Showing posts with label Judgement Help. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judgement Help. Show all posts

Tuesday, 26 May 2020

LANDMARK JUDGMENTS RELATING TO CRIMINAL LAW


Advocate Jaswant Katariya

1.    Lalita Kumari v. State of UP : FIR mandatory in cognizable cases.

2.    Mohd. Ahmad Khan vs Shah Bano Begum : Section 125 of CrPC Secular.

3.    D.K. Basu v. State of Bengal : SC guidelines relating to rights of the arrested person.

4.    Nilabati Bahera v. State of Orissa : Compensation in case of unlawful arrest and detention.

5.    Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra : Rights of women relating to arrest.

6.    Joginder Kumar v. State of UP : SC guidelines relating to rights of the arrested person.

7.    Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha : Right of maintenance in Live-in-Relationships.

8.    Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar : Filing of Multiple FIR.

9.    Satya Pal Singh v. State of MP : Father of deceased victim has right to appeal.

10. State of UP v. Singhara Singh : Section 164 by necessary implication prohibits the magistrate from giving oral evidence of the confession made to him.

11. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rustum : Computation of period of 60/90 Days u/s 167 of CrPC.

12. CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni : Police Remand can not exceed 15 Days.

13. Mubarak Ali v. State of Bombay : Offence triable where the act is done.

14. Shakuntala Devi v. State of U.P. : Availability of Civil Remedy does not bar filing of a case u/s 200 of CrPC.

15. Dina Nath v. Emperor : No summary trial in serious or complicated cases.

16. Surendra Singh v. State of UP : Where a Judge who wrote the Judgment dies before it was delivered or pronounced, another Judge can not deliver it.

17. Naresh v. State of UP : Alteration of Conviction u/s 302 IPC to one u/s 304 IPC by HC is not justified u/s 362 of CrPC.

18. Ashok Kumar v. UOI : Constitutional validity of Section 433-A of CrPC.

19. Rasiklal v. Kishore Khanchand Wadhwani : Right to bail u/s 436 in bailable offences is an absolute and in bcdefeasible right.

20. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab : SC guidelines relating to anticipatory bail.


Friday, 17 January 2020

TOP 20 MAINTENANCE CASE LAWS IN FAVOUR OF HUSBANDS


*TOP 20 MAINTENANCE CASE LAWS IN FAVOUR OF HUSBANDS:-*

1. *Reduced interim maintenance*. (SC), Hbl J. R. M. Lodha, order on 20-07-2010, Appeal No. 5660 of 2010, Arising SLP (C) No. 6736 of 2007, Neeta Rakesh Jain Vs Rakesh Jeetmal Jain. Citation No. AIR 2010 SC 3540; (2010) 12 SCC 242; 2010 (7) JT I 76 (SC).

2. *Wife is not entitled to maintenance who deserted her husband.* (Supreme Court), Bench Hbl JJ. S. Ahmed & D. Wadhwa, order on 02-03-200, AIR 2000 SC 952, 2000(2) ALD Cri 15, 2000Cr. LJ 1498, Rohtash Singh Vs Smt. Ramendrei & Ors. Citation No. (2000) 3 SCC 180; JT 2000 (2) SC 553.

3. *Maintenance not granted as it is proved that wife wants to reside separately. No maintenance to deserting wife.* (HC Chhattisgarh), Hbl J., L. C. Bhadoo, order on 15 -02-2004, Crl. Revision No. 544/2003, Shiv Kumar Yadav Vs Santoshi Yadav.

4. *Husband can get PF details of wife.* (CIC, Delhi), Decision No. 1816/ IC (A) 2008, F No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00583, Prof M.M. Ansari, order on 10 Jan 2008.

5. *Wife guilty of contempt of court, maintenance denied with cost.* (HC Delhi), Hbl J. S. N. Dhingra, order on 25-01-2010, Cont. Case (C) 482 of 2008, Gurbinder Singh Vs Manjit Kaur.

6. *Children have to maintain their parents.* (High Court Gujrat), Hbl J. Akhil Kureshi, order on 09-02-2011, CR RA/759 of 2009, 4/4, Hasmukhbhai Narayan Bhai Viramiya Vs State & Ors.

7. *Conditions when maintenance to be paid.* (High Court Delhi), Mr. Pradeep Nandrajog J., order reserved on 02-04-2007, order on 14-04-2007, CM (M) No. 367 of 2007, Alok Kumar Jain Vs Purnima Jain. Citation No. 2007 (96) DRJ 115.

8. *All states amends in Sec 125 CrPC is invalid.* (SC), Bench Hbl M. Katju, Gyan Sudha Mishra JJ., order on 11 Jan 2011, Crl Appeal No. 107 of 2011, SLP (Crl) No. 6568 of 2009, Manoj Yadav Vs Pushpa Yadav. Citation No. 2011 : 1 L.W. (Crl.) 520.

9. *Wife should clear that she is unable to maintain her. No maintenance to enable wife who deserted her husband.* (High Court Karnataka), Bench Hbl J. M. Patil, order on 13-02-1980, Haunsabai Vs Balkrishna Krishna Badigar. Citation Nos. 1981 Cri LJ 110; ILR 1980 KAR 612; 1980 (2) Kar LJ 158.

10. *Maintenance on actual earning.* (High Court Delhi), Hbl J. Shiv Narayan Dhingra, order reserved 25-07-2008, order on 18-09-2008, CM (M) No. 1790 of 2006 and CM No. 1435 of 2006, Ritu Raj Kant Vs Anita. Citation No. 154 (2008) DLT 505.

11. *Maintenance denied for working wife.* (High Court Madras), Hbl A. S. Venkatachalamoorthy J., order on 21-06-2002, Kumaresan Vs Aswathi. Citation No. (2002) 2 MLJ 760.

 12. *No maintenance for capable and working wife.* (High Court Maharastra), Hbl J. C. Chitre J., order on 24-03-2000, Smt. Mamta Jaiswal Vs Rajesh Jaiswal. Citation No. 2000 (4) MPHT 457; II (2000) DMC 170.

 13. *No maintenance to earning wife, only to children.* (High Court Karnataka), Hbl K. Manjunath J., order on 22-08-2005, AIR 2005 Kant 417, ILR 2005 KAR 4981, Dr. E. Shanthi Vs Dr. H K. Vasudev.

 14. *No Maintenance to working wife in 125 CrPC.* (High Court Madras), Hbl P. Sathasivam J., order on 21-01-2003, Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy Vs M. Devaki. Citation Nos. AIR 2003 Mad 212; I (2003) DMC 799; (2003) I MLJ 752 (Mad), CMP No. 16264 of 2002.

15. *No Maintenance to wife, but only to child.* (HC Mumbai), Hbl J. B. L. Marlapalle, order on 18-7-2009, Appeal No. 20 of 2005 and 144 of 2005, Smt. Manju Kamal Mehra Vs Kamal Puskar Mehra. Citation Nos. 2010 AIR (Bom) 34; 2009 (5) AIIMR 798; Legal/ 360.in 114983; LS/Bom/2009/1374.

16. *No maintenance U/s 125 CrPC when wife deserts hubby without cause and also she is earning. No Maintenance to capable wife, but only to child and no maintenance to wife living in adultery.* (HC Uttaranchal), Hbl J. Alok Singh, order on 18-11-2009, Crl. Rev. No. 201 of 2006, Smt. Archana Gupta & ors Vs Rajeev Gupta.

 17. *Wife should clear that she is unable to maintain herself.* (HC Allahabad), Hbl J. B. Katju, order on 25-03-1976, Manmohan Singh Vs Smt. Mahindra Kaur. Citation No. 1976 Cri LJ 1664.

18. *No Maintenance if wife is working.* (HC Uttaranchal), Hbl J. Dharamveer, order on 25-10-2010, Crl Rev. No. 88 of 2002, Vikas Jain Vs Deepali @ Ayushi. Citation No. LAWS (UTN) 2010-1-36.

19. *Wife living separate troubled in family no maintenance.* (HC Madras), Hbl J. P. R. Shiva Kumar, order on 22-02-2008, Crl. R. C. No. 1491 of 2005, Marimuthu Vs Janaki. Citation No. AIR 2003 Mad 212; I (2003) DMC 799; (2003) I MLJ 752.

