Manjunath Reddy Vs Latha on 1 August, 2016

Posted on July 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka while rejecting this criminal petition, has held in this judgment that,

From Para 3,

Having regard to the object and scope of the legislation, the prescription of such enabling provision is obviously not to cramp the style of the court which requires to address the issues with some expedition. Therefore, the section providing that the court can form its own procedure, would also over-ride sub-section (1) of Section 28 to rule 6(5) of the Rules as well

This is from final Para,

Therefore, the present petition is misconceived and is rejected. The view taken by this court would also be relevant having regard to the circumstances of this case which has been hanging fire for the past two years in a matter which should have been summarily disposed of. Therefore, the court below is directed to expedite the proceedings and to deal mercilessly with any such applications filed by the petitioner.

Manjunath Reddy Vs Latha on 1 August, 2016

Aniket Subhash Tupe Vs Piyusha Aniket Tupe And Anr on 22 March, 2018

Posted on July 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Bombay while dismissing this writ petition, has held in this judgment that,

The opening words of Sub Section (2) of Section 28 viz.”Nothing in Sub Section (1) shall prevent the Court” clearly indicate that notwithstanding the procedure prescribed in 28(1) r/w. Rule 6(5) the Court is empowered to lay down its own procedure in deciding the application under Section 12 or 23(2) of the D.V.Act.

Aniket Subhash Tupe Vs Piyusha Aniket Tupe And Anr on 22 March, 2018

Anil Ambashankar Joshi Vs Reena Anil Joshi And Anr on 5 December, 2016

Posted on July 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, it is held that in a case of CrPC 125, whereby a knife comes begging for maintenance, she has to step into the witness box and depose her evidence. Affidavit of Evidence is not permitted per CrPC 126(2).

The affidavit of evidence filed by the Petitioner vide Exh.17 would have to be discarded. The Respondent however would be entitled to lead her evidence by stepping into the witness box.

Anil Ambashankar Joshi Vs Reena Anil Joshi And Anr on 5 December, 2016

CrPC 126 – Procedure for CrPC 125 Case

Posted on July 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

(1) Proceedings under section 125 may be taken against any person in any district-

(a) where he is, or

(b) where he or his wife, resides, or

(2) All evidence in such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proceed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons- cases: Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms at to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper.

(3) The Court in dealing with applications under section 125 shall have power to make such order as to costs as may be just.

Next section here.

K R Nandakumar Vs State Of Karnataka on 16 March, 2018

Posted on July 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that even though the marriage if deceased and the accused is registered, it is null and void, as the accused is already married to another woman and that marriage was subsiding.

If first wife is alive a second marriage is not permissible in the eye of law

K R Nandakumar Vs State Of Karnataka on 16 March, 2018

Petitioner Vs State of Kerala on 19 January 2015

Posted on July 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, the knife alleged illicit relationship between the 1st accused and the petitioner herein.

Update: Since there is personal information displayed in the judgment, with due respect to and on request of the parties involved, the address particulars are removed in the below PDF.

Further Update as on 22-08-2020:

Upon further request received on Whatsapp and on call, I decided to oblige the caller and her husband, to remove the name of the petitioner also from the title, tag and pdf judgment.

Petitioner Vs State of Kerala on 19 January 2015 - further redacted

Citations: [2015 SCC ONLINE KER 2315]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29927975/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e3c04a93261a672b6712

Sunita Jha Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 September, 2010

Posted on July 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Again this judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a woman living with a married man, can not be called his relative, for the purpose of IPC 498Aa and hence charge of harassment can not be laid on her by knife.

Sunita Jha Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 September, 2010

Shaik Riayazun Bee Vs The State Of A.P. on 1 June, 2016

Posted on July 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Curious point in this judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, is that

It is true by virtue of marriage between A1 and complainant, the relatives of one side became relatives of both sides in a general sense. However, for the strict construction of penal provision under Section 498A, A6 who was the relative of the complainant, cannot be said to be the relative of the husband of the complainant i.e.A1. For this reason and also for the reason that no allegations of cruelty falling within the meaning of Section 498A IPC and the allegations touching other offences are made against A6, she deserves quashment of the proceedings.

Shaik Riayazun Bee Vs The State Of A.P. on 1 June, 2016

Deepika Tiwary Vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2015

Posted on July 24, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on U.Suvetha Vs State By Insp.Of Police & Anr on 6 May, 2009, Hon’ble High Court of Ranchi has held that

since the status of the petitioner does not come within the definition of ‘relative’ as envisaged u/s 498A I.P.C., she cannot be proceeded against for the offences committed under the said section.

Moreover,

So far as the Section 323/ 406 I.P.C. is concerned, allegations have been specifically levelled against other accused persons and in that context also the complaint petition does not reveal any offence so as to prosecute the petitioner in this present criminal case.

Deepika Tiwary Vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2015

State Of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh on 2 July, 2014

Posted on July 24, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Apex Court held that a person who is not a relative of husband, like in this case, Gurmit is the brother of his aunt (chachi), may not be prosecuted for offence under Section 304B IPC but this does not mean that such a person cannot be prosecuted for any other offence viz. Section 306 IPC, in case the allegations constitute offence other than Section 304B IPC.

State Of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh on 2 July, 2014

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: July 2018

Manjunath Reddy Vs Latha on 1 August, 2016

Aniket Subhash Tupe Vs Piyusha Aniket Tupe And Anr on 22 March, 2018

Anil Ambashankar Joshi Vs Reena Anil Joshi And Anr on 5 December, 2016

CrPC 126 – Procedure for CrPC 125 Case

K R Nandakumar Vs State Of Karnataka on 16 March, 2018

Petitioner Vs State of Kerala on 19 January 2015

Sunita Jha Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 September, 2010

Shaik Riayazun Bee Vs The State Of A.P. on 1 June, 2016

Deepika Tiwary Vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2015

State Of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh on 2 July, 2014