicant in support of her case that respondent Nos.1 to 4 have demanded Rs.10,000/-, which was paid to them by borrowing the same from relatives. However neither any name of relatives were given by the complainant, from whom, she has borrowed Rs.10,000/- to pay to the accused persons nor any of the relatives were examined. It is also required to be examined that except the original complainant, her brother and two panchas (who turned Hostile), no independent witnesses were examined. Not a single neighbour was examined to prove that cruelty has been caused by respondent Nos.1 to 4 – original accused. Considering the aforesaid aspects, Trial Court has acquitted the accused, which came to be confirmed by Appellate Court, the same are not required to be interfered with by this Court by exercising revisional jurisdiction.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
292.

Maintenance
HC of Madras

on

2010-11-12
Crp O P No 22949 of 2009J. G. M. Akbar Ali----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 - A wife who is unable to maintain herself is entitled for maintenance. Under clause 4 of Sec.125 Cr.P.C., She is not entitled to receive such maintenance from her husband if, without any sufficient reason refuses to live with her husband
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
293.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2010-11-09
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

Double jeopardy applies to same offence, not same facts
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
294.

IPC 498A
HC of UTTRAKHAND

on

2010-10-26
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

IPC 498A Quashed-Mutual Compromise
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
295.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2010-10-25
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Petitioner must claim she is unable to maintain herself for relief of maintenance
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
296.

Maintenance
2010-10-25 :: HC of UTTARAKHAND

on

2010-10-25
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : No Maintenence if Wife is Working or If she get Job after getting Maintenance.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
297.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CIC

on

2010-10-25
CIC/DS/C/2010/000332 of 2010K.L. Das----- vs -----CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Appellant is legally entitled to seek the information from TRAI u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act and TRAI is mandated to call for such information from the service provider (Reliance Company in this case) as mentioned hereinabove and furnish the same to the appellant. We, respectfully, disagree with the view taken by other Single Benches of the Commission.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
298.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2010-10-08
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Aggrieved person cant make all relatives of the husband as a respondent under PWDVA (1) It is apparent from the above provision of Domestic Violence Act that before passing an order on aplication, the magistrate has to take into consideration the domestic incident report received from him by Protection Officer or Service Provider. The order dated 5th November, 2009 of learned MM shows that before serving notice to the respondent, the learned MM did not take into consideration anything and did not even consider the contents of the application and did not try to find out as to whether respondents mentioned in the application satisfied the definition of respondent under Section 2(q) of Domestic Violence Act. (2) The order dated 5th November, 2009 passed by the learned MM is therefore set aside. The learned MM is directed to consider the domestic incident report and consider the contents of the application and find out whether the respondents (petitioners herein) had any domestic relationship with the applicant and could be fitted in the definition of the “respondent” as given in Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and then only issue notice to them.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
299.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2010-10-04
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

DV Order Can be passed only Against the RESPONDENTS who had been in DOMESTIC RELATION
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
300.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2010-09-22
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Maintenence Formula for WIfe and Child in DV cases
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
301.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2010-09-01
Crl M.C. No 4066 of 2009J. S.N. DhingraAmit Khanna vs Priyanka KhannaDV ACT 2005, Section 12

CLAIM OF HIGH STATUS BY SPOUSE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR MAINTENANCE : It is evident from the order passed by the learned ASJ that he has not enumerated the vast movable and immovable properties owned by the husband. Mere allegations made by the wife that husband was a man of status and had vast movable and immovable properties would not give jurisdiction to the Court to pass an order of maintenance beyond the means of the husband. When allegations are made by the spouses about the vast movable and immovable properties of other, even for passing an interim order the allegations must be substantiated by some sort of documentary evidence. The properties existing in the name of sister-in-law, mother or father cannot be considered to be the properties of the spouses. If such properties are considered as properties of husband, then property existing in the name of father of the wife, mother of the wife or brother or sister of the wife could reflect her status and income and the courts can think that a wife has sufficient properties and she does not need maintenance. (2) After attaining self sufficiency and being employed, a man’s own income has to be the basis for fixing maintenance for his dependants whether wife, parents or children.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
302.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2010-09-01
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Juridication in DV case by J. Dhingra
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
303.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2010-08-30
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

No maintenance in DV if maintenance already passed in Crpc 125.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
304.

DV Act 2005
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL) ROHINI, DELHI

on

2010-08-28
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Married sisters of a man, living separately from the joint family, cannot be prosecuted under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act on a complaint of his wife, a Delhi court has held. Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau expressed concern over misuse of special laws by making women parties in the petitions just because they happened to be sisters of the man. Married sisters residing in their own matrimonial houses are not a part of the shared household or joint family, as contemplated under the Domestic Violence Act, the court said. It, however, clarified that the married sisters were not denied the rights, which could be claimed from their parental home. The observations were made by the court while dismissing the plea of a woman who challenged an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, refusing to summon married sisters of her estranged husband in the case under the Domestic Violence Act.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
305.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2010-08-27
Crl M.C. No 491 of 2009J.S.N.DhingraSanjay Bhardwa vs StateCrPC-125, Section-18

ADDITIONAL RIGHTS : A perusal of Domestic Violence Act shows that Domestic Violence Act does not create any additional right in favour of wife regarding maintenance (125, sec-18 etc). HUBBY UNEMPLYED AND WIFE CAPABLE : We are living in an era of equality of sexes. The Constitution provides equal treatment to be given irrespective of sex, caste and creed. An unemployed husband, who is holding an MBA degree, cannot be treated differently to an unemployed wife, who is also holding an MBA degree. Since both are on equal footing one cannot be asked to maintain other unless one is employed and other is not employed. FAILED MARRIAGE : It must be remembered that there is no legal presumption that behind every failed marriage there is either dowry demand or domestic violence.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
306.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2010-08-26
Crl App No 1599 of 2010J.B.S.ChauhanBabubhai vs State of GujaratArticle 20 & 21 of Constitution

Not only the fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India : In the instant case, admittedly, the High Court has given detailed reasons for coming to the conclusion that the investigation has been totally one-sided, biased and mala fide. One party has been favoured by the investigating agency. we are of the view that such vitiated investigation cannot give rise to a valid charge sheet. Such investigation would ultimately prove to be precursor of miscarriage of criminal justice. Not only the fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. Investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in tainted and biased manner. Where non-interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must interfere. In such a situation, it may be in the interest of justice that independent agency chosen by the High Court makes a fresh investigation. Thus, the order of the High Court requires modification to the extent that the charge sheets in both the cases and any order consequent thereto stand quashed. In case, any of the accused could not get bail because of the pendency of these appeals before this Court, it shall be open to him to apply for bail or any other relief before the appropriate forum.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
307.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2010-08-13
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

498A Complain Quashed by SC of India on the basis of no specific allegation
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
308.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2010-08-09
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

No Maintenance in DV if hubby unemployed and wife educated capable to earn.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
309.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2010-07-29
Crl Rev P.No. 253 of 2010J.S.N.DhingraHarbans Lal Malik vs Payal Malik

FAMILY MEMBERS OF NRI HUSBAND : Once a son grows and he starts earning, marries, makes his separate home, and sires children the burden of his wife cannot be put on the shoulders of his father or brother on an estrangement between husband and wife. This burden has to be borne by the husband alone and not by the parents or bothers or sister of the husband, unless and until the husband had been contributing to the joint family as a member of HUF and has a right of deriving benefits from the joint family. If the husband had not been contributing or deriving benefits from the joint family, had not been member of the joint family and the parents had been treated like any other relative, how can the parents be burdened with the responsibility of his wife.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
310.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

on

2010-07-14
***** of *********----- vs -----CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Private Schools to provide information through DEO
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
311.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2010-07-08
Crl App. No 1182-1184 of 2010j.V.S.SirpurkarVijeta Gajra vs State of NCT of DelhiIPC 498A

Cruelty by husband and relatives requires proving beyond doubt

Cruelty by husband and relatives requires proving beyond doubt that the cruelty was intentional and to the extent of pushing a woman to commit suicide/ pose great threat to life, limb and health.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
312.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2010-07-06
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Family Members of NRI husband can't be dragged in DV
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
313.

DIVORCE
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI

on

2010-03-26
Family Court Appeal No 13 of 2002A.P.DeshpandeyGovardhan Kapoor vs Veena KapoorHMA 13B ETC

HUSBAND STAY IN MATRIMONY HOUSE : (1) The respondent wife is permanently restrained from dispossessing the appellant husband from the matrimonial house (suit house) either by herself or through servants, agents etc. and declare that the husband has right to reside in the matrimonial house. (2) Decree of divorce granted by the Family Court is confirmed.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
314.

CHILD CUSTODY
Mahila Court, Delhi

on

2010-03-26
CC. NO. 352/3 of 2003J. Surya Malik Grover----- vs -----CHILD CUSTODY

Child Access Granted by Lower Court Delhi
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
315.