20. *All states amends in Sec 125 CrPC is invalid.* (SC), Bench Hbl M. Katju, Gyan Sudha Mishra JJ., order on 11 Jan 2011, Crl Appeal No. 107 of 2011, SLP (Crl) No. 6568 of 2009, Manoj Yadav Vs Pushpa Yadav. Citation No. 2011 : 1 L.W. (Crl.) 520.
---------------------------------

Saturday, 28 September 2019

DISHONOUR OF CHEQUES -22 VERY IMPORTANT CASE LAW



  1. Dishonour of cheque  -  Source of income to advance loan - Non filing of Income Tax Return by itself does not mean that complainant had no source of income. (2019(2) Civil Court Cases 306 (M.P.)*
  2. Dishonour of cheque - Compliant not filed by payee or holder in due course - Demand not made by payee or holder in due course - Basic ingredients of S.138 of the Act not satisfied - Accused discharged. (2019(2) Criminal Court Cases 522 (Delhi)*D
  3. Dishonourof cheque  - Stop payment - In fact it amounts to the fact that amount of money for payment to drawee in relation to that cheque was not sufficient in bank. (2017(3) Criminal Court Cases 316 (All.)*D
  4. Dishonour cheque -  Accused is entitled to lead evidence on affidavit. (2019(2) Criminal Court Cases 675 (Gujarat)*
  5. Dishonour of cheque -  Complaint by unregistered partnership firm - Bar u/s 69(2) of Partnership Act is not applicable. (2017(4) Criminal Court Cases 409 (Delhi)*
  6. Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued under and in pursuance of agreement to sell - Payment made in pursuance of such an agreement is a payment made in pursuance of a duly enforceable debt or liability for the purpose of S.138 of N.I. Act. (2019(2) Apex Court Judgments 049 (S.C.)*
  7. Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Directions issued that in all cases where  accused is a 'Company', before issuing summons to the accused persons trial Court/Magistrate shall direct  complainant to produce a copy of Form No.32 and annual Return filed by the Company in order to determine the persons, who were Directors on the date of commission of the offence. (2019(2) Civil Court Cases 238 (P&H)*
  8. Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed based on second statutory notice - Not barred. (2019(1) Civil Court Cases 299 (S.C.)*
  9. Dishonour of cheque - Compliant not filed by payee or holder in due course - Demand not made by payee or holder in due course -  Accused discharged. (2019(2) Civil Court Cases 378 (Delhi)*D
  10. Dishonour of cheque - Compromise -  High Court after being satisfied that cheque amount with assessed cost and interest has been paid, can close proceedings even in absence of complainant. (2019(2) Civil Court Cases 200 (H.P.)*
  11. Dishonour of cheque - Compromise - Deposit of 10% cheque amount - It is for accused to deposit said amount. (2019(1) Civil Court Cases 395 (Rajasthan)*D
  12. Dishonour of cheque - Condonation of delay - Plea that notice not sent in the envelope - Envelope not opened and produced in Court - Plea of not sending notice can be considered at the time of deciding delay condonation application - Order to open envelope calls for no interference. (2019(2) Criminal Court Cases 728 (Bombay)*
  13. Dishonour of cheque - Delay - Despite repeated requests to postal department, no acknowledgement of notice was furnished - Second notice thus issued - Impugned order of quashing complaint  set aside - Complaint restored. (2019(2) Criminal Court Cases 851 (S.C.)*D
  14. Dishnour of cheque - Delay in filing complaint - Complainant indicated adequate and sufficient reasons for not being able to institute complaint within stipulated period - Impugned order of quashing complaint  set aside. (2019(2) Apex Court Judgments 394 (S.C.)*D
  15. Dishnour of cheque - Friendly loan - Date of advancement of loan and issuance of cheque not mentioned in complaint as well as affidavit of complainant - Neither any written agreement was executed between parties nor income tax return of complainant reflected as to advancement of loan - Complainant did not know accused personally - Accused rightly acquitted. (2019(1) Criminal Court Cases 676 (Delhi)*
  16. Dishonour of cheque - Friendly loan of Rs.15 lakhs by Income Tax practitioner to his client - Blank signed cheque issued for its repayment -  Loan advanced not by cheque or demand draft or RTGS and without obtaining any writing to this effect - Such loan not shown in the income tax return of complainant - Held, (a) Fiduciary relationship between payee of cheque and its drawer would not disentitle  payee to the benefit of presumption u/s 139 of the Act, in the absence of evidence of exercise of undue influence or coercion which is not the case of accused in the instant case ; (b) it is immaterial that cheque may have been filled by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer; (c) Blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption u/s 139 of the Act in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt; (d)  Fact that loan is not advanced by a cheque or demand draft or a receipt not obtained, makes no difference - Fact that accused had given signed blank cheque to complainant shows that initially there was mutual trust and faith between them - High Court patently erred in holding that burden was on complainant to prove that he had advanced the loan and blank signed cheque was given to him in repayment of the same - Accused convicted. (2019(1) Civil Court Cases 580 (S.C.)*D
  17. Dishnour of cheque - Issuance of signed blank cheque - Subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration. (2019(1) Criminal Court Cases 587 (S.C.)*D
  18. Dishnour of cheque - Managing Director or Joint Managing Director - In charge and responsible - Specific averment not required as they by virtue of their office are in charge and responsible for conduct of business of company. (2017(3) Criminal Court Cases 447 (Kerala)*D
  19. Dishnour of cheque - Notice - Service of notice is presumed when notice is sent by registered post is returned with postal endorsement `refused' or `not available in the house'  or `house locked' or `shop closed' or `addressee not in station'. (2017(2) Criminal Court Cases 585 (S.C.)*
  20. Dishonour of cheque - Notice signed by complainant but without signatures of issuing Advocate - Notice is valid. (2019(2) Civil Court Cases 721 (Tripura)*
  21. Dishonour of cheque - Voice sample - Recording of mobile phone very basis to succeed in the complaint - Application to take voice sample for analysis by CFSL allowed. (2019(2) Civil Court Cases 696 (P&H)*D
  22. of cheques - Three cases - Same parties - Clubbing of cases - S.219 Cr.P.C. applies only to warrant cases and not to summons cases where no charges are framed. (2019(1) Civil Court Cases 377 (Rajasthan)*

Saturday, 21 September 2019

LANDMARK DIVORCE JUDGMENTS ON MENTAL CRUELTIES BY WIFE


Marriages in India are considered as the unification of a girl and a boy for approval of social status in the society. Nowadays marriages are easily broken either due to the fault of the husband or the wife. Also, there were situations where the wife makes a false complaint against her husband. In most of such cases, the husband had no remedy because the laws of India are in favor of women.

Most of false cases are filed for Misuse of Dowry Laws, Domestic Violence Act and ‘Sec: 498-A’ of IPC by wife against husband and in-laws of husband through lodging false complaints, Desertion of wife who deliberately intending for separation , extra marital affairs,  Wife opting for second marriage without applying for the divorce ,Threatening to leave husband’s home and threat to commit suicide by the wife. Cruel behaviour of wife, Abusing and accusing husband, Wife refusing to have sex with husband without any sufficient , filing  FIR against husband and in-laws which has later proved as false report, Conduct and misbehaviour of the wife against husband, mental disorder or unsoundness of wife, Impotency of wife, illicit relationship of wife with some other person and Wife suffering from the filarial etc.


Here is list of top 25 cases where mental cruelty did by wife -

  1. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: Dated  5 January 2007 “Demand for Domestic Expenses is not dowry” 
  2. DELHIHIGH COURT “False 498A Being The Basis For A Divorce and False complaint family arrest ground for Divorce " 
  3. MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT: Dated  18 January 1996 “Divorce on filling False 498a and defame”.  
  4. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT: Dated  4 February 2003 “False complaints by Wife eligible for Divorce”. 
  5. KERALA HIGH COURT: Dated  30 January 1997 “Filling Many Cases Lead to Divorce”.
  6. MADRAS HIGH COURT: Dated  15 December, 2006 “DNA test for paternity and Divorce”.
  7. MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT: Dated  13 April 2006 “Divorce on False case, cruelty and desertion”.
  8. MUMBAI HIGH COURT: Dated 4 April 2007 “Ex-parte divorce to the husband when acquitted in 498a”.
  9. MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT: Dated  13 April 2006 “Divorce on False case, cruelty, and desertion”.
  10.  DELHI HIGH COURT: Dated  13 December 2010 “Marriage between a Hindu and non-Hindu under HMA not valid”. 
  11. PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT:   Dated  4 February 2010 “ 6 Months waiver in divorce”.
  12. HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT: Dated  18 November 1996 “ Burden is upon the woman to establish the paternity”. 
  13. MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT: Dated 28 February 2003 “Cruelty and Desertion grounds for Divorce”.
  14. MADRAS HIGH COURT: Dated  26 July 2006 “Divorce on Denial of Sex”.
  15. MADRAS HIGH COURT: Dated 21 July 2005 “Divorce on Cruelty, Desertion and Non consummated Marriage”. 
  16. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: Dated  09-07-1991 “Conditions for the validity of Foreign Divorce Decree (NRI)”. 
  17. ANDHRA HIGH COURT: Dated  24 July 2006 “Divorce on impotency and Cruelty”.
  18. MUMBAI HIGH COURT: Dated  2008 “Repeated Suicide threats amounts cruelty divorce ground”.
  19. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: Dated  2 May 1969 “ Divorce on No consummated Marriage”.
  20. MUMBAI HIGH COURT “Wife guilty of desertion & cruelty”.
  21. MUMBAI HIGH COURT “Dissolution of the marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty”. 
  22. DELHI HIGH COURT:   Dated 7 January 2010 “1 Year Separation before filling Section 13B and Waiver”. 
  23. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA “Irretrievable Breakdown Grounds for Divorce”. 
  24. MUMBAI HIGH COURT "Wild allegations against spouse is cruelty" 
  25. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA:  Dated  7 November 2008 “ Pregnancy Aborted Divorce Granted ".

