web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: September 2020

Master Balachandar Krishnan Vs State of Karnataka on 29 Sep 2020

Posted on September 30, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

The Amendment Act brought by Karnataka Legislature was struck down as Unconstitutional and untravires to Parent Law, NLSIU Act 1986.

This apart, the Court held that the 5% concession to be given to Karnataka students (under the 25% domicile reservation) would tamper with the merit list, and therefore, is not permissible under the ambit of Article 14.

Master Balachandar Krishnan Vs State of Karnataka on 29 Sep 2020
Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Law or Body Struck Down as Unconstitutional Master Balachandar Krishnan Vs State of Karnataka | Leave a comment

CrPC 309 – Power to Postpone or Adjourn Proceedings

Posted on September 30, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

(1) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded:
Provided that when the inquiry or trial relates to an offence under section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the inquiry or trial shall] be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet.
(2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody:
Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time:
Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him:]
Provided also that—
(a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party;
(b) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment;
(c) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader though present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the Court may, if thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross-examination of the witness, as the case may be.
Explanation 1.—If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand.
Explanation 2.—The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused.


Landmark judgments from Supreme Court are here (2013) and here (2018).

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged CrPC 309 - Power to Postpone or Adjourn Proceedings | Leave a comment

C Aswini Dutt Vs State of AP

Posted on September 29, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Without paying compensation for the land grabbed to the tune of 40 Acres, the State Government permitted Airports Authority of India to proceed with Expansion of Gannavaram Airport.

Case No. WP 17656/2020


All the atrocities of State Government here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged C Aswini Dutt Vs State of AP Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh | Leave a comment

Subhash Chandra Das Chowdhury Vs Sandhya Das Chowdhury on 18 July 2008

Posted on September 29, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of Calcutta held as following, while granted husband a decree of divorce.

However, we, in this matrimonial proceeding for divorce, cannot approve the action of the wife of forcefully entering the house of the husband when a suit for divorce had already been filed against her on the ground of cruelty. She had her rented accommodation where she was staying and had also the paternal house at Dum Dum. She is an employee of the Central Government and is not a helpless lady in that sense of the term and not even dependant upon the husband in anyway. In our view, once a matrimonial suit has been filed, the wife has no right to have a force entry in the house of her husband against his will if she is provided with maintenance by the husband. In the case before us, the respondent being an employee of the Central Government, she is quite capable of maintaining herself and thus, she had no right to enter the house of the husband by the help of the local people. The sole object of the respondent was to frustrate the suit by contending that she had been staying in the same room as husband and wife and she has actually taken such plea in this proceeding. We, however, do not believe such assertion of the wife after taking into consideration the fact that the she has initiated proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code during the pendency of the suit and all the members of the family were arrested. No reasonable person will believe the statement of the wife that the husband is staying with her notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal case where charge has been framed and he is an accused person along with other members of the family. Such wrongful entry in the house with the help of local people has definitely caused humiliation of the husband, an employee of the defence service, in the estimation of the local people and in the facts of the present case positively amounts to cruelty. We further find that the wife in her written statements made specific allegation that the husband, in order to marry his girlfriend and to misappropriate her ornaments, filed the suit for divorce. In evidence, however, the respondent did not lead any evidence in support of such allegation about the moral character of the husband and no suggestion was even given in cross-examination of the husband that he had any illicit relation with any girl. We, therefore, find that the wife has made baseless allegation against the husband in the written statement about the desire of the husband to marry any other lady and such act also amounts to cruelty.
Therefore, even if we hold that the husband has failed to prove that the wife used to allege his illicit relation with his own sisters, we are satisfied that the subsequent behaviors of the wife towards the husband definitely amount to cruelty.

And then…

We find from the deposition of the wife that she is a pathological liar as would appear from various deliberate false statements made in course of deposition. She stated that she came to know of the filing of the suit on 12th August, 1990 whereas it appears from the order-sheet that she entered appearance in the suit on 26th April, 1990 and repeatedly prayed for time to file written statement. In her cross-examination, she stated that she lodged complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against her father-in-law and the sisters-in-law and not against her husband although it appears that the husband was one of the accused persons and was arrested. She further stated in one place of her deposition that in the rented accommodation, both of them were happy and there was no torture upon either of the parties. (See: page 112 at the penultimate paragraph of the Paper Book). Such statement is inconsistent with her other statements as regards the alleged misbehaviour of the husband in the rented accommodation. She has alleged conspiracy of killing her against the sisters of the husband and in the same breath, expressed her desire to stay with her husband along with her sisters-in-law. She specifically stated that she never created pressure to take any rented house but the facts remain that the said tenancy was taken in her name and it was not the husband who of his own took such tenancy in the name of his wife.
On consideration of the entire materials on record we, thus, find that from the very beginning the wife and her family, took shelter under the local
organisations controlled by the political party and created pressure upon the husband, first to become a domesticated son-in-law and then to take rented accommodation for the purpose of living separately from the old parents and the dependant sisters of the husband. Even thereafter, she could not be happy and when, the suit was filed after the death of her mother-in-law, she with the help of the local political party entered forcibly in the house of her husband and started criminal proceedings against the husband and the members of his family. However, in Court she took a stance that she was ready to live with her husband. All these facts taken together will lead to the conclusion that she was intolerant in her attitude and her aforesaid acts definitely amounted to cruelty.