CHILD CUSTODY
SC of INDIA

on

2010-03-25
***** of *********----- vs -----CHILD CUSTODY

Findings for Child Custody by SC of INDIA
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
316.

DV Act 2005
HC od MADRAS

on

2010-02-17
Crl.O.P.No. 24598 of 2008J.C.NagappanR.Nivendran vs Nivashini MohanCrPC 482, DV ACT 2005

FEMALE CAN BE RESPONDENT IN DV ACT 2005 : In the result, we hold that the 'respondent' as defined under Section 2(q) of the Act includes a female relative of the husband or the male partner and women could be added as respondents in an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
317.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

on

2009-2016
***** of 2009-2016CIC Authorities***** vs *****CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Important CIC Decisions regarding Exemptions from Disclosure of Information under RTI Act, 2005
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
318.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Central Information Commission

on

2009-14-12
Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2009/000647 of 2009Shailesh Gandhi----- vs -----CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Useful judgment Regarding Third Party information in TEP cases
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
319.

IPC 498A
HC of Punjab and Haryana

on

2009-12-15
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

The FIR has arisen due to differences between the brother of the petitioner and his wife. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued (which is not disputed) that the complainant is married to the brother of the petitioner and, since he was a permanent resident of America left India within two months. He further argues that the petitioner is unmarried sister and question for entrustment of any property to her would normally not arise. He has further argued that by now marriage between the complainant and the brother of the petitioner has been annulled and thus, the continuance of further proceedings against the petitioner at least is illegal and unfair.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
320.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

on

2009-12-04
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000399/LS of 2009K.L.DasPrem Singh vs CGDACIC

SECOND APPEAL : Needless to say, the ratio of the above cited judgment squarely applies in the factual matrix of the present case. As the matter is under prosecution, the possibility of the prosecution being impeded in the eventuality of disclosure of requested information can not be dis-counted. In view of the above, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
321.

Maintenance
HC of UP

on

2009-12-03
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

Lying Wife not Entitled for Maintenence
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
322.

Maintenance
HC of UTTARAKHAND at NAINITAL

on

2009-11-18
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : No Maintenance u/s CrPC 125 if Wife Deserts Husband
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
323.

DV Act 2005
HC of KERLA

on

2009-10-14
Crl M.C. No 2998 of 2007J. K. HemaChithrangathan vs Seema C.DV ACT 2005

MALE RIGHTS : While protecting the rights of a woman, the court has to be careful and cautious in not violating the rights of the male also.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
324.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2009-10-12
Crl M.C. No 1784 of 2009J.Kailash GhambirManish Tandon vs State

DV act can be filed where the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed : it has to be considered that the legislature has provided the women covered under the Act with such wide options to institute a case against the unscrupulous persons who harass or abuse her at the places covered under Section 27 of the Act with an intent that women may opt for the place which best suited their convenience, comfort and accessibility.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
325.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2009-10-12
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

DV act can be filed where the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
326.

CHILD CUSTODY
HIGH COURT of MAHARASTRA

on

2009-09-10
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 353 of 2008J. A.S.OKA----- vs -----CHILD CUSTODY

HC Order Access in DV. Can't take monthly turn in custody
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
327.

DV Act 2005
HC of MADRAS

on

2009-08-31
Crl. O.P. No. 91 of 2009J. R.REGUPATHIK.Viswanathan vs Sivamalar

Having regard to the operation of the Act as against the person who is sought to be taken as respondent in the proceedings initiated thereunder, it must be pointed out that unless the aggrieved person, namely, respondent herein, substantiates that the person concerned has got domestic relationship or that he is a family member, such person cannot be mechanically impleaded as one of the respondents in the application. If the respondent has any grievance against the petitioner, she is always at liberty to initiate proceedings against him before the appropriate forum for any offence committed by him against her, if she is so advised.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
328.

DV Act 2005
HC of MADRAS

on

2009-08-31
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Unless the complainant, substantiates that the person concerned has got domestic relationship or that he is a family member, such person cannot be mechanically impleaded as one of the respondents in the application
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
329.

DV Act 2005
HC oF MAHARASTRA

on

2009-08-17
Writ Petition No 8283 of 2008J.D.B.BhosaleSanchita Amitabh Dasgupta vs Amitabh Prashant Dasgupta

DIL shd honor the rental agreement : Under the leave and license agreement the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.5,000 per month to respondent no.2 which has not been paid since long. The petitioner alone is in possession of the flat. In the circumstances there shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) subject to the petitioner depositing the entire arrears of license fee under the leave and license agreement dated 26.6.2006 in this court within a period of eight weeks from today and shall also deposit monthly license fee during pendency of this writ petition every month. If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount, as aforestated, this petition shall stand dismissed for non prosecution without reference to the court.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
330.

DV Act 2005
HC of MUMBAI

on

2009-08-17
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

The judgment of Mumbai HC which asked daughter in law to honor the rental agreement and pay Rs 5,000 payment to mother in law.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
331.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2009-07-06
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

Quashed 498a against the husband as the complaint shows no allegation that there is any such conduct on the part of the appellant which could be said to be amounting to cruelty of such a nature.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
332.

DIVORCE
HC of MAHARASTRA at AURANGABAD

on

2009-06-09
Second Appeal No 135 of 2008J. K.K.TatedShoba vs MhatardevHMA 13B

Wife Making Serious Unverified Allegations on Husband in Writing is Mental Cruelty, Husband Entitled to Divorce

1) It is clear that making serious allegations against opponent in writing itself amount to a mental cruelty. Even Apex Court in another matter of G.V.N. Kameswara Rao vs G. Jabilli reported in (2002) 2 S.C.C. 296, held that false police complaint and consequent loss of reputation and standing in society at the instance of one's spouse, held, would amount to cruelty. Not only that, with the help of police in criminal complaint, she arrested the respondent for recovery of her maintenance. Whereas, it is the case of respondent that he used to pay her maintenance within time and in spite of that, the appellant with mala fide intention filed criminal complaint and harassed the respondent. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that after decree of divorce, the respondent married with another lady and he is residing with another lady for last several years and therefore, nothing will come out from the present litigation.

2) On the basis of the above mentioned submissions and findings, both the Courts below concurrently held in favour of the respondent and I see no reason to differ. Hence the Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs and the Civil Application stands rejected.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
333.

DIVORCE
HC of JAMMU and KASHMIR

on

2009-03-30
LPAOW No 64 of 2006J. Per Barlin GhoshRajinder Kumar Sharma vs Jyoti SharmaHMA 13

1. Yes, Lok Adalat Judgments can be appealed against. 2. Lok Adalat dont have the inherent jurisdiction to waive off 6 month cooling off period in cases of MCD. 3. A Women is allowed to change her stance at an point of time inspite of agreeing and even taking alimony for an MCD at Lok Adalat :It is one thing that the court had no jurisdiction at all, i.e., it lacked inherent jurisdiction, the other is that the court had jurisdiction but it exercised such jurisdiction improperly. The consequence of the first episode would be total nullity; whereas exercise of improper jurisdiction would result in a wrong order. In order to understand the outcome of exercise of jurisdiction by the court which lacked inherent jurisdiction and the outcome of exercise of jurisdiction by the court when it did not lack inherent jurisdiction but decided the same illegally or incorrectly, we have taken note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Official Trustee, West Bengal v. Suchindra Nath Chatterjee, reported in AIR 1969 SC 823, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that what is relevant is whether the court had the power to grant the relief asked for in the application made to it and that if the court had competence to pronounce on the issue presented for its decision then the fact that it decided that issue illegally or incorrectly, is wholly besides the point.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
334.

Maintenance
SC of INDIA

on

2009-03-23
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

HMA 24 : Maintenence Denied to Earning Wife
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
335.

Maintenance
HC of PUNJAB & HARYANA at CHANDIGARH

on

2009-03-19
Criminal Misc No M-24684 of 2008J. Mohinder PalPoonam vs Mahender KumarCrPC 125

No Alimony to Women Who Desert her Husband without Sufficient Reason or Cruielty

The trial Magistrate, after framing issues, recording evidence, both oral and documentary, and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not been able to prove on record that she was ill-treated by the respondent or he was cruel towards her in any manner. Except her statement, the petitioner failed to examine any other witness in support of her case to prove ill-treatment, dowry demand and other allegations made in the petition. Even the parents of the petitioner did not come forward to support her case. The petitioner failed to join her husband even after the petition filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights was accepted by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was filed by the petitioner, was declined by the Court by holding that there was no desertion on the part of the respondent, rather the petitioner deserted her husband due to her own personal reasons. The petitioner did not take care of her sons, who are residing with the respondent. There is no allegation in the petition that she had ever asked the respondent for giving her the custody of the sons. The petitioner appears to be interested only in getting maintenance allowance and taking divorce from the respondent. The respondent is solely taking care of the children. To bring up two children single handedly is an onerous duty, which the respondent is performing and the petitioner is shirking. The petitioner, in her cross-examination, stated that after she left her matrimonial house, she never tried to contact the respondent or her kids. In the case of Smt.Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (Smt.), 2000 (2) R.C.R (Criminal) 286, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that a wife is not entitled to maintenance who has deserted her husband, but a wife who has divorced on account of her desertion is entitled to maintenance from decree of divorce. Failure of the petitioner-wife to prove sufficient grounds justifying her staying away from the respondent-husband and two kids shows that she had left the society of the respondent on her own accord. In these circumstances, both the Courts below were justified in declining the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code.