Monday, 16 September 2019

Article 21 - LANDMARK CASES (Constitution of India)



  1. AK Gopalan V State of Madras : procedure established by law.
  2. Right to have fair procedure- Maneka Gandhi V UOI.
  3. Right to legal Aid- Hussainara v Home Sec , Bihar.
  4. Right to Public Trial- Vineet Narain V UOI.
  5. Right to go abroad- Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.
  6. Right to privacy- Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.
  7. Right against solitary confinement Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration.
  8. Right against hand cuffing Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration.
  9. Right to Medical Care- Parmananda Katara v. Union of India.
  10. Right to Health- Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India.
  11. Right to Social Security and Protection of Family- L.I.C. of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre.
  12. Right to Shelter- Chameli Singh v. State of U.P.
  13. Right To Livelihood- D.T.C. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress.
  14. Right to Reputation- D.F. Marion v. Minnie Davis.
  15. Right Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace- Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan.
  16. Right To Live with Human Dignity- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi.
  17. Right against Bar Fetters-Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration.
  18. Right to Write a Book-State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang.
  19. Right against Delayed Execution: Sher Singh v. State of Punjab.
  20. Right against Public Hanging : Attorney General of India v. Lachma Devi.
  21. Death by Hanging not Violative of Article 21- Deena v. Union of India.
  22. Right to Bail.- Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
  23. Right to Fair Trial- Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat.
  24. Right to Speedy Trial- Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar.
  25. Right to Free Legal Aid & Right to Appeal- M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra.
  26. Right against Illegal Detention- Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
  27. Disclosure of Dreadful Diseases- Mr. X v. Hospital Z.
  28. Tapping of Telephone- PUCL v. Union of India.
  29. Right Against Noise Pollution- In Re: Noise Pollution.
  30. Murli S. Deora v. Union of India- smoking in public place.
  31. Right to get Pollution Free Water and Air- Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar..
  32. Euthanasia and Right to Life-Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab.
  33. Right to Work- Olga tells v BMC.
  34. Right to Marriage- Mr. X V Hospital Z.
  35. Right to Food- PUCL v UOI.
  36. Right to Legal Aid- Sheela Barse v UOI.
  37. Right to Education- Mohini jain v state of karnatka.
  38. Right to have clean Environment- MC Mehta v UOI.
  39. Right to have shelter-chameli v state.
  40. Right to receive compensation - Rudal Shah v state of Bihar

Friday, 13 September 2019

*Supreme Court Strict Directions Regarding Relatives of Offender/Criminal*



  1. A Natural And Biological Father can not be booked under IPC 361/362/363 or detained any which way. It's illegal and unconstitutional. Anil Rangari SupremE Court Judgement for No FIR of Kidnapping on Father and Natural Guardian or calling/getting child under CrPC 97. Otherwise it's Contempt of Supreme Court.
  2. No Natural or Biological Father or his Child can not be summoned under CrPC 97 also. Otherwise it's Contempt of Supreme Court.
  3. Police has No Power to Force the Biological Father or Natural Guardian to bring the Child in Police Station. Police has No Power to shift the Custody of the Child from Father to Mother or anyone else. Police can not even call the Father or Child like this. Absolutely No Power. Otherwise it's Contempt of Supreme Court. And the Penalty oF Lakhs of Rupees shall be recovered from the Salary of Police Personals.
  4. Only Court can call the Father after due process and may meet the Child. And even Court Can Not Transfer the Custody of the Child from the Natural Guardian that is A Hindu Father. Otherwise it's Contempt of Supreme Court.

Saturday, 31 August 2019

Dishonour of cheque

*Dishonour of cheque - Friendly loan of Rs.15 lakhs by Income Tax practitioner to his client - Blank signed cheque issued for its repayment - Loan advanced not by cheque or demand draft or RTGS and without obtaining any writing to this effect - Such loan not shown in the income tax return of complainant - Held, (a) Fiduciary relationship between payee of cheque and its drawer would not disentitle payee to the benefit of presumption u/s 139 of the Act, in the absence of evidence of exercise of undue influence or coercion which is not the case of accused in the instant case; (b) it is immaterial that cheque may have been filled by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer; (c) Blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption u/s 139 of the Act in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt; (d) Fact that loan is not advanced by a cheque or demand draft or a receipt not obtained, makes no difference - Fact that accused had given signed blank cheque to complainant shows that initially there was mutual trust and faith between them - High Court patently erred in holding that burden was on complainant to prove that he had advanced the loan and blank signed cheque was given to him in repayment of the same - Accused convicted. (2019(1) Criminal Court Cases 587 (S.C.)*

Saturday, 24 August 2019

TOP 20 MAINTENANCE CASE LAWS IN FAVOUR OF HUSBANDS


1. *Reduced interim maintenance*. (SC), Hbl J. R. M. Lodha, order on 20-07-2010, Appeal No. 5660 of 2010, Arising SLP (C) No. 6736 of 2007, Neeta Rakesh Jain Vs Rakesh Jeetmal Jain. Citation No. AIR 2010 SC 3540; (2010) 12 SCC 242; 2010 (7) JT I 76 (SC).

2. *Wife is not entitled to maintenance who deserted her husband.* (Supreme Court), Bench Hbl JJ. S. Ahmed & D. Wadhwa, order on 02-03-200, AIR 2000 SC 952, 2000(2) ALD Cri 15, 2000Cr. LJ 1498, Rohtash Singh Vs Smt. Ramendrei & Ors. Citation No. (2000) 3 SCC 180; JT 2000 (2) SC 553.

3. *Maintenance not granted as it is proved that wife wants to reside separately. No maintenance to deserting wife.* (HC Chhattisgarh), Hbl J., L. C. Bhadoo, order on 15 -02-2004, Crl. Revision No. 544/2003, Shiv Kumar Yadav Vs Santoshi Yadav.

4. *Husband can get PF details of wife.* (CIC, Delhi), Decision No. 1816/ IC (A) 2008, F No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00583, Prof M.M. Ansari, order on 10 Jan 2008.

5. *Wife guilty of contempt of court, maintenance denied with cost.* (HC Delhi), Hbl J. S. N. Dhingra, order on 25-01-2010, Cont. Case (C) 482 of 2008, Gurbinder Singh Vs Manjit Kaur.

6. *Children have to maintain their parents.* (High Court Gujrat), Hbl J. Akhil Kureshi, order on 09-02-2011, CR RA/759 of 2009, 4/4, Hasmukhbhai Narayan Bhai Viramiya Vs State & Ors.

7. *Conditions when maintenance to be paid.* (High Court Delhi), Mr. Pradeep Nandrajog J., order reserved on 02-04-2007, order on 14-04-2007, CM (M) No. 367 of 2007, Alok Kumar Jain Vs Purnima Jain. Citation No. 2007 (96) DRJ 115.

8. *All states amends in Sec 125 CrPC is invalid.* (SC), Bench Hbl M. Katju, Gyan Sudha Mishra JJ., order on 11 Jan 2011, Crl Appeal No. 107 of 2011, SLP (Crl) No. 6568 of 2009, Manoj Yadav Vs Pushpa Yadav. Citation No. 2011 : 1 L.W. (Crl.) 520.

9. *Wife should clear that she is unable to maintain her. No maintenance to enable wife who deserted her husband.* (High Court Karnataka), Bench Hbl J. M. Patil, order on 13-02-1980, Haunsabai Vs Balkrishna Krishna Badigar. Citation Nos. 1981 Cri LJ 110; ILR 1980 KAR 612; 1980 (2) Kar LJ 158.

