Telugu
Sudigundaalu
Ashwathama
Srava Sandhya
Tamil
Manithan
Hindi
Pink
Jolly LLB
Jolly LLB 2
Aitraaz
Shourya
Mulk
https://www.primevideo.com/detail/Dhananjoy/0OWLNAT6SAFOS2BPIC0KCNO7J1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhananjoy_Chatterjee
English
Clock work orange
12 angry men
My cousine Vinny ( extemly funny & creative)
Philadelphia ( Tom Hanks & denzil – Jo lost due to HIV )
To kill a mockingbird ( child role )
Movie Lists
https://m.imdb.com/list/ls026258815/
Maintenance judgments by Enactment
PWDV Act 2005
No Maintenance under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
Grant of Maintenance under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
Hindu Marriage Act
No Maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act
Grant of Maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act
125 CrPC
No Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
Others
Grant or Enhancement of Interim Maintenance
No Maintenance to Knife Judgments
Maintenance for Limited Time Period here.
A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court passed guidelines in Rajnesh Vs Neha on how to handle multiple maintenance litigation here.
MASTER SITEMAP here.
Apex Court held in this decision u/s 23 of Hindu Marriage Act that, Court has to consider the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent before granting Interim Maintenance to application.
From Para 8,
8. Section 24 thus provides that in any proceeding under the Act, the spouse who has no independent income sufficient for her or his support may apply to the court to direct the respondent to pay the monthly maintenance as the court may think reasonable, regard being had to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent. The very language in which Section is couched indicates that wide discretion has been conferred on the court in the matter of an order for interim maintenance. Although the discretion conferred on the court is wide, the Section provides guideline inasmuch as while fixing the interim maintenance the court has to give due regard to the income of the respondent and the petitioner’s own income. In other words, in the matter of making an order for interim maintenance, the discretion of the court must be guided by the criterion provided in the Section, namely, the means of the parties and also after taking into account incidental and other relevant factors like social status; the background from which both the parties come from and the economical dependence of the petitioner. Since an order for interim maintenance by its very nature is temporary, a detailed and elaborate exercise by the court may not be necessary, but, at the same time, the court has got to take all the relevant factors into account and arrive at a proper amount having regard to the factors which are mentioned in the statute.
Final Straw:
The cost of the appeal is burdened at Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) on the husband to be paid to the appellant within one month from today.
Citations: 2010 SCR 8 505, 2010 AIR SC 3540, 2010 SCC 12 242, 2010 SCALE 7 201,
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/9474/
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
Supreme Court of India laid the explanation for the definition of conspiracy as prescribed u/s 120A IPC (and punishment u/s 120B IPC).
From Para 32,
32. Therefore, in order to constitute a conspiracy, meeting of mind of two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act by illegal means is a must. In
other words, it is sine qua non for invoking the plea of conspiracy against the accused. However, it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy, which is being hatched and nor it is necessary to prove their active part/role in such meeting.
Bilal Hajar @ Abdul Hameed Vs State Rep by the Inspector of Police on 10 October, 2018
Citations: 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1865
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31194569/
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
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.—When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,—
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation.—It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
Apex Court held that, a High Court can quash even an interlocutory order under section 482 CrPC.
From Para 11,
Hooghly Mills Company Ltd Vs State of West Bengal on 17 October, 201911. Coming to the final issue, Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. provides that the High Court’s powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. Whereas Section 482 of the Cr.P.C provides that nothing in the Cr.P.C will limit the High Court’s inherent powers to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. Hence the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 to set aside an interlocutory order, notwithstanding the bar under Section 397(2). However it is settled law that this can only be done in exceptional cases. This is, for example, where a criminal proceeding has been initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction (See Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551).
Citations:
Indiankanoon.org link:
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
Honorable Delhi High Court held that, “if any of the allegations are found to be patently false, the trial court shall take necessary steps to prosecute the concerned complainant to the full extent of law”
Sameer Garg and Anr Vs State and Anr on 25 September, 2019Citations:
Indiankanoon.org link:
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
Few other Orders passed by the Supreme Court in the Khatri and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Ors case (available here)are listed below for reference.
(1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial
in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made:
Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act , 1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of clause (1) of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); or to affect the provisions of section 27 of that Act.
Explanation.—An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact.
Bad Behavior has blocked 870 access attempts in the last 7 days.