In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed being without any merit.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
336.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

on

2008-12-22
***** of *********----- vs -----CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Passport Information Related to 3rd Party can be Disclosed
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
337.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

on

2008-12-22
***** of *********----- vs -----CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Third Party PASSPORT Details can be Disclosed
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
338.

CHILD CUSTODY
SC of INDIA

on

2008-11-19
***** of *********----- vs -----CHILD CUSTODY

बच्चे की खातिर मां - बाप को अपने अहं किनारे कर देने चाहिए। आपसी मतभेद भुलाकर बच्चे के भविष्य पर ध्यान केंद्रित करना चाहिए। अदालत ने साफ कहा कि अलग हुए पति - पत्नी की इच्छा के मुकाबले बच्चे का भविष्य ज्यादा महत्वपूर्ण है। अदालत बच्चे के भविष्य को ध्यान में रखकर ही अपना फैसला सुनाएगी।
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
339.

Maintenance
HC of RAJASTHAN

on

2008-10-22
S.B.Crl Misc Pet No 1347 of 2008J.G.S.SarrafSatish vs YoglataCrPC 125

MAINTENENCE AFTER RCR : (1) The decision in a suit against the wife for restitution of conjugal rights is equivalent to a decision by a competent civil court that the wife had no sufficient reason for refusing to live with her husband. (2) It is true that second revision is not maintainable but this court can and must interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. (3) The decree of restitution of conjugal rights passed in favor of the petitioner does not lose its legal value because the petitioner thereafter files an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
340.

Maintenance
HC of RAJASTHAN

on

2008-10-22
S.B.Cri Misc Pet No 1347 of 2008G.S.Sarraf----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : If Husbands Wins Sec 9 (RCR) then Wife is not entitle for Maintenance in CrPC 125
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
341.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2008-10-01
Crl M (M) 1153 of 2008J. S.N. DhingraKavita Prasad vs ray PrasadCrPC 125

DO NOT WASTE QUALIFICATION AND DO SOCIAL WORK : Since counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is not working anywhere, despite being a qualified Doctor, I consider that as she is receiving maintenance from husband, the Court should not allow her experience and qualification to go waste. I consider that she should be directed to work as a honorary Doctor in some public welfare institute or school free of charges where she can take care of health of the poor people. Let her come to Court and give an undertaking that she was prepared to work without charging anything in any institution named by this Court around her house minimum 5 hours a day and 6 days a week, so long she receives maintenance from her husband on the plea of being unemployed.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
342.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2008-10-01
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : Qualified MBBS wife asked to do some work
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
343.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2008-09-18
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

If SOUSE is earning no maintenence can be granted
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
344.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2008-09-18
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

HMA 24 : Explanation of Section 24 Of The HMA
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
345.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2008-09-10
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

If Wife is CAPABLE of earning she is not entitled for MAINTENENCE
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
346.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2008-09-10
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

HMA 24 : No Maintenence if Wife is Capable of EARNING
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
347.

DV Act 2005
HC of KERLA

on

2008-08-11
Cri M.C.No. 3016 of 2008J.R.BasantNamitha vs N.Vijya Kumar

Exemptions from appears in DV : I fail to understand how, why and under what circumstances such personal appearance is insisted by the learned C.J.M. It is trite that even though proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are initiated before a criminal court, the relief claimed is essentially and in its core, civil in nature.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
348.

DV Act 2005
HC of KERLA

on

2008-08-11
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Exemptions from appears in DV
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
349.

IPC 498A
HIGH COURT of DELHI AND NEW DELHI

on

2008-08-04
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

(a) While drafting pleadings/complaints, the lawyers should not unnecessarily suggest incorporation of wild allegations, or in character assassination of any of the parties or their family members whatever the case may be. (b) Lawyers are also to endeavour to bring about amicable settlement between the parties as they are expected to discharge sacred duty as social engineers in such cases instead of making them target for monetary considerations by multiplying their cases.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
350.

Maintenance
In the Court of Mrs. Veena Rani, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi

on

2008-07-28
CC No:2979/1/2007 of 2007Veena Rani----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

Unemployed Men can't be forced to Pay Alimony
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
351.

Maintenance
SC of INDIA

on

2008-07-28
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : (1) Wife’s property, income sources must be considered in CrPC 125. (2) The order of maintenance if made to pay from date of application, need not record the reasons for doing so. In general it is payable from date of order.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
352.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2008-07-11
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

Charges or conviction can be quashed if the constitutional right to a speedy investigation and trial has been denied
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
353.

PERJURY
HC of KOLKATA

on

2008-03-25
Crr No 999 of 2006J.Kalidas MukharjeeMilon Mukherjee vs Krishna GoshCrPC 340, IPC 498A

Contesting respondent has come to the HC with unclean hands and withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side. In our opinion, he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party. A person whose case is based on falsehood can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. : Since in the subsequent petition of complaint there is no whisper about the earlier petition of complaint followed by the order of discharge of the accused persons, such non-disclosure amounts to suppression of material facts, inasmuch as, had it not been suppressed, it would have an effect on the merits of the case. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, I find that it is a fit case for quashing of the proceedings in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The application under Section 482 read with Section 300 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings of Hanskhali P.S. Case No. 281 dated 06.12.2005 under Section 498A/34 I.P.C. pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranaghat stand quashed.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
354.

DV Act 2005
SC of INDIA

on

2008-03-14
Civil Appeal 2003 of 2008S.B.SinhaVimalben vs Vatslabeen

The Domestic Violence Act provides for a higher right in favour of a wife. She not only acquires a right to be maintained but also thereunder acquires a right of residence. The right of residence is a higher right. The said right as per the legislation extends to joint properties in which the husband has a share.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
355.

DV Act 2005
SC of INDIA

on

2008-03-14
Civil App 2003 of 2008J.S.B. SINHA----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

The Domestic Violence Act provides for a higher right in favour of a wife. She not only acquires a right to be maintained but also thereunder acquires a right of residence. The right of residence is a higher right.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
356.

Govt Employee
HC of MAHARASTRA

on

2008-01-31
W.P. No. 17963 of 2007D. Hari Paranthaman----- vs -----Govt Employee

Promotion and Criminal Case issue
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
357.

DV Act 2005
IN THE COURT OF SHRI V.K. BANSAL ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE NEW DELHI

on

2008-01-30
Criminal Revision No 196 of 2007Shri V.K.BansalShivani Kabra vs Shaleen Kabra

Court is of the opinion that it is the duty and responsibility of every court to adjudicate the matter after taking evidence and according fare opportunity to both the parties to plead their own case. In the present case the revisionist moved an application under Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 leveling allegations against the respondent. Respondent had taken his own plea in this regard and the interim order had already been passed on the basis of pleadings. Now to come to the just conclusion about the allegations and counter allegations it is necessary that the parties be given opportunity to lead their evidence and also to come in the witness box and face the cross examination.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
358.

DV Act 2005
ADD. SESSION JUDGE DELHI

on

2008-01-30
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

DV has to be PROVED
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
359.

DV Act 2005
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE NEW DELHI

on

2008-01-30
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Domestic Violence Need to br Proved to get relief under DV ACT 2005
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
360.

Misc
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE DELHI

on

2008-01-30
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

Misc
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
361.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2007-12-03
WP(C) No 3114 of 2007J.S.Ravindra BhatBhagat Singh vs Chief Information CommissionCIC

SECOND APPEAL : This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
362.

Misc
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2007-12-03
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

RTI and TEP : Information required for TEP is given
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
363.

Maintenance
SC of INDIA

on

2007-11-27
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : Maintenence Denied to Earning Wife
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
364.

IPC 498A
HC of ALLAHABAD

on

2007-11-01
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

Allahabad High Court: IPC 498a Quashed based on Jurisdiction
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
365.

CHILD CUSTODY
SC of INDIA

on

2007-11-01
AppealCivil 5088-5097 of 2007C.K.THAKKER ----- vs -----CHILD CUSTODY

Don’t deny visitation to husband as default
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
366.

Maintenance
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE ROHINI COURT : DELHI

on

2007-09-19
M. No 28 of 2007MS. MADHU JAIN----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

HMA 24 -- No maintenance to qualified wife under 24 HMA
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
367.

DV Act 2005
IN THE COURT OF DR. SHAHABUDDIN : MM : ROHINI :DELHI

on

2007-09-15
Application No 1192-1 of 2007Dr. ShahabuddinSonia vs Vinod

On the basis of entire facts and circumstances of this case, I am prima facie of the considered opinion that behavior of applicant is of such a nature that she is not cooperating with the respondents. She prima facie appears to be harassing the respondents on trivial matters
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
368.

DV Act 2005
ROHINI COURT, DELHI

on

2007-09-15
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Misuse of DV ACT 2005
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
369.

IPC 304B
HC od DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2007-08-31
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 304B

Writ Petetion for FILLING DOWRY DEATH against IN-LAW is dismissed on the ground that it does not have any weight
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
370.

IPC 498A
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2007-08-21
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

BAIL Proceedings cannot be converted into recovery proceedings.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
371.

Misc
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2007-08-13
Crl M.C. No 9052 of 2007J. S.N.DhingraMr. Vinay Singh (Advocate) vs MISC

CAW CELL HAS NO POWER TO INVESTIGATE THE CRIME : This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the conversation recorded by the petitioner between father of the petitioner and the father of the respondent should be heard by the CAW Cell and should be made part of the investigation. I consider that CAW Cell has no power to investigate the crime. It is not a police station where FIRs are registered. Investigation in any crime can be done only after registration of FIR. CAW Cell only makes reconciliatory efforts between the parties that also up to the stage of pre- registration of FIR. The investigation can also be done by CAW Cell if it is referred to it after registration of FIR. Since no FIR has been registered in this case, no directions can be given to CAW Cell for investigation. The petition is infructuous and is hereby dismissed.
OPEN URL   |   VIEW
372.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2007-08-06
Crl App No 116 of 2006J.S.B. SinhaKulwinder Singh vs State of PunjabIPC 302

It may be stated that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one false in all) does not apply in criminal cases in India. A witness can be partly truthful and partly false.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
373.

Maintenance
HC of CALCUTTA

on

2007-06-07
of 2007J. P. N. Sinha----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 - No maintenance to wife, if wife staying separately without sufficient cause
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
374.

Maintenance
SC of INDIA

on

2007-06-05
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : Proceeding under CrPC 125 is CIVIL in nature
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
375.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2007-05-11
Crl App 1613 of 2005G.P. MathurAPPASAHEB vs State of MaharastraIPC 498A, 304B

EVERY DEMAND FOR MONEY, NOT DOWRY : A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses of for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
376.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2007-04-17
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

HC mentioned conditions when maintenance to be paid (1) Status of the parties, (2) Reasonable wants of the claimant, (3) The income and property of the claimant, (4) Number of persons to be maintained by the husb and, (5) Liabilities, if any, of the husband, (6) The amount required by the wife to live a simi lar life style as she enjoyed in the matrimonial home keeping in view food, clothing , shelter, educational and medical needs of the wife and the children, if any, residing with the wife and (7) Payment capacity of the husband.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
377.

IPC 498A
HC of KERLA

on

2007-03-26
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

498A Quash Judgment
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
378.

DIVORCE
SC of INDIA

on

2007-03-26
Appeal 151 of 2004J. B. N. Agarwal----- vs -----HMA 13

Instances that constitute cruelty have been beautifully illustrated by the honourable SC in this judgement
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
379.

DIVORCE
SC of INDIA

on

2007-03-26
***** of *********----- vs -----HMA 13

HMA-13 : Instances that constitute cruelty have been beautifully illustrated by the honourable SC in this judgement
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
380.

IPC 498A
HC of DELHI & NEW DELHI

on

2007-02-23
Crl. M. C. 7262 of 2006J. S. N. Dhingra----- vs -----IPC 498A

Acquittal of relatives Due to vague allegations and how to go after dowry givers to curb false complaints
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
381.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2007-02-19
Crl App No 222 of 2006J.Dr.Arijit PasayatKalegura Padma Rao vs State of A.P.IPC 302, 148, 448

But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses.......The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
382.

DV Act 2005
SC of INDIA

on

2006-12-15
Civil Appeal No 5837 of 2006J.Markandey KatjuS.R.Batra vs Smt. Tarun Batra

If the definition of shared household includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship, then it will mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past that property becomes a shared household. It is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with the husband's father, husband's paternal grand parents, his maternal parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces etc. The claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the husband's in-laws or other relatives.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
383.

DV Act 2005
SC of INDIA

on

2006-12-15
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Wife has no RIGHT in MOTHER-IN-LAWs property
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
384.

CHILD CUSTODY
HC of JUDICATURE at MADRAS

on

2006-11-20
***** of *********----- vs -----CHILD CUSTODY

Mother is not Always Right Person for Custody
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
385.

CHILD CUSTODY
HC of MADRAS

on

2006-11-20
***** of *********----- vs -----CHILD CUSTODY

Mother is not always a RIGHT PERSON for child custody
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
386.

Maintenance
HC of MADRAS

on

2006-11-04
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

Husband has to PROVE his EARNING
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
387.

DIVORCE
SC of INDIA

on

2006-03-21
Appeal (Civil) 1687 of 2006Ruma Pal----- vs -----HMA 13

Unsoundness Of Mind Of Spouse Grounds For Divorce Under Mental Cruelty
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
388.

CHILD CUSTODY
SC of INDIA

on

2006-02-17
Civil Appeal No 6626 of 2004J. Kabir AltamasSheila B.Das vs P.R.SugasreeGuardians and Wards Act

Custody of Girl Child Given to Father

In any event, what was of paramount importance was the welfare of the minor and the court had also taken into consideration the preference expressed by the minor in terms of Section 17 (3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

On behalf of the respondent it was submitted that the respondent was quite alive to the fact that the minor child should not be deprived of her mother's company and that for the said purpose, the appellant was welcome to visit the minor child either at the respondent's house or in some neutral place and to even keep the child with her on specified days if she was ready and willing to stay with the appellant. What was sought to be emphasized on behalf of the respondent was that in the interest of the child she should be allowed to remain with him since he was better equipped to look after the minor, besides being her natural guardian and also having regard to the wishes of the minor herself. Having regard to the complexities of the situation in which we have been called upon to balance the emotional confrontation of the parents of the minor child and the welfare of the minor, we have given anxious thought to what would be in the best interest of the minor. We have ourselves spoken to the minor girl, without either of the parents being present, in order to ascertain her preference in the matter. The child who is a little more than 12 years of age is highly intelligent, having consistently done extremely well in her studies in school, and we were convinced that despite the tussle between her parents, she would be in a position to make an intelligent choice with regard to her custody. From our discussion with the minor, we have been able to gather that though she has no animosity as such towards her mother, she would prefer to be with the father with whom she felt more comfortable. The minor child also informed us that she had established a very good relationship with her paternal aunt who was now staying in her father's house and she was able to relate to her aunt in matters which would concern a growing girl during her period of adolescence. We have also considered the various decisions cited by the appellant which were all rendered in the special facts of each case. In the said cases the father on account of specific considerations was not considered to be suitable to act as the guardian of the minor. The said decisions were rendered by the Courts keeping in view the fact that the paramount consideration in such cases was the interest and well-being of the minor. In this case, we see no reason to consider the respondent ineligible to look after the minor. In fact, after having obtained custody of the minor child, the respondent does not appear to have neglected the minor or to look after all her needs. The child appears to be happy in the respondent's company and has also been doing consistently well in school. The respondent appears to be financially stable and is not also disqualified in any way from being the guardian of the minor child. No allegation, other than his purported apathy towards the minor, has been levelled against the respondent by the appellant. Such an allegation is not borne out from the materials before us and is not sufficient to make the respondent ineligible to act as the guardian of the minor.

We, therefore, feel that the interest of the minor will be best served if she remains with the respondent but with sufficient access to the appellant to visit the minor at frequent intervals but so as not to disturb and disrupt her normal studies and other activities.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
389.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2006-01-02
Cri Appeal No 2 of 2006J.Arijit PasayatMohd. Yousuf vs Smt Afaq Jahan

This citation if for use when we are complainant and court ordered police investigation us 202 crpc, and we have to challenge police investigation report. A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offense shall be deemed to be a complaint, and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
390.

Maintenance
HC of KARNATKA

on

2005-08-22
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

No maintenence of WIfe is Earning
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
391.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2005-07-19
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

(1) Petition Purported to declare declare Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, to be unconstitutional. (2) Whenever, any court comes to the conclusion that the allegations made regarding commission of offence under Section 498 IPC are unfounded, stringent action should be taken against person making the allegations.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
392.

DIVORCE
HC of AANDRA PRADESH

on

2005-04-28
***** of *********----- vs -----HMA 13

HMA-13 : Alleging impotency is cruelty. and Divorce can be Granted
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
393.