 

Subhash Chandra Das Chowdhury Vs Sandhya Das Chowdhury on 18 July 2008

Naveen Kohli case here.


Other cases wherein Divorce was granted to Husband here.

Posted in High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged False Incest Or Rape Or Sexual Or Sexual Harassment Allegations HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband Naveen Kohli Vs Neelu Kohli Subhash Chandra Das Chowdhury Vs Sandhya Das Chowdhury | Leave a comment

Bhaskar Das Vs Renu Das on 19 Jun 2020

Posted on September 29, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on Supreme Court decision here, Gauhati High Court held that, filing false criminal cases against husband with a malafide intension is one form of Cruelty and is a solid ground for Divorce.

Bhaskar Das Vs Renu Das on 19 Jun 2020

The cunning knife filed a Review against the above Judgment and even that got tossed into Dustbin.

Renu Das Vs Bhaskar Das on 17 Sep 2020
Posted in High Court of Gauhati Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Bhaskar Das Vs Renu Das Rani Narasimha Sastry Vs Rani Suneela Rani | Leave a comment

U.V. Krishnam Raju Vs State of AP

Posted on September 29, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Without paying compensation for the land grabbed to the tune of 31 Acres, the State Government permitted Airports Authority of India to proceed with Expansion of Gannavaram Airport.

Case: WP 17454/2020

 


All the atrocities of State Government here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh U.V. Krishnam Raju Vs State of AP | Leave a comment

Divorce Judgments

Posted on September 28, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a List of some useful Divorce Judgments under Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and related interim-maintenance and alimony case laws.

Mutual Consent Divorce Granted after settlement

The collection is here.


Divorce Granted to Husband

The collection is here.


Divorce Granted to Wife

The collection is here.


Divorce Set Aside

The collection is here.


No Interim Maintenance under sec 24 of Hindu Marriage Act

The collection is here.


Grant of Interim-Maintenance under sec 24 of Hindu Marriage Act

The collection is here.


Permanent Alimony Denied

The collection is here.

 


MASTER SITEMAP here.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to | Leave a comment

Rani Narasimha Sastry Vs Rani Suneela Rani on 05 Jan 2017

Posted on September 28, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Telangana High Court denied Divorce on the ground of Cruelty saying that,

14…..

Merely because the respondent has sought for maintenance or has filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, they cannot be said to be valid grounds for holding that such a recourse adopted by the respondent amounts to cruelty.”

Rani Narsimha Sastry Vs Rani Suneela Rani on 05 Jan 2017

Citations : 2017 SCC ONLINE HYD 714

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e23459c46571b7222aa699a


Supreme Court granted Divorce here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Divorce Not granted on Cruelty ground Rani Narasimha Sastry Vs Rani Suneela Rani | Leave a comment

Sukhar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 1 October 1999

Posted on September 27, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court explained the Section 6 of Evidence Act.

 

Section 6 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule whereunder the hearsay evidence becomes admissible. But for bringing such hearsay evidence within the provisions of Section 6, what is required to be established is that it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there should not be an interval which would allow fabrication. The statements sought to be admitted, therefore, as forming part of res gestae, must have been made contemporaneously with the acts or immediately thereafter. The aforesaid rule as it is stated in Wigmores Evidence Act reads thus: Under the present Exception [to hearsay] an utterance is by hypothesis, offered as an assertion to evidence the fact asserted (for example that a car-brake was set or not set), and the only condition is that it shall have been made spontaneously, i.e. as the natural effusion of a state of excitement. Now this state of excitement may well continue to exist after the exciting fact has ended. The declaration, therefore, may be admissible even though subsequent to the occurrence, provided it is near enough in time to allow the assumption that the exciting influence continued.

… and…

Sarkar on Evidence (Fifteenth Edition) summarises the law relating to applicability of Section 6 of the Evidence Act thus:

1. The declarations (oral or written must relate to the act which is in issue or relevant thereto; they are not admissible merely because they accompany an act. Moreover the declarations must relate to and explain the fact they accompany, and not independent facts previous or subsequent thereto unless such facts are part of a transaction which is continuous.
2. The declarations must be substantially contemporaneous with the fact and not merely the narrative of a past.
3. The declaration and the act may be by the same person, or they may be by different persons, e.g., the declarations of the victim, assailant and bystanders. In conspiracy, riot &c.the declarations of all concerned in the common object are admissible.
4. Though admissible to explain or corroborate, or to understand the significance of the act, declarations are not evidence of the truth of the matters stated.

