Here are the questions from AP LAWCET 2005 exam and it’s key so use them in your preparation for next year examination.
Index to previous years papers here and also the default URL for AP LAWCET is here. Original Course is here.
Month: April 2018
Previous Question Papers of AP LAWCET Examination
Here are the previous year question papers of 3 years LLB course, along with their key for you to prepare for AP LAWCET examination.
- AP LAWCET 2001
- AP LAWCET 2005
- AP LAWCET 2006
- AP LAWCET 2010
- AP LAWCET 2012
- AP LAWCET 2013 – Code B
- AP LAWCET 2013 – Code C
- AP LAWCET 2014
- AP LAWCET 2017
- AP LAWCET 2018
- AP LAWCET 2019
All the best !!!
Mahesh Tiwari Vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 August, 2016
This is a Quash Judgment of Allahabad High Court in which it was held that an Affidavit can be considered as a evidence, in regards to a Perjury petition under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for an offense punishable under Section 193 IPC.
The salient features of giving false evidence under Section 191 IPC are:-
(i) intentionally making a false statement, or
(ii) declaration by a person who is under a legal obligation to speak the truth.
But it must be remembered that the very essence of crimes of this kind is not how such statements may injure this or that party to litigation but how they may deceive and mislead the courts and thus produce mischievous consequences to the administration of justice.
Consequently, there cannot be any doubt that if a statement or averment in a pleading is false, it falls within the definition of offence under Section 191 IPC. It is not necessary that a person should have appeared in the witness box. The offence stands committed and completed by the filing of such pleading.
An affidavit is ‘evidence’ within the meaning of Section 191 IPC and a person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury. The definition of the offence of giving false evidence applies to the affidavits.
Read Baban Singh and another vs. Jagdish Singh and others here.
Read Ranjeet Singh vs. State of Pepsu AIR 1959 SC 843 here.
Read S.P.Kohli (Dr.) vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana AIR 1978 SC 1753 here.
Read Asgar Ali Mulla Ibrahimji vs. Emperor AIR 1943 Nag 17(18) here.
Read Emperor vs. Padam Singh AIR 1930 All 490 here.
Read Parag Dutt vs Emperor AIR 1930 Oudh 62 (63) here.
Bharat Hegde Vs Saroj Hegde on 24 Apr 2007
Another Key Judgement from Delhi High Court elucidating the judicial principles required to be applied while deciding an Interim Maintenance application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
This is a case involving the son of Ex CM of Karnataka State of India, Mr. Rama Krishna Hegde.
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act goes a step further inasmuch as it permits maintenance to be claimed by the husband even against the wife.
It should not expose the non applicant to unjust contempt or other coercive proceedings. On the other hand, maintenance should not be so low so as to make the order meaningless.
Tax avoidance is the norm. Tax compliance is the exception in this country. Therefore, in determining interim maintenance, there cannot be mathematical exactitude.
The 11 factors for consideration are:
1. Status of the parties.
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.
3. The independent income and property of the claimant.
4. The number of persons, the non applicant has to maintain.
5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar life style as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
6. Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any.
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant.
8. Payment capacity of the non applicant.
9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed.
10. The non applicant to defray the cost of litigation.
11. The amount awarded u/s. 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded u/s. 24 of the Act.”
If the capital asset is an industrial property, a coffee plantation, an orchard or any other agricultural holding, there would be a presumption that the said capital asset is yielding some income. It is not presumed to be a dead asset.
But where the law requires a Judge to form an opinion based on a host of primary data, a Judge can formulate an opinion pertaining to the likely income from the capital assets of the husband.
It is a well recognized principle of law that where a person withholds vital information, a presumption arises against him that had he disclosed the information, the same would have been adverse to him.
Citations : 140 (2007) DLT 16
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/260066/
Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs The District Judge Dehradun & Ors on 27 August, 1997
Read this judgment from Supreme Court of India which is important in more than one ways.
Lower Courts are impleaded as respondents:
It is not proper or even justified on the part of the appellant to implead the courts as respondents and respondents 1 and 2 are, therefore, struck off from the record of this appeal.