DIVORCE
HC of AANDRA PRADESH

on

2005-04-28
Civil Misc Appeal No 3155 of 2002J. Gopal Krishna Tomada----- vs -----HMA 13

Husband Fight to prove his Impotancy even after Divorce Degree is done and proved it. HC also said saying impotatnt to husband is mental cruielty in respective of section 13.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
394.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2005-04-07
Crl App No 523 of 2005J.S.B. SinhaRanjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs State of MaharastraMCOCA

Presumption of Innocence : Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Some where in the twilight zone the evidential force must be recognized, and while the Courts will go a long way in admitting the expert testimony deducted from a well recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.

DNA evidence may have a great significance where there is supporting evidence, dependent, of course, on the strength of that evidence. in every case one has to put the DNA evidence in the context of the rest of the evidence and decide whether taken as a whole it does amount to a prima facie case.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
395.

PERJURY
SC of INDIA

on

2005-03-11
Crl App No 402 of 2005J.R.C.LahotiIqbal Singh Marwah vs Meenakshi MarwahCrPC 195 & 340

For the cases of perjury/182 CrPC it is not necessary to file application us 340 CrPC. If you have proper documentary evidence of the falsehood, go ahead and straight away file a private complaint case. Applications u/s 340 CrPC are not allowed since the courts are reluctant on that, so use this Honble Apex Court's constitutional bench authority 'IQBAL SINGH MARWAH AND ANOTHER Versus MEENAKSHI MARWAH AND ANOTHER' and file complaint case even under sections barred to be taken cognizance us 195 CrPC. : Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
396.

Maintenance
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI

on

2005-02-04
of 2005J. R.S. MohiteMrs. Meena Dinesh Parmar vs Shri Dinesh Hastimal ParmarCrPC 125

MAINTENANCE DENIED : (1) No maintenance because wife wanted to live seprate (2) So far as question of maintenance is concerned, in view of our aforesaid finding, maintenance cannot be granted to the wife. In so far as the child is concerned, we find that an amount of Rs. 500/- which is awarded is too meagre looking to the present requirements of a growing child. The evidence indicates that the husband had sufficient money to purchase his own flat. He cannot be said to be a person of no means. No doubt, he contended that he had borrowed monies from his friends to purchase the new flat but he candidly admitted that he had not taken any such contention about borrowing of monies from is friends in his petition nor had he led any evidence in this regard. Taking an over all view of the matter, we feel that ends of justice will be met if an amount of Rs. 3000/- per month is granted as maintenance to the child. The husband will have an option of making lumpsum payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards the maintenance of his son and if he makes such lumpsum payment in full, then his liability to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month will cease from the date of full payment. He will also have an option to make a lumpsum payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- at the first instance and if he does so then the maintenance payable to the son will stand reduced to Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of such payment. The maintenance amount/amount in lieu of maintenance as aforesaid would be payable to the son till the son attains the age of majority.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
397.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2004-11-05
Appeal Crl 1274 of 2004J.Santosh HegdeRuchi Agarwal vs Amit KumarIPC 498A, 323, 506, 13B

IF WIFE BACK OUT AFTER GETTING MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE, STILL FIR WOULD BE QUASHED : Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, contended that though the appellant had signed the compromise deed with the above-mentioned terms in it, the same was obtained by the respondent-husband and his family under threat and coercion and in fact she did not receive lump sum maintenance and her Stridhan properties, we find it extremely difficult to accept this argument in the background of the fact that pursuant to the compromise deed the respondent-husband has given her a consent divorce which she wanted thus had performed his part of the obligation under the compromise deed. Even the appellant partially performed her part of the obligations by withdrawing her criminal complaint filed under Section 125. It is true that she had made a complaint in writing to the Family Court where Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings were pending that the compromise deed was filed under coercion but she withdrew the same and gave a statement before the said court affirming the terms of the compromise which statement was recorded by the Family Court and the proceedings were dropped and a divorce was obtained. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
398.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2004-08-02
Crl App No 1026-1027 of 2003B.P.SinghRudrappa Ramappa Jainpur vs State of KarnatkaIPC 302, 161

In case a witness says something beyond, what he/she said in 161 can't be believable : with the blunt portion of the axe. PW-3 alleged that A-3 assaulted him with stick. PW-5 made an allegation of assault against A-4 but he had not made such a statement in the course of investigation under Section 161 Cr. P.C. The trial court, therefore, did not accept his allegation as against A-4. Similarly PW-6 had alleged that A-2 and A-7 had assaulted him but this fact was conspicuously absent from his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. PW-4 stated that he had been assaulted by A-4 and A-6. So far as the allegation against A-4 is concerned, PW-4 did not involve him in the assault on him in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. The trial court, therefore, concluded that in the assault on other witnesses only A-3, A-4 and A-6 had participated. A-5, A-7 and A-8 had not taken part in the assault on either the deceased or injured witnesses. As noticed earlier A-7 and A-8 have been acquitted by the trial court as well as by the High Court. We are of the view that A-5 is also entitled to the benefit of doubt because we are satisfied, on the evidence of record, that he did not take part in the assault, even though he may have been present when the occurrence took place. The High Court was not justified in setting aside his order of acquittal.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
399.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2004-04-12
Crl App No 298 of 1997J.S.B. SinhaNarendra Singh vs State of M.P.IPC 302

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE & BURDEN OF PROOF REMAINS ON PROSECUTION : It is also well-known that even in a case where a plea of alibi is raised, the burden of proof remains on prosecution. Presumption of innocence is a human right. Such presumption gets stronger when a judgment of acquittal is passed. This Court in a number of decisions has set out the legal principle for reversing the judgment of acquittal by a higher Court. (See Dhanna Vs. State of M.P. (1996) 10 SCC 79, Mahabir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2001) 7 SCC 148 and Shailendra Pratap & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. (2003) 1 SCC 761), which had not been adhered to by the High Court. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Pieces of circumstances, however, strong may be, it is well-known that all links in the chain must be proved. In this case a vital link in the chain, viz., possibility of the appellant No. 1 committing the offence, closing the door and then sneaking out of the room from one of the two places had not been proved by the prosecution. We, thus, having regard to the post mortem report, are of the opinion that the cause of death of Bimlabai although is shrouded in mystery but benefit thereof must go to the appellants as in the event of there being two possible views, the one supporting the accused should be upheld. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The appellants are on bail. They are discharged from the bail bonds.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
400.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2003-09-05
Crl App 896 of 1996Doraiswamy RajuSurinder Singh vs State of U.P.IPC 302

HEARSAY EVIDENCES : It is true that an order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with. This Court in a number of cases has held that though the appellate Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded, still while exercising such an appellate power in a case of acquittal, the appellate Court should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the question of fact and the reasons given by the Courts below in support of its order of acquittal, it must express its reasons in the judgment which led it to hold that the acquittal is not justified.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
401.

Maintenance
SC of INDIA

on

2003-08-26
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : No Maintenence to wife if she FAILED to prove her ALLIGATIONS
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
402.

IPC 498A
HIGH COURT of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2003-05-19
Crl. Rev. 462 of 2002J.J.D.KapoorSavitri Devi vs Ramesh ChandIPC 498A

Failed marriage is not Dowry Harassment

It is apparent, neither every cruelty nor every harassment has element of criminal culpability for the purposes of Section 498-A. There is no problem where there is physical violence and infliction of injury which is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. In such cases, facts will speak for themselves. We have adopted this defintion from English Law though for the purpose of divorce on the ground of cruelty, Indian Law defines it as a conduct as to cause a reasonable apprhension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Element that cruelty should be of such nature as to cause `danger' to life, limb or health or as to give rise to reasonable ap rehension of such a danger does not exist in Indian Laws of Divorce. This ingredient is of much sterner and higher degree. Supreme Court in Dr.N.G.Dastane Vs. Mrs.S.Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326 has referred to this aspect of `cruelty' like this:- ry, as under the English law, that the cruelty must be of such a character as to cause `danger' to life, limb or health or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. Clearly danger to life, limb or health or a reasonable apprehension.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
403.

Maintenance
HC of MADRAS

on

2003-01-10
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

Alimony can be Granted to Earning SPOUSE too
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
404.

PERJURY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

on

2003-01-09
Writ Petition No M/S of 2002J.A.MateenSyed Nazim Husain vs The Additional Principal Judge Family CourtCrPC 340, 344

Perjury Application Must be Decided First Before Proceeding with the Case : In my view, if an application is moved in the pending case bringing to the notice of the court that any false evidence knowing well has been filed or fabricated in such proceedings, the court should dispose of the said application first before proceeding any further or before recording of further evidence. In the circumstances, I dispose of the present application and direct the Additional Principal Judge Family Court to dispose of the application so moved by the petitioner under Section 340, 344 Cr.P.C. before proceeding further in accordance with law. With the above observations the petition is disposed of finally.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
405.