 

Sukhar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 1 October 1999
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Evidence Act 6 - Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction (Res Gestae) Sukhar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh | Leave a comment

Rohtash Vs State of Haryana on 22 May 2012

Posted on September 24, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This case emphasizes the importance of examination of material witnesses in proving the allegations of Demand for Dowry, the lack of which results in Acquittal of accused persons.

Rohtash Vs State of Haryana on 22 May 2012

Citations: [2012 ACR 3002], [2012 AIR SC 2297], [2012 ALD CRI 2 340], [2012 JLJR 4 97], [2012 NCC 2 308], [2012 RCR CRIMINAL 5 799], [2012 RLW SC 4 3745], [2012 SCALE 5 578], [2012 SCC 6 589], [2012 UC 2 1310], [2012 SCC CRI 3 287], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 457], [2012 AIC 115 87], [2012 GUJLR 3 2199], [2012 CUTLT 114 1107], [2013 SCJ 4 636], [2012 SLT 7 1], [2012 AIOL 239], [2012 AIR SC 3318], [2012 CRIMES SC 2 324], [2012 CRLJ SC 3189], [2012 JT 5 451], [2012 SUPREME 4 88], [2012 KCCR SN 4 228], [2012 DMC 3 323], [2012 DLT CRI 3 6], [2012 MAHLJ CRI 4 97], [2012 CUT LT 114 1107], [2012 GUJ LR 3 2199], [2012 AIR SCW 3318], [2012 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 539]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/146360566/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af20e4b0149711415aff

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Acquitted in IPC 498A Non Production of Material Witness Reportable Judgement or Order Rohtash Vs State of Haryana | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Sana Nitish Kumar Reddy Vs State of Telangana on 26 April 2023 June 6, 2023
  • Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) Vs Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and Ors on 18 May 2023 May 30, 2023
  • Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj Vs State of A.P and Ors on 15 Jul 1999 May 16, 2023
  • Rajendra Kumar Vs Rukhmani Bisen on 02 Feb 2023 May 16, 2023
  • Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs Rita Dey Chowdhury on 19 Apr 2017 May 15, 2023

Most Read Posts

  • Premchand Vs State of Maharashtra on 03 Mar 2023 (1,220 views)
  • In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (Guidelines Issued) on 31 Jan 2023 (1,041 views)
  • Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan on 01 May 2023 (839 views)
  • Y.Narasimha Rao and Ors Vs Y.Venkata Lakshmi and Anr on 9 Jul 1991 (754 views)
  • Ritu @ Ridhima and Another Vs Sandeep Singh Sangwan on 15 Mar 2022 (646 views)
  • Rakesh Raman Vs Kavita on 26 Apr 2023 (632 views)
  • P Sivakumar and 2 Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 09 Feb 2023 (605 views)
  • YS Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs Central Bureau of Investigation on 26 Aug 2022 (572 views)
  • Life Cycle stages of a Public Interest Litigation (WP-PIL) in a High Court (548 views)
  • State of Maharashtra Vs Dr. Praful B. Desai on 01 Apr 2003 (544 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (335)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (334)Landmark Case (322)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (272)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (220)Work-In-Progress Article (218)1-Judge Bench Decision (156)Sandeep Pamarati (88)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (84)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (75)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (56)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (53)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (52)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (46)CrPC 482 - Quash (38)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (35)Advocate Antics (34)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (33)IPC 498a - Not Made Out (32)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (647)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (299)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (159)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (108)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (91)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (66)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (54)General Study Material (54)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (48)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (45)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (45)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (41)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (41)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (31)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (17)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on All Reliefs from Judiciary
  • Veena Reddy.T on All Reliefs from Judiciary
  • ShadesOfKnife on Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 August 2010
  • G Reddeppa on Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 August 2010
  • ShadesOfKnife on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022

Archives of SoK

  • June 2023 (1)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (29)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (102)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • FRA (Frankfurt) on 2023-06-16 June 16, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 16, 00:00 - 05:00 UTCJun 7, 14:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in FRA (Frankfurt) datacenter on 2023-06-16 between 00:00 and 05:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for […]
  • AMS (Amsterdam) on 2023-06-15 June 15, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 15, 23:30 UTC  -  Jun 16, 05:30 UTCJun 5, 16:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in AMS (Amsterdam) datacenter between 2023-06-15 23:30 and 2023-06-16 05:30 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this […]
  • FRA (Frankfurt) on 2023-06-15 June 15, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 15, 00:00 - 05:00 UTCJun 7, 14:20 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in FRA (Frankfurt) datacenter on 2023-06-15 between 00:00 and 05:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 94.131.119.116 | SDW June 7, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 373 | First: 2023-06-05 | Last: 2023-06-07
  • 200.222.71.218 | SD June 7, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 41 | First: 2022-10-22 | Last: 2023-06-07
  • 175.165.183.175 | SD June 7, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 31 | First: 2022-01-13 | Last: 2023-06-07
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 1062 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel