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(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).
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.
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.
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 2020The cunning knife filed a Review against the above Judgment and even that got tossed into Dustbin.
Renu Das Vs Bhaskar Das on 17 Sep 2020Without 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.
Telangana High Court denied Divorce on the ground of Cruelty saying that,
Rani Narsimha Sastry Vs Rani Suneela Rani on 05 Jan 201714…..
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.”
Citations : 2017 SCC ONLINE HYD 714
Other Sources:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e23459c46571b7222aa699a
Supreme Court granted Divorce here.
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
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 2012Citations: [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
Honey trapper tried her best to trap this man as he denied to pay her Five Lakh Rupees. Delhi High Court prima facie concluded that the man needs to be protected from Arrest, so granted Anticipatory Bail to the man. All know that, this false case will be dismissed. And no action will be taken against the real abuser of law.
Kapil Gupta Vs State on 23 Sep 2020Bad Behavior has blocked 2311 access attempts in the last 7 days.