It does appear to us from the affidavit of the husband that it conceals more than what it tells of his income and other assets. Attempt has been made to conceal his true income and that leads us to draw an adverse inference against the husband about his income that it is much more than what is being disclosed to us.
Considering the diverse claims made by the parties one inflating the income and the other suppressing an element of conjecture and guess work does enter for arriving at the income of the husband. It cannot be done by any mathematical precision.
Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and those; he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. Amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate.
Date from which Interim maintenance can be claimed:
If wife has no source of income it is the obligation of the husband to maintain her and also children of the marriage on the basis of the provision contained in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Her right to claim maintenance fructifies on the date of the filing of the petition for divorce under the Act.The court has discretion in the matter as to from which date maintenance under Section 24 of the Act should be granted.
Rani Sethi Vs Sunil Sethi on 31 Mar 2011
This is a verdict from Delhi High Court dismissing petition of the wife that is filed against the Trial court order to pay maintenance to Husband along with litigation expenses and a car for his usage !!
One should appreciate the detailed dissection made by the Hon’ble Court, of the financial information made available by parties in arriving at the conclusion.
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.
The Supreme Court Judgment of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) v. District Judge, Dehradun & Others is available here.
The Delhi High Court judgment of Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde is available here that talks about the 11 factors to be considered an application under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act.
Index of Maintenance judgments under HMA are here.
Sangitaben Rasiklal Jaiswal vs Sanjaykumar Ratilal Jaiswal on 9 December, 1999
Gujarat High Court delivered this Judgment highlighting many key judicial aspects.
Merely because the husband is possessing valuable movable and immovable properties it is hardly of any relevance in the matter for grant of temporary maintenance. It is understandable if the husband is having regular income from the properties then it may be taken into consideration. However, as per the case of the petitioner herself, these are all ancestral properties and at this stage, it is difficult to find out what is the ultimate share of the husband – respondent therein. The petitioner has not given out what regular income per month husband is getting from these properties. The valuation of properties irrespective of the fact whether what is stated is correct or not, is not sufficient to take that what claim has been made for maintenance and other things has to be accepted.
Key point to note is:
To reach to a reasonable sum of maintenance to be awarded to the wife on her application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act what income regularly per month the husband is having has to be considered. He is in employment and accordingly his salary is taken into consideration and the amount of interim maintenance awarded can not be interfered with.
Exploitation of petitioner by advocate:
The rejoinder affidavit has given shocking facts and really after going through the contents of this affidavit, it touches the conscience of the court that how the lady who has no source of income whatsoever and entitled for free legal aid under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 has been exploited by an advocate.
Final touch:
The petitioner was entitled for free legal aid but she could not get this facility either because of unawareness of her right or that her advocate has not made known her of this right, the innocent husband cannot be saddled with the costs of this revision application. Hence, no order as to costs.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Neeraj Aggarwal Vs Veeka Aggarwal on September 19, 2007
This is a Judgment of District Judge of Rohini Court Delhi ordering no maintenance to a wife who is a qualified engineer and that she also joined the job after her marriage. Moreover, she did not disclose same in her application
Those seeking justice and equity from the Court must come to the court with clean hands. It seems that for obvious reasons and to extract money the applicant/ wife has not disclosed her true qualifications in the Court. The applicant/ wife is an engineer graduate and, therefore, can very well maintain herself and there is no need for her to depend upon the mercy of her parents or on the non-applicant/ husband. The purpose of Section 24 of H.M. Act is not to extract money from the other party and the court should not be a forum to extract the money or to blackmail the other party.
Citations:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link:
G.Chilakamma Vs G.Sattaiah on 20 February, 2003
Here is a AP High Court judgment aligning to the principle of fixing 1/3rd of Salary as Maintenance as well as Monthly Interim Maintenance under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
“…finding had been recorded even by the appellate Court that the principle of 1/3rd salary can be taken as the basis for fixing the quantum. Hence, in this view of the matter, the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance granting Rs. 800/- per month are liable to be restored.
The reasons why the difference of amount had been granted for the said period and the subsequent period, had not been recorded. it would be just and reasonable to grant the same quantum of maintenance of Rs. 800/- during the period of pendency of the suit also.
Citation : 2003 (4) ALD 219, 2003 (5) ALT 354
Indiankanoon.org link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/232227/