10. *Maintenance on actual earning.* (High Court Delhi), Hbl J. Shiv Narayan Dhingra, order reserved 25-07-2008, order on 18-09-2008, CM (M) No. 1790 of 2006 and CM No. 1435 of 2006, Ritu Raj Kant Vs Anita. Citation No. 154 (2008) DLT 505.

Posted by advocate  pradeep kumar verma mathura

11. *Maintenance denied for working wife.* (High Court Madras), Hbl A. S. Venkatachalamoorthy J., order on 21-06-2002, Kumaresan Vs Aswathi. Citation No. (2002) 2 MLJ 760.

 12. *No maintenance for capable and working wife.* (High Court Maharastra), Hbl J. C. Chitre J., order on 24-03-2000, Smt. Mamta Jaiswal Vs Rajesh Jaiswal. Citation No. 2000 (4) MPHT 457; II (2000) DMC 170.

 13. *No maintenance to earning wife, only to children.* (High Court Karnataka), Hbl K. Manjunath J., order on 22-08-2005, AIR 2005 Kant 417, ILR 2005 KAR 4981, Dr. E. Shanthi Vs Dr. H K. Vasudev.

 14. *No Maintenance to working wife in 125 CrPC.* (High Court Madras), Hbl P. Sathasivam J., order on 21-01-2003, Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy Vs M. Devaki. Citation Nos. AIR 2003 Mad 212; I (2003) DMC 799; (2003) I MLJ 752 (Mad), CMP No. 16264 of 2002.

15. *No Maintenance to wife, but only to child.* (HC Mumbai), Hbl J. B. L. Marlapalle, order on 18-7-2009, Appeal No. 20 of 2005 and 144 of 2005, Smt. Manju Kamal Mehra Vs Kamal Puskar Mehra. Citation Nos. 2010 AIR (Bom) 34; 2009 (5) AIIMR 798; Legal/ 360.in 114983; LS/Bom/2009/1374.

16. *No maintenance U/s 125 CrPC when wife deserts hubby without cause and also she is earning. No Maintenance to capable wife, but only to child and no maintenance to wife living in adultery.* (HC Uttaranchal), Hbl J. Alok Singh, order on 18-11-2009, Crl. Rev. No. 201 of 2006, Smt. Archana Gupta & ors Vs Rajeev Gupta.

 17. *Wife should clear that she is unable to maintain herself.* (HC Allahabad), Hbl J. B. Katju, order on 25-03-1976, Manmohan Singh Vs Smt. Mahindra Kaur. Citation No. 1976 Cri LJ 1664.

18. *No Maintenance if wife is working.* (HC Uttaranchal), Hbl J. Dharamveer, order on 25-10-2010, Crl Rev. No. 88 of 2002, Vikas Jain Vs Deepali @ Ayushi. Citation No. LAWS (UTN) 2010-1-36.

19. *Wife living separate troubled in family no maintenance.* (HC Madras), Hbl J. P. R. Shiva Kumar, order on 22-02-2008, Crl. R. C. No. 1491 of 2005, Marimuthu Vs Janaki. Citation No. AIR 2003 Mad 212; I (2003) DMC 799; (2003) I MLJ 752.

20. *All states amends in Sec 125 CrPC is invalid.* (SC), Bench Hbl M. Katju, Gyan Sudha Mishra JJ., order on 11 Jan 2011, Crl Appeal No. 107 of 2011, SLP (Crl) No. 6568 of 2009, Manoj Yadav Vs Pushpa Yadav. Citation No. 2011 : 1 L.W. (Crl.) 520.

20 LANDMARK JUDGMENTS


1. *Lalita Kumari v. State of UP*
:FIR mandatory in cognizable cases

2. *Mohd. Ahmad Khan vs Shah Bano Begum*
:Section 125 of CrPC Secular

3. *D.K. Basu v. State of Bengal*
:SC guidelines relating to rights of the arrested person

4. *Nilabati Bahera v. State of Orissa*
:Compensation in case of unlawful arrest and detention

5. *Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra*
:Rights of women relating to arrest

6. *Joginder Kumar v. State of UP*
:SC guidelines relating to rights of the arrested person

7. *Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha*
:Right of maintenance in Live-in-Relationships

8. *Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar*
:Filing of Multiple FIR

9. *Satya Pal Singh v. State of MP*
:Father of deceased victim has right to appeal

10. *State of UP v. Singhara Singh*
:Section 164 by necessary implication prohibits the magistrate from giving oral evidence of the confession made to him

11. *State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rustum*
:Computation of period of 60/90 Days u/s 167 of CrPC

12. *CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni*
:Police Remand can not exceed 15 Days

13. *Mubarak Ali v. State of Bombay*
:Offence triable where the act is done

14. *Shakuntala Devi v. State of U.P.*
:Availability of Civil Remedy does not bar filing of a case u/s 200 of CrPC

15. *Dina Nath v. Emperor*
:No summary trial in serious or complicated cases

16. *Surendra Singh v. State of UP*
:Where a Judge who wrote the Judgment dies before it was delivered or pronounced, another Judge can not deliver it

17. *Naresh v. State of UP*
:Alteration of Conviction u/s 302 IPC to one u/s 304 IPC by HC is not justified u/s 362 of CrPC

18. *Ashok Kumar v. UOI*
:Constitutional validity of Section 433-A of CrPC

19. *Rasiklal v. Kishore Khanchand Wadhwani*
:Right to bail u/s 436 in bailable offences is an absolute and indefeasible right

20. *Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab*
:SC guidelines relating to anticipatory bail

Monday, 19 August 2019

20 Things to do if you are facing Domestic Abuse by Wife and Inlaws



1. Record Everything through Audio Video WhatsApp images etc when possible. Take back ups.
2. Report to the police for record before she does.
3. Meet a couple of male lawyers n finalize. If you get a bad lawyer. He ll kill you before ur wife does.
4. Keep your parents brother sisters away from the mess. To prevent them from legal trouble n stress.
5. Love your children but don't show love at the time of dispute. She ll use it against you. When in court Always ask for your visitation rights.
6. Keep your hobbies on. Workout, play sports to stay strong. It ll help during physical attacks.
7. Keeping a self defense weapon is not a bad idea as you could face a surprise attack.
8. File the case first if she is crossing her limits n getting violent.
9. Control your anger, show strength not agression. Any hint of extreme Aggression can lead to ur arrest.
10. Take help of friends relatives n organizations.
11. Hire a detective for your wife. Ensure you are not being followed.
12. Check your premises n car for any recording device she might have put.
13. Ensure that your phone isnt being tapped.
14. Don't get into self pity. It will weaken you. Don't overthink. It never helps.
15. Get into Meditation and Spirituality, it ll give immense peace and strength.
16. Remember who is the Man.
17. Don't be with negative people who discourage n scare you.
18. Don't do anything wrong. Never harm any one.
19. Never Leave your Job or don't shut down ur business. Money is your greatest support. Keep ur investments personal.
20. Don't Die. Things will only go up after going down.

These points come from years of experience.