DIVORCE
SC of INDIA

on

2002-07-11
Civil Appeal 3930 of 2002D.P. MohapatraPraveen Mehta vs Inderjeet MehtaHMA 13B

MENTAL CRUELTY : Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) is to be taken as a behavior by one spouse towards the other which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behavior or behavioral pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty the mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehavior in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other. In view of the discussion as such the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that despite the fact that the respondent is a good lady but has created the aforesaid situation because of her own act and conduct concerning the non-disclosure of her state of health and concealment by her above acted as a mental and physical cruelty to the appellant which entitles him to a decree of divorce. Therefore, the findings of the learned District Judge on issue Nos.1 to 3 are reversed.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
406.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2002-07-11
Appeal (Civil) 3930 of 2002J. D.P.MohapatraParveen Mehta vs Inderjit MehtaIPC 498A

Defination of MENTLE CRUIELTY in IPC 498A cases

Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) is to be taken as a behavior by one spouse towards the other which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behavior or behavioral pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty the mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehavior in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other.

Judged in the light of the principles discussed above what we find is that right from the beginning the matrimonial relationship between the parties was not normal; the spouses stayed together at the matrimonial home for a short period of about six months; the respondent had been trying to persuade the appellant and her parents to agree to go for proper medical treatment to improve her health so that the parties may lead a normal sexual life; all such attempts proved futile. The appellant even refused to subject herself to medical test as advised by the doctor. After 21st June, 1987 she stayed away from the matrimonial home and the respondent was deprived of her company. In such circumstances, the respondent who was enjoying normal health was likely to feel a sense of anguish and frustration in being deprived of normal cohabitation that every married person expects to enjoy and also social embarrassment due to the behavior of the appellant. Further, the conduct of the appellant in approaching the police complaining against her husband and his parents and in not accepting the advice of the superior judicial officer Mr.S.K.Jain and taking a false plea in the case that she had conceived but unfortunately there was miscarriage are bound to cause a sense of mental depression in the respondent. The cumulative effect of all these on the mind of the respondent, in our considered view, amounts to mental cruelty caused due to the stubborn attitude and inexplicably unreasonable conduct of the appellant.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
407.

Maintenance
HC of MADYAPRADESH

on

2002-03-24
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

HMA 24 : Maintenence Denied to Well Educated and Capable Wife
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
408.

Misc
WEST BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

on

2002-03-18
O.A.3649 of 1998Mr.Chairman K.M.Mondal----- vs -----Misc

No employee can claim right to promotion. He has only right to be considered for promotion
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
409.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2002-02-06
Crl App No 1 of 1995R.P. SethiGananath Pattnaik vs State of ORISSAIPC 498A, 304B

HEARSAY EVIDENCES : It follows, therefore, that there was no legal evidence tendered in the case which could be made the basis for returning a finding with respect to the alleged cruelty of the accused with the deceased. In the absence of any legal evidence produced in the case, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond doubt, that the appellant had committed the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and find that it is a fit case where he is entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
410.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

2002-01-15
Crl App No 78 of 1999Umesh C.BanerjeeState of Haryana vs Ram SinghIPC 302

Both the Side (Defense & Prosecution) Witness Statements are Equally Importance : Rejection of the defence case on the basis of the evidence tendered by defence witness has been effected rather casually by the High Court. Suggestion was there to the prosecution’s witnesses in particular PW-10 Dholu Ram that his father Manphool was missing for about 2/3 days prior to the day of the occurrence itself - what more is expected of the defence case : a doubt or a certainty - jurisprudentially a doubt would be enough : when such a suggestion has been made prosecution has to bring on record the availability of the deceased during those 2/3 days with some independent evidence. Rejection of the defence case only by reason thereof is far too strict and rigid a requirement for the defence to meet - it is prosecutor’s duty to prove beyond all reasonable doubts and not the defence to prove its innocence - this itself is a circumstance, which cannot but be termed to be suspicious in nature.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
411.

DIVORCE
SC of INDIA

on

2001-05-01
***** of *********----- vs -----HMA 13

VOID MARRIAGE : The Supreme Court held that to brand a wife as unfit for marriage and procreation of children on account of a mental disorder, it needs to be established that the ailment suffered by her is of such a kind or to such an extent that it is impossible for her to lead a normal married life.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
412.

CHILD CUSTODY
SC of INDIA

on

2001-03-02
***** of *********----- vs -----CHILD CUSTODY

Rules for Child Custody
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
413.

CHILD CUSTODY
SC of INDIA

on

2001-03-02
***** of *********----- vs -----CHILD CUSTODY

SC defined RULES for CHILD CUSTODY
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
414.

Maintenance
HC of MADYA PRADESH

on

2000-03-24
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : No Maintenence to well QUALIFIED and CAPABLE wife
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
415.

Misc
HC of GUJRAT

on

1999-12-16
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

Free Legal Expenses for women, ruled by Gujarat HC
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
416.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

1999-10-01
of 1999G.B. PattanaikSukhar vs State of U.P.IPC 307

HEARSAY EVIDENCES : Section 6 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule whereunder the hearsay evidence becomes admissible. But for bringing such hearsay evidence within the provisions of Section 6, what is required to be established is that it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there should not be an interval which would allow fabrication.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
417.

IPC 498A
HC of GUJRAT

on

1999-07-23
Crl. App. No 207 of 1988J.H.R.ShelatIndrasing M.Raol vs State of GujratIPC 498A

Defination of IPC 498A

(1) On careful scrutiny what becomes clear is that the trial Court has not correctly interpreted the letters. The gist and pith thereof are overlooked. Kailasba had not after the marriage gone to Meerut even for a day, though she used to receive affectionate letters from the appellant, who also used to express his high regards for the elders. Where found necessary, he unflinchingly expressed his repentancy and pang, and also expressly or impliedly apologised. Many other letters are not produced, but on the basis of those 3 letters, it can well be reasonably inferred that the appellant might naturally be trying to know when Kailasba would be reaching Meerut, and also it was natural and normal that he would expect and desire or even need his wife to stay with him at Meerut, but he did not receive any invigorating response. Being agog, he must be experiencing excruciating restiveness, unsettledness, and frustration which must have made him casually frantic, and in a despairing mood or feeling perturbed, he groaned and spouted his anguish in the letter using so-called tarts, or intemperate language, and resorting to arm-twisting trick, he just hinted what could be the remote compelling possibility, cursorily mentioning that he might marry a local girl and pass them over. When accordingly vomiting out his grief and affliction, he has tried to mitigate his woeful situation, can only 3 letters, out of 50 letters gaining eulogy and laurel of his in- laws, be construed as harassment or cruelty envisaged by Section 498-A is the question that arises for consideration.

(2) If in assertion of conjugal right, the accused does a pesky act or wrong amounting to harassment, when one's own spouse avoids her obligation turning blind eye to his right for no good reason, it cannot be termed unabetted harassment or cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A; but it will amount to expected or incited stormy reaction to the act on the part of the victim or complainant-side. In that case, required intention to drive her to be wanting. In the case on hand, Kailasba for no good cause was avoiding to go to Meerut where appellant was serving. The evidence reveals that Kailasba was advised by Motiba not to write letters. The object of marriage was being frustrated. The three letters written during disheartening period are, therefore, the reaction of the unjust provocative act on the part of Kailasba. In other words, the same is the flesh and outbreak of a fiery or dejected mind. When that is so the letter or contents thereof even if believed to be impolite or ungracious act will not fall within the ambit of cruelty envisaged by Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, because the same will be lacking of required intention to drive her to commit suicide.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
418.

Maintenance
HC of RAJASTHAN

on

1999-01-22
of 1999J.G.L.GuptaBheekha Ram vs Goma DeviCrPC 125

NO MAINTENANCE FOR DESERTING WIFE : (1) The learned Magistrate has rightly held that the respondent-wife had not been able to establish the allegations of cruelty or demand of owry and that on her own admission she was living in the house constructed by her husband. On the admission of Goma Devi that for about 14 years the husband used to give his entire income to her and he was maintaining the family and that her husband was always ready and willing to keep her and her children and there was not love lost between them, the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in holding that there was no negligence by the husband and the wife was herself responsible for the trouble in the marital relations. (2) The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, it is obvious was influenced by the fact that the husband has filed a divorce petition. By this, he presumed that the husband Bheekha Ram was not willing to continue with the marital relations. In my opinion, this could not be the valid ground or interfering in the order of the learned Magistrate. (3) The matter was to be decided on the basis of the material available on the record of the case under Section 125, Cr. P.C.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
419.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

1998-10-08
Crl App of 1998Cji.K.T.Raj Dev Sharma vs State of BiharIPC, CrPC

Complete Prosecution Witness within 2 or 3 year of Charge Framing : In cases where the trial is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven years, whether the accused is in jail or not, the court shall close the prosecution evidence on completion of a period of two years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charges framed whether the prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not, within the said period and the court can proceed to the next step provided by law for the trial of the case.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
420.

