Here is a wonderful resource from BankExamsToday.com
Recent Constitutional Amendments from 1951 to 2019Month: April 2019
Sangita Saha Vs Abhijit Saha and Ors on 28 January, 2019
Apex Court has upheld the Kolkata High Court judgment wherein it has affirmed that, when there is no DV, no reliefs flow from the case.
Sangita Saha Vs Abhijit Saha and Ors on 28 January, 2019“The respondent filed a revision before the High Court, which was allowed. The High Court set aside the order passed by the learned District Judge in the appeal by observing that the petitioner was unable to establish any incident of torture or demand of money or physical violence. In that view of the matter, the High Court was of the opinion that the petitioner was not entitled to any order in her favour. It is pertinent to state that the High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to claim residence in the shared household. But that entitlement is only in case she establishes domestic violence, which she did not.”
Citations: [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 559], [2020 (3) SCC (Cri) 573]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199772841/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d848ce9714d58266e07f0be
The High Court of Kolkata judgment is here.
Key Paras:
Regarding residence orders passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment this Court is of the view that before passing of such order satisfaction of the concerned Court is necessary that domestic violence has been caused. In the instant case the plea of domestic violence is under consideration only on the basis of sole, solitary uncorroborated oral testimony of the aggrieved wife (opposite party herein). In the eye of law plea is not proof. Allegations of domestic violence are grave in nature and have serious impact if really proved.
Unless it is satisfactorily established that domestic violence has taken place neither any protection order under Section 18 nor any residence order under Section 19 nor any order for monetary relief under Section 20 nor any compensation order under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should be passed.
In my view, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the facts that the aggrieved party wife failed to establish any incident of torture on her or any incident of demand of money and assault upon her and her father by present petitioners and said learned Judge has overlooked the factum of withholding the father and personal attendant of the opposite party from the witness box.
Abhijit Saha and Ors Vs Sangita Saha on 17 September, 2015
Another good judgment from High Court of Kolkata wherein it was held that,
Abhijit Saha and Ors Vs Sangita Saha on 17 September, 2015“Unless it is satisfactorily established that domestic violence has taken place neither any protection order under Section 18 nor any residence order under Section 19 nor any order for monetary relief under Section 20 nor any compensation order under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should be passed.”
The Supreme Court judgment is here.
G.Ramesh Babu vs Radhika on 19 December, 2018
Another judgment from Madras High Court, wherein a false DV case on parents was quashed due to generic and non-specific allegation.
G.Ramesh Babu Vs Radhika on 19 December, 2018Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11203719/
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
Perumal Vs Janaki on 20 January, 2014
Another landmark judgment from Justice Jasti Chalameswar on the Supervisory Authority of High Courts on Lower Courts in a state and how and why it should have been invoked in this case gainfully. If not under 193 IPC, invocation of 211 IPC was very much desirable in this case.
Another observation is that one can file Perjury under section 340 CrPC even after getting acquittal.
Perumal Vs Janaki on 20 January, 2014Citations : [2015 NCC 1 678], [2014 SCC 5 377], [2014 SCC CRI 2 591], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 46], [2014 CTC 1 664], [2014 AIC 135 224], [2014 AIOL 32], [2014 AIR SC 993], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 2 70], [2014 CRLJ SC 1454], [2014 JT 2 180], [2014 SCALE 1 406], [2014 SLT 1 680], [2014 KLJ 1 688], [2014 AICLR 1 828], [2014 MLJ CRI 1 505], [2014 RAJ 1 30], [2014 SCJ 3 152], [2014 LW CRL 1 793], [2014 KCCR SN 3 166], [2014 AIR SCW 993], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 851], [2014 CUT LT 118 22]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/25369927/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af43e4b0149711415fb6
Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (Ethics for Judiciary) and In-House Procedure
Here is the list of ethics for High Judiciary (this is what judges of High Court and Supreme Court call themselves)
Restatement of Values of Judicial LifeAnd the revised In-House Procedure, for taking suitable remedial action against judges who, by their acts of omission or commission, do not follow universally accepted values of Judicial Life including those included in the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life.
In-house Procedure 2014-12-31P.Trivikrama Prasad Vs State Of A.P. on 29 January, 2016
This is another judgment from AP High Court which talks about Rule 37 of CRP and CO, 1990.
P.Trivikrama Prasad Vs State Of A.P. on 29 January, 2016 crlp_4854_2015The bulk of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 1990 is available here.
T.Vinil SO Srinivasulu Vs State Of A.P. on 22 September, 2015
This is another judgment from AP High Court which talks about Rule 37 of CRP and CO, 1990.
T.Vinil SO Srinivasulu Vs State Of A.P. on 22 September, 2015 crlp_8193_2015The bulk of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 1990 is available here.
Gadu Narayanarao and Anr Vs State Of A.P. and Anr on 3 June, 2015
This is one of the earliest judgments from Justice Shri B Siva Shankar Rao, where in he mentioned about Rule 37 of the Criminal Rule of Practice and Circular Order, 1990
Gadu Narayanarao and Anr Vs State Of A.P. and Anr on 3 June, 2015 crlp_3823_2015The bulk of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 1990 is available here.
The Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (High Court of A.P.)
Here is the 1990 edition of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (High Court of A.P.).
THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE AND CIRCULAR ORDERS, 1990Four judgments of AP High Court that I could find related to Rule 37, are the following:
- Gadu Narayanarao and Anr Vs State Of A.P. and Anr on 3 June, 2015
- Gaddameedi Nagamani Vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2015
- T.Vinil S/O Srinivasulu Vs State Of A.P. on 22 September, 2015
- P.Trivikrama Prasad Vs State Of A.P. on 29 January, 2016
You can take a look at my 498A case here, where I have used Rule 37 successfully and am filing (absent) petitions via Registered Post – Acknowledge Due to the filing section.
The Amendments made to AP Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 are listed below.
2023-02-17 Amendment to CrRP 1990Find the Civil Rules of Practice of AP High Court here.