Sunday, 7 July 2019

Digest - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973




Digest - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.53 & 54, 107, 197, Indian Penal code, 1860, Ss.500, 354 & 498* - Adultery - Bald allegation that appellant is living in illicit relationship - Held, in such situation, there is no scope for the respondent to invoke S.107 CrPC and contend that he acted by virtue of authority vested in him.
2014(1) Criminal Court Cases 284 (S.C.)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.53 & 54* - Medical Examination of person suspected or accused of having committed an offence - Cannot be forcibly subjected to medical examination - If police officers use force for that purpose person aggrieved can lawfullyexercise such right of private defence to resist such force.
2014(1) Criminal Court Cases 284 (S.C.)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.53A, Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376* - Rape - Medical examination of accused - Provision of S.53-A Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature - Once a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of rape, the offender should be subjected to medical examination for his DNA profile.
2013(3) Criminal Court Cases 549 (Rajasthan)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.53A, Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 (As inserted w.e.f. 23.06.2006)* - Rape - DNA test - With incorporation of S.53-A Cr.P.C. w.e.f. 23.06.2006 it has become necessary for the prosecution to go in for DNA test in such type of case, facilitating the prosecution to prove its case against the accused - Even prior to the insertion of this provision prosecution could have resorted for DNA test or analysis and matching of semen of accused with that found on the undergarments of the prosecutrix to make it a fool proof case - But when not done so, prosecution must face the consequences.
2011(3) Criminal Court Cases 427 (S.C.)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.53A, Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 as inserted w.e.f. 23.6.2006)* - Rape case - Abduction of prosecutrix by 11 persons in a Maruti Van and commission of rape on her by two of them - All the accused acquitted on the followinggrounds : (i) Prosecutrix knew the name of the accused but failed to record the same in the FIR, she only gave the description of the accused as `Gitta' (short statured) which fact was belied and falsified by the appellant's wife and the report of the jailer; (ii) Allegations that two accused persons committed rape one after the other in presence of other accused not believable when crime of rape is committed in privacy; (iii) As per the prosecutrix she met her mother and sister at bus stop after the occurrence - but they were not examined - Prosecutrix had not received any significant injuries on other parts of body - Injuries on her private parts were much less as mentioned by her in the FIR, except for the cheek bite; (iv) Prosecutrix had travelled certain distance in Maruti Van after alleged abduction but she did not raise any alarm for help - None of the inmates of the house from where she was abducted and who had raised hue and cry for help at the time of abduction examined as witnesses; (v) Statement of prosecutrix that all the 11 persons were in the Maruti Van not believable as it is extremely difficult for 11 persons to be accommodated in the Maruti Van, the seating capacity of which is only 5; (vi) During the course of investigation, prosecutrix failed to identify the kothi where the alleged rape was committed; (vii) Statement of prosecutrix was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. first before the Judicial magistrate and thereafter statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded - In fact the procedure should have been otherwise - This shows that right from the beginning the prosecution was doubtful on the trust worthiness of the prosecutrix herself and for that reason she was first bound down by her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.; (viii) In under garments of prosecutrix, male semen was found but were not sent for analysis to match with the semen of the accused; (ix) After incorporation of S.53-A Cr.P.C. it was necessary for the prosecution to go in for the DNA test facilitating to prove of case against accused but no such test was conducted.
2011(3) Criminal Court Cases 427 (S.C.)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.54, 55, 432, 433, 433-A, Prisons Act, 1894, S.59(5)* - Remission to convicts - No convict has a fundamental right of remission or shortening of sentence - State, however, in exercise of its executive power of remission must consider each individual case keeping in view the relevant facts - Power of State to issue general instructions, so that no discrimination is made, is also permissible in law.
2007(4) Criminal Court Cases 913 (S.C.)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.57, 167* - Transit remand - Accused contended that he was arrested from Noida but he was not produced before Illaqa Magistrate for transit remand nor permission from Delhi Court was taken for taking him to Farukhabad which was in violation of police rules - Accused brought to Delhi just within one hour as such it was not essential to obtain transit remand from the concerned Court at Noida - Similarly, no specific permission was required to make any particular recovery from Farukhabad when accused was in police custody - Contention not tenable.
2014(4) Criminal Court Cases 309 (Delhi) (DB)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.58, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 57* - Arrest under Narcotic Drugs and Psyhotropic Substances Act, 1985 - No duty is cast on officer arresting accused to send any report to District Magistrate - Provision of Section 58 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is not applicable to such a case.
2006(2) Criminal Court Cases 953 (Kerala) (DB)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.60* - Escaped prisoner - Police officer when satisfied that the person is an escaped prisoner he can arrest him without warrant and produce him before the magistrate having jurisdiction within that local limit and that magistrate can pass appropriate orders regarding re-transmission of that prisoner to the concerned jail from where he escaped.
2014(4) Criminal Court Cases 254 (Kerala)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.60, 167(2)* - Escaped prisoner - Committing offence in another State - Granted default bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. - Held, petitioner is not entitled to the relief of being released forthwith - Being a convicted prisoner, his movements can be restricted, till the execution of the sentence is completed.
2014(4) Criminal Court Cases 254 (Kerala)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.62, 63, 64, 65, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138* - Dishonour of cheque - Service of summons - Can be effected through registered post/speed post or by courier - Court can declare served in case there is refusal to receive summons - Court can take coercive measures for entering appearance of accused - Service by affixation is a valid mode of service under criminal law - Wherever accused is evading service of summons, Court should direct service through affixation as provided u/s 65 Cr.P.C.
2010(4) Criminal Court Cases 549 (Delhi)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.62 & 71, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 34* - Criminal Breach of trust - Conviction - Legality of - Offence purely of technical nature - Amount involved also not very huge and later on paid within very short time - Petitioners or other accused not in any manner contributed for delay - Magistrate passed orders without application of mind and issued bailable warrants without examining report of police in respect of service of summons and without recording reasons for issuing bailable warrants - No satisfactory explanation given by State Government and Provident Fund Commissioner for continuation of prosecution despite delay of 22 years - Proceedings against petitioner liable to be quashed.
2012(4) Criminal Court Cases 191 (Bombay)


Digest - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973



Digest - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.53 & 54, 107, 197, Indian Penal code, 1860, Ss.500, 354 & 498* - Adultery - Bald allegation that appellant is living in illicit relationship - Held, in such situation, there is no scope for the respondent to invoke S.107 CrPC and contend that he acted by virtue of authority vested in him.
2014(1) Criminal Court Cases 284 (S.C.)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.53 & 54* - Medical Examination of person suspected or accused of having committed an offence - Cannot be forcibly subjected to medical examination - If police officers use force for that purpose person aggrieved can lawfullyexercise such right of private defence to resist such force.
2014(1) Criminal Court Cases 284 (S.C.)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.53A, Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376* - Rape - Medical examination of accused - Provision of S.53-A Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature - Once a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of rape, the offender should be subjected to medical examination for his DNA profile.
2013(3) Criminal Court Cases 549 (Rajasthan)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.53A, Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 (As inserted w.e.f. 23.06.2006)* - Rape - DNA test - With incorporation of S.53-A Cr.P.C. w.e.f. 23.06.2006 it has become necessary for the prosecution to go in for DNA test in such type of case, facilitating the prosecution to prove its case against the accused - Even prior to the insertion of this provision prosecution could have resorted for DNA test or analysis and matching of semen of accused with that found on the undergarments of the prosecutrix to make it a fool proof case - But when not done so, prosecution must face the consequences.
2011(3) Criminal Court Cases 427 (S.C.)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.53A, Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 as inserted w.e.f. 23.6.2006)* - Rape case - Abduction of prosecutrix by 11 persons in a Maruti Van and commission of rape on her by two of them - All the accused acquitted on the followinggrounds : (i) Prosecutrix knew the name of the accused but failed to record the same in the FIR, she only gave the description of the accused as `Gitta' (short statured) which fact was belied and falsified by the appellant's wife and the report of the jailer; (ii) Allegations that two accused persons committed rape one after the other in presence of other accused not believable when crime of rape is committed in privacy; (iii) As per the prosecutrix she met her mother and sister at bus stop after the occurrence - but they were not examined - Prosecutrix had not received any significant injuries on other parts of body - Injuries on her private parts were much less as mentioned by her in the FIR, except for the cheek bite; (iv) Prosecutrix had travelled certain distance in Maruti Van after alleged abduction but she did not raise any alarm for help - None of the inmates of the house from where she was abducted and who had raised hue and cry for help at the time of abduction examined as witnesses; (v) Statement of prosecutrix that all the 11 persons were in the Maruti Van not believable as it is extremely difficult for 11 persons to be accommodated in the Maruti Van, the seating capacity of which is only 5; (vi) During the course of investigation, prosecutrix failed to identify the kothi where the alleged rape was committed; (vii) Statement of prosecutrix was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. first before the Judicial magistrate and thereafter statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded - In fact the procedure should have been otherwise - This shows that right from the beginning the prosecution was doubtful on the trust worthiness of the prosecutrix herself and for that reason she was first bound down by her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.; (viii) In under garments of prosecutrix, male semen was found but were not sent for analysis to match with the semen of the accused; (ix) After incorporation of S.53-A Cr.P.C. it was necessary for the prosecution to go in for the DNA test facilitating to prove of case against accused but no such test was conducted.
2011(3) Criminal Court Cases 427 (S.C.)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.54, 55, 432, 433, 433-A, Prisons Act, 1894, S.59(5)* - Remission to convicts - No convict has a fundamental right of remission or shortening of sentence - State, however, in exercise of its executive power of remission must consider each individual case keeping in view the relevant facts - Power of State to issue general instructions, so that no discrimination is made, is also permissible in law.
2007(4) Criminal Court Cases 913 (S.C.)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.57, 167* - Transit remand - Accused contended that he was arrested from Noida but he was not produced before Illaqa Magistrate for transit remand nor permission from Delhi Court was taken for taking him to Farukhabad which was in violation of police rules - Accused brought to Delhi just within one hour as such it was not essential to obtain transit remand from the concerned Court at Noida - Similarly, no specific permission was required to make any particular recovery from Farukhabad when accused was in police custody - Contention not tenable.
2014(4) Criminal Court Cases 309 (Delhi) (DB)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.58, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 57* - Arrest under Narcotic Drugs and Psyhotropic Substances Act, 1985 - No duty is cast on officer arresting accused to send any report to District Magistrate - Provision of Section 58 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is not applicable to such a case.
2006(2) Criminal Court Cases 953 (Kerala) (DB)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.60* - Escaped prisoner - Police officer when satisfied that the person is an escaped prisoner he can arrest him without warrant and produce him before the magistrate having jurisdiction within that local limit and that magistrate can pass appropriate orders regarding re-transmission of that prisoner to the concerned jail from where he escaped.
2014(4) Criminal Court Cases 254 (Kerala)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.60, 167(2)* - Escaped prisoner - Committing offence in another State - Granted default bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. - Held, petitioner is not entitled to the relief of being released forthwith - Being a convicted prisoner, his movements can be restricted, till the execution of the sentence is completed.
2014(4) Criminal Court Cases 254 (Kerala)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.62, 63, 64, 65, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138* - Dishonour of cheque - Service of summons - Can be effected through registered post/speed post or by courier - Court can declare served in case there is refusal to receive summons - Court can take coercive measures for entering appearance of accused - Service by affixation is a valid mode of service under criminal law - Wherever accused is evading service of summons, Court should direct service through affixation as provided u/s 65 Cr.P.C.
2010(4) Criminal Court Cases 549 (Delhi)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.62 & 71, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 34* - Criminal Breach of trust - Conviction - Legality of - Offence purely of technical nature - Amount involved also not very huge and later on paid within very short time - Petitioners or other accused not in any manner contributed for delay - Magistrate passed orders without application of mind and issued bailable warrants without examining report of police in respect of service of summons and without recording reasons for issuing bailable warrants - No satisfactory explanation given by State Government and Provident Fund Commissioner for continuation of prosecution despite delay of 22 years - Proceedings against petitioner liable to be quashed.
2012(4) Criminal Court Cases 191 (Bombay)