Maintenance
HC of W.BENGAL

on

1997-08-14
ALT Cri 17 DMC 487 of 1997J.Dibyendu Bhushan----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

Double Maintenance will NOT be justice, equity and good conscience. HMA 24 and CrPC 125 amounts to be adjusted.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
421.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

1996-12-10
of 1996G.N.RayBalram Prasad Agarwal vs The State of Bihar

Hearsay Evidences under Section IPC 498A Dowry Act are not evidences
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
422.

Maintenance
HC oF MAHARASTRA

on

1994-08-11
Equivalent citations: II (1995) DMC 589 of 1995J.U.BhatSaroj Bai vs Jai KumarCrPC 125

DATE OF ORDER : Shobha Bai's case proceeds on the basis that normally or ordinarily an order should take effect from the date of the order and therefore, specific reasons must be indicated in the order in support of a contrary direction. Section 125(2) does not speak of either reasons or special reasons unlike Section 125(3) of the Code which requires reasons for the sentence awarded in the case of conviction for an offence punishable with death or alternatively imprisonment for life or imprisonment for the term of years and special reasons to be recorded in the case of sentence of death.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
423.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

1994-04-24
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

Arrest guidelines by Supreme Court of India
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
424.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

1992-09-15
***** of *********----- vs -----Misc

Grounds on Which Bail can be Cancelled
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
425.

Maintenance
HC of U.P. at ALLAHABAD

on

1991-03-15
of 1991J. S.R. BhargavaAnita Rani vs Rakeshpal SinghCrPC 125, 127

MAINTENANCE FROM DATE OF ORDER : It is true that under Section 125(2) Cr. P.C. maintenance can be allowed from the date of the order, or if so ordered, from the date of application for maintenance. Allowing of maintenance from the date of application is an exception to the general rule of maintenance being payable from the date of order, for making an exception there must be reasons. It do not find any specific reason for allowing the maintenance right from the date of application.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
426.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

1991-03-12
of 1991J.N.M.KasliwalMaharastra State Board of Secondary Education vs K.S.Gandhi

It Is Open To The Authorities To Receive And Place On Record All The Necessary, Relevant, Cogent And Acceptable Materials That Are Not Proved Strictly In Conformity With The Evidence Act.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
427.

Maintenance
HC of MAHARASTRA

on

1991-01-04
CriLJ 1028 of 1992J.P.C.PathakKrishna Jain vs Dharam RajCrPC 125

DATE OF ORDER : In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the date of order in Section 125(2) means the date of order of the Magistrate and not the date of revisional order. Gafoor Ahmed's case so far it directs payment of allowance from the date of order of the revisional Court, is not good law. The answers to the questions referred are: (1) Recording of reasons is essential in either case namely when the maintenance is granted from the date of application or from the date of order. (2) In the absence of reasons, it does not automatically follow that the maintenance should be awarded from the date of order. (3) The date of order in Section 125(2) means the date of Magistrate's order and not the revisional order.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
428.

DIVORCE
HC of MUMBAI

on

1990-12-13
Divorce Petetion of 1990A. Savant----- vs -----HMA 13

Clear the meaning of Cruielty in Matrimonial Laws
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
429.

DIVORCE
HC of RAJASTHAN

on

1990-10-13
***** of *********----- vs -----HMA 13

HMA-13 : Alleging Impotency amounts to immense mental agony and cruelty
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
430.

Maintenance
HC of MAHARASTRA

on

1990-07-27
Crl Writ Pet No 38 of 1989Ashok Yeshwant vs Suparna Ashok SamantCrPC 125,127

ARREARS DEPOSIT BEFORE APPEAL : Sec 127(2)- Application by husband for modification of maintenance amount - Husband cannot be directed to deposit the amount of arrears of maintenance as a condition precedent to proceed with his application.

Sec 125(3), 127- Recovery proceedings u/s 125(3) are independent proceedings from the proceedings u/s 127 CrPC

Sec 125(3)- Arrears of maintenance – Recovery – Coercive Process – Before taking recourse to coervice process opportunity to show cause must be given
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
431.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

1988-04-26
of 1988J.A.P.SenLaxmi Raj Shetty vs State of Tamilnadu

Judgment on Hearsay Evidences
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
432.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

1988-03-22
Equivalent citations: 1989 CriLJ 296, JT 1988 (2) SC 14, 1988 Supp (1) SCC 570 of 1988K. Singh----- vs -----Misc

Allowed to defend the case with advocate, relief from PERSONAL APPEARENCE during TRAIL
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
433.

Maintenance
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI

on

1985-10-09
Equivalent citations: 1986 (1) BomCR 358, (1985) 87 BOMLR 561 of 1986B K PatilMurlidhar Chintaman Waghmare vs Smt. Pratibha Murlidhar WaghmareCrPC 125

If wife looses maintenane in civil case, she looses right to file sec 125 and claim maintenance

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (A.C.) Pune, who heard the application, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the 1st Respondent was able to maintain herself and that she had no just and sufficient reasons to reside separately from the Petitioner. The learned Magistrate further held that the Petitioner had offered to maintain the 1st Respondent which offer she had refused. Consequently, the application was dismissed without any order as to costs. It may be mentioned here that the 1st Respondent had earlier filed a similar maintenance application which was withdrawn by her. Thereafter she also filed a civil suit for declaration that she was entitled to reside separately and for maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The said suit was dismissed on merits. No appeal was filed by her against the said order. The learned Magistrate unfortunately did not refer to the said civil suit in his judgment.

5. The learned Additional Judge, while allowing the Revision filed against the order of the learned Magistrate, granted maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month, and observed that the principles of res judicata or double jeopardy would not come into play as the present proceedings were of a summary nature. According to me, the learned Sessions Judge has missed a vital point in coming to the said conclusion. The proceedings in the civil Court are substantial whereas the proceedings under S. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code are of a summary nature. Once the civil Court of competent jurisdiction comes to the conclusion that Respondent No. 1 is not entitled to maintenance, the criminal Court, under Section 125, cannot sit in appeal over the said decision. This itself, without anything more, is sufficient to set aside the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge. Even S. 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code contemplates cancellation of the order passed under S. 125 after the decision of the civil Court.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
434.

DIVORCE
HC of RAJASTHAN

on

1984-10-29
***** of *********----- vs -----HMA 13

HMA-13 : Alleging Impotency amounts to immense mental agony and cruelty
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
435.

IPC 304B
HC of RAJASTHAN

on

1984-10-29
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 304B

Alleging Impotency amounts to immense mental agony and cruelty
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
436.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

1983-04-20
of 1983Syed Murtaza FazalaliState of Bihar vs Radha Krishnan Singh

Judgments of courts are admissible in evidence under the provisions of sections 40, 41 & 42 of the Evidence Act. Section 43 provides that those 812 judgments which do not fall within the four corners of sections 40 to 42 are inadmissible unless the existence of such judgment.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
437.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

1981-12-17
of J.Islam BaharulJ.D.Jain vs The Management of SBI

Hearsay Evidence is no Evidence
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
438.

Maintenance
HC of KARNATAKA at BENGALURU

on

1980-02-13
Equivalent citations: CriLJ 110 of 1981J.M.PatilHaunsabai vs Balkrishna KrishnaCrPC 125

CrPC 125 SHOULD PROVIDE MAINTENENCE TO WIFE WHO IS UNABLE TO MAIONTAINHERSELF : 15. It cannot also be said that the expressions 'unable to maintain' used by the Legislature in its wisdom were superfluous or they were of no importance as was tried to be maintained by Mr. Thipperudrappa. I do not think the Legislature would have unnecessarily used such expression when they were not in the old Code. In view of the various social measures and the changed conditions of the society, the Legislature in its wisdom has probably thought it necessary that maintenance to a wife as provided under Section 125, Cr.P.C. should be provided only to a wife who is unable to maintain herself or has no sufficient means to maintain herself. The law as it stands has to be enforced, though it may in some cases work hardship on the wives. The petitioner herein having failed to aver positively in her petition and substantiate it from the witness box that she was unable to maintain herself, the petition will have to fail.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
439.

