Another recent 2018 judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court in regards to granting on Anticipatory Bail to accused, who is/has been cooperating with investigation.
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122663958/
Citations: (2018) 3 SCC 22
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
High Court of Himachal Pradesh has granted anticipatory bail to the accused in this 420 case
[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”]
Wonderful judgment from Ms Rekha Rani of Delhi District and Sessions Court, who held that
From Para 10, “It is quite shocking and deplorable that a person having the qualification as the respondent has, having capacity to work has chosen not to work on her own will. Respondent further stated that she cannot travel alone anywhere and she wants the appellant to travel with her to help her in search of job. The said submission is neither palatable nor digestible. She is embroiled in bitter litigation with the appellant. Both are coming to the Court separately. If respondent can come to the Court to fight litigation alone, she can go alone to search a job as well.“
From Para 11,
“Be that as it may, at this stage, the appellant has stated that he is willing to accompany the respondent whereever she has applied for a job and get a call for interview. He has also stated that he is also willing to assist her in whatever way she wants his assistance in finding placement. He also voluntarily agreed to pay Rs.12,000/- per month to the respondent as awarded to the respondent vide the impugned order for a period of one year and has submitted that during this period respondent should make sincere efforts for getting a job.”
From Para 12,
“I fully agree with the submissions made by the appellant. Respondent admitted being more qualified than the appellant. She admitted being able bodied person and having capacity to earn. As such she cannot be allowed to sit idle at home to put financial burden on the appellant. Let her make sincere endeavour to find work. As offered by appellant, if respondent needs assistance of the appellant in finding job, she may communicate with him by sending SMS on mobile / email. Both the parties are directed to exchange their respective mobile numbers and email addresses, within a week before Ld. Trial Court. Appellant has agreed to pay her maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month for a period of one year and during this period, she should make sincere efforts and start working. The impugned order is operative for one year from the date of order.”
The earlier order from trial court which ordered monthly Rs.12,000/- maintenance is here.
[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”]
In this judgment from Apex Court, it was held that, despite the wife was a working lady and had income from properties, “Since both the wife and husband are residing at Agra. In our view, it is not possible for the wife to maintain herself in the town of Agra with the income of less than Rupees nine thousand per month. The husband, who is earning at least Rupees Twenty thousand per month, as stated by the appellant in this appeal and not controverted, is liable to pay some amount of maintenance to the wife so that she may be able to maintain herself. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it would be just and expedient to direct the husband to pay Rupees five thousand per month to the wife by way of maintenance from the date of filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.”
This is the installment scheme devised by Apex Court, which goes into future installments too.
“Respondent No.1 is directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rupees five thousand per month from 1st November, 1998 till 31st July, 2008 in the following manner:
By 31st August, 2008, Rupees fifty thousand;
By 30th September, 2008, Rupees fifty thousand;
By 31st October, 2008, Rupees fifty thousand;
By 31st November, 2008, Rupees One lakh fifty thousand;
By 31st December, 2008, Rupees One lakh fifty thousand;
By 31st January, 2009, the balance amount.”
Then, in just over 6 months, a settlement is arrived at by the parties and per the settlement terms, all cases between them are quashed in one fell swoop. Read Pages 2 and 3.
This is the Statement of Objects and Reasons of PWDV Act
This is the Statement of Objects and Reasons of MWPSC Act
In this landmark judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court, it was held that a daughter (not just a son) is also liable to pay maintenance to her parents under 125 CrPC read with Sec 8 of IPC.
The lower court which is Bombay High Court has given this order here, was later on confirmed by the Apex Court.
This has a precedence from a Kerala high Court judgment available here and one subsequent judgment of High Court of AP here.
Citation: [1987 SCR (2) 331], [1987 SCC (2) 278], [JT 1987 (3) 46], [1987 SCALE (1) 379], [1987 BOMCR SC 1 629], [1987 AIR SC 1100], [1987 SCC CRI 354], [1987 CRIMES SC 1 713], [1987 CRIMES SC 3 348], [1987 CRLJ SC 977], [1987 ECC 11 416], [1987 ACR SC 11 334], [1987 APLJ SC 1 35], [1987 AWC SC 676], [1987 BOMLR 89 130], [1987 KLT SC 1 674], [1987 MHLJ 395], [1987 MPLJ 218], [1988 SHIMLC 1 133]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/780813/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac39e4b014971140e515
Bad Behavior has blocked 619 access attempts in the last 7 days.