Digest - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973



Digest - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.53 & 54, 107, 197, Indian Penal code, 1860, Ss.500, 354 & 498* - Adultery - Bald allegation that appellant is living in illicit relationship - Held, in such situation, there is no scope for the respondent to invoke S.107 CrPC and contend that he acted by virtue of authority vested in him.
2014(1) Criminal Court Cases 284 (S.C.)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.53 & 54* - Medical Examination of person suspected or accused of having committed an offence - Cannot be forcibly subjected to medical examination - If police officers use force for that purpose person aggrieved can lawfullyexercise such right of private defence to resist such force.
2014(1) Criminal Court Cases 284 (S.C.)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.53A, Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376* - Rape - Medical examination of accused - Provision of S.53-A Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature - Once a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of rape, the offender should be subjected to medical examination for his DNA profile.
2013(3) Criminal Court Cases 549 (Rajasthan)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.53A, Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 (As inserted w.e.f. 23.06.2006)* - Rape - DNA test - With incorporation of S.53-A Cr.P.C. w.e.f. 23.06.2006 it has become necessary for the prosecution to go in for DNA test in such type of case, facilitating the prosecution to prove its case against the accused - Even prior to the insertion of this provision prosecution could have resorted for DNA test or analysis and matching of semen of accused with that found on the undergarments of the prosecutrix to make it a fool proof case - But when not done so, prosecution must face the consequences.
2011(3) Criminal Court Cases 427 (S.C.)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.53A, Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 as inserted w.e.f. 23.6.2006)* - Rape case - Abduction of prosecutrix by 11 persons in a Maruti Van and commission of rape on her by two of them - All the accused acquitted on the followinggrounds : (i) Prosecutrix knew the name of the accused but failed to record the same in the FIR, she only gave the description of the accused as `Gitta' (short statured) which fact was belied and falsified by the appellant's wife and the report of the jailer; (ii) Allegations that two accused persons committed rape one after the other in presence of other accused not believable when crime of rape is committed in privacy; (iii) As per the prosecutrix she met her mother and sister at bus stop after the occurrence - but they were not examined - Prosecutrix had not received any significant injuries on other parts of body - Injuries on her private parts were much less as mentioned by her in the FIR, except for the cheek bite; (iv) Prosecutrix had travelled certain distance in Maruti Van after alleged abduction but she did not raise any alarm for help - None of the inmates of the house from where she was abducted and who had raised hue and cry for help at the time of abduction examined as witnesses; (v) Statement of prosecutrix that all the 11 persons were in the Maruti Van not believable as it is extremely difficult for 11 persons to be accommodated in the Maruti Van, the seating capacity of which is only 5; (vi) During the course of investigation, prosecutrix failed to identify the kothi where the alleged rape was committed; (vii) Statement of prosecutrix was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. first before the Judicial magistrate and thereafter statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded - In fact the procedure should have been otherwise - This shows that right from the beginning the prosecution was doubtful on the trust worthiness of the prosecutrix herself and for that reason she was first bound down by her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.; (viii) In under garments of prosecutrix, male semen was found but were not sent for analysis to match with the semen of the accused; (ix) After incorporation of S.53-A Cr.P.C. it was necessary for the prosecution to go in for the DNA test facilitating to prove of case against accused but no such test was conducted.
2011(3) Criminal Court Cases 427 (S.C.)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.54, 55, 432, 433, 433-A, Prisons Act, 1894, S.59(5)* - Remission to convicts - No convict has a fundamental right of remission or shortening of sentence - State, however, in exercise of its executive power of remission must consider each individual case keeping in view the relevant facts - Power of State to issue general instructions, so that no discrimination is made, is also permissible in law.
2007(4) Criminal Court Cases 913 (S.C.)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.57, 167* - Transit remand - Accused contended that he was arrested from Noida but he was not produced before Illaqa Magistrate for transit remand nor permission from Delhi Court was taken for taking him to Farukhabad which was in violation of police rules - Accused brought to Delhi just within one hour as such it was not essential to obtain transit remand from the concerned Court at Noida - Similarly, no specific permission was required to make any particular recovery from Farukhabad when accused was in police custody - Contention not tenable.
2014(4) Criminal Court Cases 309 (Delhi) (DB)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.58, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 57* - Arrest under Narcotic Drugs and Psyhotropic Substances Act, 1985 - No duty is cast on officer arresting accused to send any report to District Magistrate - Provision of Section 58 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is not applicable to such a case.
2006(2) Criminal Court Cases 953 (Kerala) (DB)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.60* - Escaped prisoner - Police officer when satisfied that the person is an escaped prisoner he can arrest him without warrant and produce him before the magistrate having jurisdiction within that local limit and that magistrate can pass appropriate orders regarding re-transmission of that prisoner to the concerned jail from where he escaped.
2014(4) Criminal Court Cases 254 (Kerala)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.60, 167(2)* - Escaped prisoner - Committing offence in another State - Granted default bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. - Held, petitioner is not entitled to the relief of being released forthwith - Being a convicted prisoner, his movements can be restricted, till the execution of the sentence is completed.
2014(4) Criminal Court Cases 254 (Kerala)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.62, 63, 64, 65, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138* - Dishonour of cheque - Service of summons - Can be effected through registered post/speed post or by courier - Court can declare served in case there is refusal to receive summons - Court can take coercive measures for entering appearance of accused - Service by affixation is a valid mode of service under criminal law - Wherever accused is evading service of summons, Court should direct service through affixation as provided u/s 65 Cr.P.C.
2010(4) Criminal Court Cases 549 (Delhi)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.62 & 71, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 34* - Criminal Breach of trust - Conviction - Legality of - Offence purely of technical nature - Amount involved also not very huge and later on paid within very short time - Petitioners or other accused not in any manner contributed for delay - Magistrate passed orders without application of mind and issued bailable warrants without examining report of police in respect of service of summons and without recording reasons for issuing bailable warrants - No satisfactory explanation given by State Government and Provident Fund Commissioner for continuation of prosecution despite delay of 22 years - Proceedings against petitioner liable to be quashed.
2012(4) Criminal Court Cases 191 (Bombay)


Digest - Adverse Possession



Digest - Adverse Possession

*Adverse possession* - Plea can be raised in defence in a suit for recovery of possession but the relief of declaration that the plaintiff has become absolute owner cannot be claimed.