BAIL
SC of INDIA

on

1978-08-24
of J. V.R. KrishnaiyerMoti Ram vs State of M.P.440,441,445 with CrPC 389(1)

BAIL WITHOUT LOCAL SECURITY : The magistrate has demanded sureties from his own district. (We assume the allegation in the petition). What is a Malayalee, Kannadiga, Tamilian or Andhra to do if arrested for alleged misappropriation or them or criminal trespass in Bastar, Port Blair, Port Blair. Pahalgaam of Chandni Chowk? He cannot have sureties owning properties in these distant places. He may not know any one there and might have come in a batch or to seek a job or in a morcha. Judicial disruption of Indian unity is surest achieved buy such provincial allergies. What law prescribes sureties from outside or non-regional linguistic, some times legalistic. applications? That law prescribes the geographical discrimination implicit in asking for sureties from the court district ? We mandate the magistrate to release the petitioner on his own bond in a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. Bail without Local Surety allowed.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
440.

Maintenance
HC of U.P. at ALLAHABAD

on

1976-03-25
Equivalent citations: CriLJ 1664 of 1976J.B.KatjuManmohan Singh vs Smt Mahindra KaurCrPC 125, 482

3. Under Section 125(1)(a), Cr., P. C. 1973 maintenance allowance cannot be granted to every wife who is neglected by her husband or whose husband refuses to maintain her but can only be granted to a wife who is unable to maintain herself. It may be pointed out that this is a-departure from Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 wherein every wife, whether she was able or was not able to maintain herself, was entitled to maintenance if she was neglected or not maintained by her husband. As it was not alleged by the opposite party in her application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. 1973 and it was also not stated by her in her statement recorded by the C. J. M., Dehradun that she was unable to maintain herself and no finding has been recorded by the C. J, M., Dehradun or the Sessions Judge, Dehradun that the opposite party was unable to maintain herself, the order of the C. J. M., Dehradun dated 3-8-1975 and the order of the Sessions Judge, Dehradun dated 2-9-1975 are clearly illegal.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
441.

Maintenance
HC of UP, ALLAHABAD

on

1976-03-25
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

Petitioner must claim she is unable to maintain herself for relief of maintenance
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
442.

DIVORCE
HC of MADYAPRADESH

on

1975-12-05
AIR 1976 MP 83 of 1975J.TankhaGindan vs BarelalSec 9 of HMA

Now, as regards the third contention, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that non-payment of maintenance allowance by the respondent as directed by this Court amounts to revival of cruelty by his wilfully neglecting to maintain his wife, we are of opinion that it has no force. The act of non-payment of interim maintenance allowance as ordered by this Court during the pendency of the appeal cannot be in any manner construed as an act of cruelty so as to constitute revival of earlier acts of condoned cruelty. Under Section 10(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act the word 'cruelty' has reference to before filing of the petition for judicial separation and not subsequent thereto. That being so, the non-payment of interim maintenance allowance as directed by this Court would not fall within the ambit of the term 'cruelty' so as to set aside the decree passed for restitution of conjugal rights. Even under Section 9(1) of the Act this ground advanced on behalf of appellant No. 1 would not meet the requirements of the provisions so as to hold that she had a reasonable excuse to withdraw herself from the society of her husband. The earlier act of cruelty alleged as a ground on behalf of appellant No, 1 for withdrawing herself from the society of her husband was that about two years ago the respondent had beaten her resulting in a fracture of her palm as stated in her written-statement. It has come in the evidence that she came to her husband thereafter and stayed with him and as such the act of the wife clearly amounted to condonation of the act of cruelty. That apart, even from the evidence adduced by appellant No. 1 it is clear that she completely failed to prove the fact of sustaining of an injury to her palm as alleged by her by adducing cogent evidence in that regard. We find it difficult to believe the solitary statement of appellant No 1 on that score. On the other hand we may further point out that in para 11 of her written-statement she stated that on being beaten by her husband she had sent a message to her father and brothers for help. But she did not examine the person through whom she is alleged to have sent a message. It has come in the evidence of respondent husband that he made three attempts to bring back his wife (appellant No. 1). This fact was stated in pura 3 of his petition and it was not specifically denied by appellant No. 1 in her written statement. She in her deposition admitted that her husband-respondent had come to her twice to take her to his house. This shows that the respondent all through has been keen to take his wife back and live with her, but she always refused to oblige him. It has, therefore, to be construed that appellant No. 1 without any reasonable excuse had withdrawn from the society of her husband which Ultimately compelled him to file the present petition. The charge of cruelty on the part of the respondent as alleged completely fails and the submission in that regard is rejected.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
443.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

1973-09-24
AIR 2773 of 1973Hans Raj KhannaKali Ram vs State of Himachal PradeshIPC 302

Accused is Innocent till proved otherwise

(1) Cr. App. 7 of 1972 decided on August 6, 1973 7 3 6 serious and its reverberations cannot but be felt in a civilized society. Suppose an innocent person is convicted of the offence of murder and is hanged, nothing further can undo the mischief for the wrong resulting from the unmerited conviction is irretrievable. To take another instance, if an innocent person is sent to jail and undergoes the sentence, the scars left by the miscarriage of justice cannot be erased by any subsequent act of expidation. Not many persons undergoing the pangs of wrongful conviction are fortunate like Dreyfus to have an Emile Zola to champion their cause and succeed in getting the verdict of guilt annulled. All this highlights the importance of ensuring. as far as possible, that there should be no wrongful conviction of an innocent person. Some risk of the conviction of the innocent, of course, is always there in any system of the administration of criminal justice. Such a risk can be minimised but not ruled out altogether. It may in this connection be apposite to refer to the following observations of Sir Carleton Allen quoted on page 157 of 'The Proof of Guilt' by Glanville Williams, Second Edition: 'I dare say some sentimentalists would assent to the proposition that it is better that a thousand, or even a million, guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer; but no responsible and practical person would accept such a view. For it is obvious that if our ratio is extended indefinitely, there comes a point when the whole system of justice has broken down and society is in a state of chaos.' The fact that there has to be clear evidence of the guilt of the accused and that in the absence of that it is not possible to record a finding of his guilt was stressed by this Court in the case of Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. (supra) as is clear from the following observations : 'Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distinction between may be and must be is long and divides vague conjectures from sure considerations'. As a result of the above, we accept the appeal, set aside the judgments of the. trial court and the High Court and acquit the accused. P.B.R. Appeal allowed. 737
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
444.

Misc
SC of INDIA

on

1968-08-20
of J.Vishishtha BhargvaCentral Bank of India vs Prakash Chand Jain

Hearsay is not LEGAL Evidence
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
445.

DIVORCE
HC od RAJASTHAN

on

1954-10-29
Divorce Petetion of 1984G. M. Lodha----- vs -----HMA 13

Alleging Impotency amounts to immense mental agony and cruelty
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
446.

Misc
HC of MADYAPRADESH

on

1952-12-18
Equivalent citations: 1953 CriLJ 964 of 1952J. DixitGirdhar Gopal vs State of MadyaPradeshIPC 354

Both men & women can be guilty u/s 354

(1) It is true that the act of assault or use of criminal force to any man with the intention or knowledge of 'outraging his modesty' is not made an offence under the Penal Code. Learned Counsel for the applicant was, however, unable to say what according to him was the meaning of the expression 'outraging the modesty of a man' or whether the expression meant 'offending the impudence of man' or dishonouring him. It would however, appear from Section 353 that an assault or use of criminal force to any man by a woman intending thereby to dishonour him otherwise than on grave provocation is punishable. Be that as it may the objection of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the Penal Code gives no protection to man against assault or criminal force with intent to 'outrage his modesty' is really an objection as to the policy of law in not creating a particular offence. It is not an objection as to the infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution. This Article provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territories of India. Article 14 has been construed by the Supreme Court in several cases See Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra ; Charanjitlal v. Union of India and by this Court also in Miss Sumitra Devi v. State of Madhya Bharat 1952 Madh B LR 385 (C) and in effect it means that every law that the State makes shall operate alike upon all persons, and property under the same conditions and circumstances. It does not mean that all persons, property or occupation must be treated alike by the State. As pointed out by His Lordship Das J. in : While Article 14 forbids class legislation it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (2) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act.

(2) From these observations it is clear that a reasonable classification of groups for purposes of legislation is permissible and what is prohibited is discrimination between persons who are included in the group to which the law applies. If, therefore, the Legislature has in its wisdom thought it fit to treat men differently from women in regard to modesty and to make an assault or use of criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty punishable under Section 354 when committed only with respect to women, the provisions contained in Section 354, Penal Code cannot be condemned as repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution.

(3) The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that Section 354 violates the provisions of Article 15(1) of the Constitution is equally untenable. This Article says that the State shall not discriminate on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. The word 'only' is important and deserves to be noted. It emphasises the fact that the discrimination that is prohibited; under Article 15(1) is a discrimination based on the ground of sex, or race, etc. alone. If the discrimination is based not merely on any of the grounds stated in Article 15(1) but also on considerations of propriety, public morals, decency, decorum and rectitude, the legislation containing such discrimination would not be hit by the provisions of Article 15(1). It cannot be denied that an assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty is made punishable under Section 354 not merely because women are women, but because of the factors enumerated above.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW