In this Gujarat High Court order, Judge denied interim maintenance to Knife in DVC as she was already getting maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.
Citations:
Other sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/802854/
Index of DV Judgments is here.
This Maintenance order, under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, is modified ‘from the date of order’ to ‘from date of application’ by Karnataka High Court, thereby enormously enhancing the overall interim maintenance to be paid by husband.
Index of Maintenance Orders under Hindu Marriage Act are here.
Note: Name and Address of the Petitioner and her family members are redacted upon her request emails dt: 05 Jul 2023 and 25 Apr 2025.
Also received another email Dt: 22-Jul-2025 from the Petitioner, annexed with two Orders from Karnataka High Court (in WP 15781 of 2024), which is mentioned here for transparency sake. These Orders were duly complied on 24-Jul-2025
354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
IPC 354A here.
209. Dishonestly making false claim in Court.
—Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy any person, makes in a Court of Justice any claim which he knows to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has shown it’s disgust toward frivolous litigants in this case.
Relevant portions of the said judgment are as under:
“191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted, with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession, towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation, from out of his savings (or out of his borrowings), worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat, for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his. Should a litigant not be compensated for, what he has lost, for no fault?…”
This is a wonderful judgment from Justice J R Midha explaining in detail and elaborate what is an offence under Section 209 IPC and how to get the offender punished.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
The procedure to file a perjury case is detailed in this nice judgment from Madras High Court.
Wonderful point:
Since the offences, with which the applicant is charged, are bailable, the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable
Read Paras 5-10
Even though Section 324 IPC is made non-bailable via Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act of 2005, (Act No.25 of 2005), but it was NOT appointed into force, by a notification in the Official Gazette by Central Government.
Anticipatory bail granted by Kerala High Court for offence under section 324 of IPC
Anticipatory bail granted in cases filed under various IPC sections. The bare section is here.
Supreme Court of India
Allahabad High Court
Bombay High Court
Kerala High Court
District Courts
Index of all Bail matters is here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 583 access attempts in the last 7 days.