2008(4) Civil Court Cases 778 (P&H)


*Adverse possession* - Plea can be raised only by way of defence and not by way of offence - A person cannot file suit to seek declaration that he has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession - On the other hand a person in adverse possession can only raise this plea by way of defence.

2011(1) Civil Court Cases 0697 (P&H)


*Adverse possession* - Plea of - Adverse possession is a question of fact and the same has to be specifically pleaded and proved - In absence of specific plea and issue and evidence, finding of Court on the point cannot be sustained. (Limitation Act, 1963, Arts.64, 65, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6 Rules 1,2).

2005(2) Civil Court Cases 663 (S.C.)


*Adverse possession* - Plea of - Available as a defence to the defendant - Plaintiff cannot base his claim of ownership by adverse possession.

2012(2) Civil Court Cases 616 (P&H)


*Adverse possession* - Plea of - Burden is on defendant to prove as to on what particular date he asserted his hostile title contrary to the interest of the plaintiff and that the assertion was public and open.

2007(3) Civil Court Cases 430 (Gujarat)


*Adverse possession* - Plea of - Does not behove a Government undertaking to take up the plea of adverse possession. (Limitation Act, 1963, Art.65).

1991 Civil Court Cases 629 (P&H)


*Adverse possession* - Plea of - Failure to prove uninterrupted adverse possession against the true owner - Defendant held, not entitled to claim ownership of property by adverse possession. (Limitation Act, 1963, Arts.64, 65).

2008(1) Civil Court Cases 252 (P&H)


*Adverse possession* - Plea of - Not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law - A person who claims adverse possession should show (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c), whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (d) his possession was open and undisturbed - A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour as he is trying to defeat the rights of true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession.

2004(3) Civil Court Cases 326 (S.C.)


*Adverse possession* - Plea of - Not available to a person or agency who enters the possession, on the strength of allotment or transfer - The very commencement of possession in a case of adverse possession, is the result of an illegality.

2013(2) Civil Court Cases 048 (A.P.)


*Adverse possession* - Plea of adverse possession has to have roots in pleadings as well as in evidence - Possession should be peaceful, open and continuous and it should be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that possession is adverse to the true owner - It must start with a wrongful dispossession of the original owner and is actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period - In the absence of pleadings on record, plea of adverse possession has to be ignored.

2015(Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 498 (P&H)


*Adverse possession* - Plea of adverse possession is a substantive plea of fact and law - It needs specific pleadings and evidence - Law of adverse possession is no more res integra and has been dealt within detail, time and again.

2015(2) Civil Court Cases 112 (All.)


*Adverse possession* - Plea of adverse possession is essentially a plea based on facts - It is required to be proved by party raising it on the basis of proper pleadings and evidence - Burden to prove such plea is on the defendant who had raised it.

2017(3) Civil Court Cases 311 (S.C.)


*Adverse possession* - Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law - It is interpretation based on following text mechanism: (a) On what date defendant came into possession (b) What was the nature of possession (c) Whether factum of possession was known to plaintiffs (d) How long his possession had continued (e) Whether possession was open and undisputed.

2015(4) Civil Court Cases 583 (P&H)


*Adverse possession* - Plea of adverse possession is not pure question of law but a blended of fact and law.

2018(2) Civil Court Cases 858 (H.P.)


*Adverse possession* - Plea of adverse possession is only a shield and not a sword at all.

2016(1) Civil Court Cases 321 (Kerala)


*Adverse possession* - Plea of adverse possession is only available to defendant if he admits the ownership of true owner over suit property to the knowledge of true owner - If defendant does not admit plaintiff's ownership over suit land, issue of adverse possession, cannot be tried successfully at the instance of defendant against plaintiff - Moreover, defendant having claimed ownership over suit land by inheritance as an adopted son of father of plaintiff, having failed to prove this ground, is not entitled to claim title by adverse possession against plaintiff.

2017(3) Civil Court Cases 311 (S.C.)


*Adverse possession* - Plea of defendant negatived - Thereafter, defendant has no right to continue in possession of the suit land and plaintiff being owner of suit land is entitled to possession thereof.

2013(1) Civil Court Cases 594 (P&H)


*Adverse possession* - Plea of easementary right - Contradictory pleas - If defendant proves plea of adverse possession, there is no further need to prove any easementary right, as person in adverse possession has all attributes of an owner of suit landand an owner of suit land cannot claim easementary right qua the same parcel of land, as both these pleas are contradictory and negative of each other.

2018(1) Civil Court Cases 362 (H.P.)


*Adverse possession* - Plea of ownership and plea of adverse possession are mutually destructive of each other - Both these pleas are inconsistent and are not tenable.

2013(3) Civil Court Cases 489 (P&H)


*Adverse possession* - Plea of ownership on the ground of purchase of property and plea of adverse possession are mutually destructive and inconsistent with one another - Plea of adverse possession means admission of plaintiff to be true owner.

1999(3) Civil Court Cases 49 (Delhi)


*Adverse possession* - Plea of permissive possession is destructive to the plea of adverse possession - Having taken the plea that they were in adverse possession it is not open to the defendants to urge that they were in permissive possession.

1992 Civil Court Cases 628 (P&H)


*Adverse possession* - Plea of title and adverse possession - Plea of adverse possession is mutually destructive to plea of title - Unless defendants abandon one, they cannot rely on the other.

2018(4) Civil Court Cases 186 (T&A)



Saturday, 6 July 2019

Case Law of Hindu Marriage Act


Case Law of Hindu Marriage Act

*Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.8* - Registration of marriage - Marriage between a Muslim and a Hindu - Marriage Officer is not competent to register such a marriage - Registration of such a marriage is per se illegal and does not give any marital status to the parties - Even otherwise, in absence of any claim and allegation by any party relating to solemnization of marriage in accordance with the Hindu law, the marriage certificate issued by the Marriage Officer does not confer any right upon the parties relating to their marital status.
2011(2) Civil Court Cases 0717 (Chhattisgarh) (DB)

*Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.8* - Registration of marriage - Marriage certificate - Marriage certificate issued by the Marriage Officer does not confer any right upon the parties relating to their marital status - Marriage certificate otherwise issued by the competent authority only proves pre-existence of marriage between the spouses - However, issuance of certificate itself is not solemnization or performance of marriage between the spouses.
2011(2) Civil Court Cases 0717 (Chhattisgarh) (DB)

*Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.8* - Registration of marriage - Purpose of registration of marriage is only to give a prima facie indication to accord evidence of marriage and not validity of such marriage - Validity of marriage depends upon personal law applicable, if parties get married in accordance with personal law or depend upon secular laws that is applicable to such marriage.
2018(Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 138 (Kerala)

*Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.8* - Registration of marriage - Registrar needs to have a prima facie view that marriage has taken place in accordance with personal law applicable to parties - Once such a satisfaction is entered by Registrar, Registrar is bound to register such marriage, notwithstanding that he had entertained a doubt regarding competency or capacity of persons to contract or solemnize such marriage in accordance with law applicable.
2018(Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 138 (Kerala)

*Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.8* - Registration of marriage - When a person declares that he is converted to Hindu, that would be sufficient for public authorities to act - There is not formal ceremony of expiation necessary to effectuate a conversion to Hinduism - In the absence of any particular mode prescribed for conversion as a Hindu without there being any mala fides that can be pointed out, pubic authority cannot refuse to act upon such request.
2018(Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 138 (Kerala)

*Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.8* - Right to challenge transaction as being violative Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act arises only after the minor attains majority and not before.
1994(2) Civil Court Cases 362 (Bombay)

*Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.8* - Sale in contravention of sub-sec.1 or sub-sec.2 is voidable at the instance of minor - Minor not challenging sale within three years from attaining majority - Has no right to ignore the sale as void.
1997(1) Civil Court Cases 590 (S.C.)

*Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.8* - Sale of minor's property - Sale effected without the permission of Court - Sale deed executed by mother and attested by father - The sale cannot be held to be a sale by a natural guardian satisfying the requirement of a natural guardian satisfying the requirements of S.8 - Sale is void.
1993 (Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 76 (S.C.)

*Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.8* - Sale of minor's property by mother - Permission of Court not obtained for sale - Father attested the sale deed executed by mother - No evidence adduced to show that alienation was made for the legal necessity or benefit of he minors - Sale effected by mother is void - Father is the natural guardian of minor children unless they are under the care of mother to his exclusion - Attestation made by father does not make the sale voidable - Sale effected by mother even though father attested the sale deed cannot be held to be a sale by father and natural guardian satisfying requirements of S.8.
1993 Civil Court Cases 659 (S.C.)

*Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.8* - Sale of minor's share in Joint Family Property - Previous permission of Court - Arises only for alienating minor's separate property and not his interest in Joint Family Property - Father validly alienated minor's interest in Joint Family Property for discharging debts incurred to meet litigation expenses and decree debts.
1999(1) Civil Court Cases 607 (A.P.)

*Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.8* - Settlement of half of property in favour of his minor son with absolute rights and the other half in favour of his wife for her life with vested remained to son - Property acquired by son is his self-acquired property and not joint family property - Alienation of such property of minor son by his natural guardian mother - Permission of Court is mandatory - Property sold by mother for discharge of antecedent debts without permission of Court voidable at the instance of minor son - Suit filed by minor for possession of his share of property sold decreed subject to payment of sale consideration received to vendee with interest - Obligation of alienee is not to see that every pie goes towards discharge of antecedent debt only - It is enough if he made enquiries before purchase about necessity for sale of property.
1997 (Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 698 (A.P.)

*Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.8* - Where HUF property is sold by the Karta involving an undivided interest of the minor in the said property, the provisions of S.8 of the Act are not applicable in view of express terms of Ss.6 and 12 of the Act.
1996(1) Civil Court Cases 716 (S.C.)

*Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.8, Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.74, 65, 114* - Marriage certificate - Certified copy - Public document within meaning of S.74 Evidence Act - Certified copies are admissible as secondary evidence - It carries presumption u/s 114(e) Evidence Act.
2012(2) Civil Court Cases 639 (Madras) (DB)

*Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.8, Guardian and Wards Act, S.29* - Hindu Joint Family Property - Agreement to sell executed by father acting for himself and as natural guardian of his minor sons in respect of Hindu Joint Family Property - Such an alienation not altogether prohibited under law but only voidable - Minor sons after attaining majority not taken steps to avoid the sale - Such a plea not taken in trial Court or first appellate Court - It is not a legal plea to be allowed to be raised at the stage of second appeal.
1999(1) Civil Court Cases 76 (A.P.)

*Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.8, Special Marriage Act, 1954, S.15* - Marriage - Registration - One of the spouse less than 21 years of age - Marriage can be registered after both spouses attain age of 21 years - Registration of marriage cannot be refused on the ground that they had solemnized their marriage when one of the spouse was less than 21 years of age.
2008(3) Civil Court Cases 545 (P&H) (DB)

*Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.8, Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009* - Registration of marriage - No registration of marriage can be done, without physical presence of parties to marriage before registrar, except under special circumstances after recording the reasons.
2015(3) Civil Court Cases 213 (Madras) (DB)

Digest - Adverse Possession


Digest - Adverse Possession

*Adverse possession* - Permissive possession at the inception does not become adverse merely by passing of long time in the absence of requisite animus - To prove adverse possession, defendants have to prove that their possession was unauthorized from the very beginning and they must plead disclaimer of title from a particular date, their hostile assertion and acquiescence of true owner for over a period of 12 years.
2011(3) Civil Court Cases 0759 (P&H)

*Adverse possession* - Permissive possession cannot be converted into adverse possession unless it is proved that the person in possession asserted adverse title to the property to the knowledge of the true owner for a period of 12 years or more.
2007(4) Civil Court Cases 370 (P&H)

*Adverse possession* - Permissive possession cannot become hostile by long lapse of time and it does not entitle the licencee to claim adverse possession.
2008(3) Civil Court Cases 758 (P&H)

*Adverse possession* - Person claiming adverse possession is required to establish (1) the date on which he came in possession; (2) nature of possession; (3) the factum of possession; (4) knowledge to the true owner; (5) duration of possession and (6) possession was open and undisturbed.
2011(1) Civil Court Cases 0699 (S.C.)

*Adverse possession* - Person claiming title to property by adverse possession must definitely allege and prove as to how and when the adverse possession commenced and what was the nature of his possession and whether the fact of his adverse possession was known to the real owner - Uninterrupted possession for several years is not enough. (Limitation Act, 1963, Art.65).
1993 Civil Court Cases 325 (Delhi)

*Adverse possession* - Person who claims adverse possession has to prove: (i) on what date he came into possession; (ii) what was the nature of his possession; (iii) whether factum of his possession was known to other party; (iv) how long his possession has continued; and (v) his possession was open and undisturbed.
2018(2) Civil Court Cases 858 (H.P.)

*Adverse possession* - Person who claims adverse possession must plead the identity of the true owner against whom he claims and acknowledge him in his plea.
2015(1) Civil Court Cases 026 (Kerala)

*Adverse possession* - Plaintiff can seek declaration of title on the plea of adverse possession - Plaintiff will be successful only if he proves all the ingredients of adverse possession.
2014(2) Civil Court Cases 227 (A.P.)

*Adverse possession* - Plaintiff cannot file suit based on plea of adverse possession.
2017(Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 274 (H.P.)

*Adverse possession* - Plaintiff cannot seek declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession - Plea is available only when proceedings are filed against such person arrayed as defendant.
2014(2) Civil Court Cases 378 (Delhi)

*Adverse possession* - Plaintiff cannot seek declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession - Such plea is available only when proceedings are filed against plaintiff and he is arrayed as defendant then he can take the plea of adverse possession as defence.
2015(3) Civil Court Cases 052 (Chhattisgarh)

*Adverse possession* - Plaintiff claiming adverse possession - Held, plaintiff can file a suit by way of defence to his right to claim possession over a particular property when his right to possession is invaded by the owner or by a stranger. (Limitation Act, 1963, Art.65).
1995(2) Civil Court Cases 144 (Delhi)

*Adverse possession* - Plaintiff claiming possession under an agreement of sale cannot plead adverse possession - His possession is pursuant to it and it is only permissible acknowledging title of true owner.
2001(1) Civil Court Cases 30 (A.P.)

*Adverse possession* - Plaintiff in possession of property as a lessee - He claimed rights over the property on the strength of agreement of sale - Held, plaintiff cannot claim adverse possession over the property.
2013(3) Civil Court Cases 374 (A.P.)

*Adverse possession* - Plaintiff in possession to the knowledge of public and to the owner - No evidence led in rebuttal to the assertion made by plaintiff - Plea of adverse possession, held, proved.
2007(4) Civil Court Cases 370 (P&H)

*Adverse possession* - Plaintiff not aware as to who is true owner of property - There remains no scope of denying the title of true owner nor exhibition of any hostile animus to the knowledge of the true owner comes - This itself goes to negate the claim of plaintiff as regards his acquisition of title over suit land by adverse possession.
2017(1) Civil Court Cases 590 (Orissa)

*Adverse possession* - Plaintiff pleaded that she perfected her title to suit properties by way of adverse possession - Plea rejected as period of 12 years was not completed by date of filing of suit - Moreover, plea of securing title by plaintiff from defendant Nos.2 & 3 by way of relinquishment is inconsistent with plea of adverse possession.
2015(4) Civil Court Cases 544 (Hyderabad)

*Adverse possession* - Plaintiff seeking declaration of title on the plea of adverse possession - Failure to prove adverse possession - Title of defendant stands established without any limitations.
2014(2) Civil Court Cases 227 (A.P.)

*Adverse possession* - Plaintiffs admitted title of defendants by specifically pleading adverse possession in their plaint - However, evidence on record is not enough to prove open hostile possession of plaintiffs over suit property for statutory period or extinction of same - Neither intention to hold property with hostile animus nor period of possession is proved by evidence - Plaintiff thus, failed to prove that title of defendants is extinguished.
2018(4) Civil Court Cases 464 (T&A)

*Adverse possession* - Plea - Plea of ownership and adverse possession cannot co-exist.
2010(4) Civil Court Cases 417 (P&H)

*Adverse possession* - Plea - To be alleged and proved - Plea of adverse possession cannot be accepted in the absence of particulars regarding the possession becoming open and hostile to the true owner.
2010(4) Civil Court Cases 417 (P&H)

*Adverse possession* - Plea by defendant - Burden is upon defendant to prove as to at what point of time his possession became hostile to the plaintiff and at what point of time it matured into title by way of adverse possession after lapse of 12 years - In the instant case it can be safely concluded that defendants have failed to prove hostile animus, if any, towards plaintiff, rather entire defence, written statement as well as statement it can easily be inferred that defendant claimed himself to be true owner in possession - Once defendant claimed that construction over the suit land was raised by him, presuming himself to be owner, plea of adverse possession could not have been taken by him and once defendants have made offer for exchange of land, no plea of adverse possession could be taken by them.
2017(4) Civil Court Cases 595 (H.P.)

Labels

Followers