On 2021-03-26
It was ordered that for mental checkup be done for the accused-Advocate through a qualified Doctor or a psychiatrist and submit report before this Court.
Month: April 2021
S.Ramesh Vs MS.Cethar Ltd on 12 Jan 2016
Even though this is not a matrimonial case, the following is nice statement made by the Division bench of Madurai bench of Madras High Court.
From Para 17,
….
It is needless to point out that a person who enjoyed the benefit of an interim order, is liable to compensate the other party, when the main case is decided against him.
….
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110371360/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5728e0d6e561092708a3c705
Masood Khan Vs. Millie Hazarika on 04 Mar 2021
Disagreeing with a catena of judgements here, here, here, here, Single-bench of High Court of Meghalaya relied upon this landmark decision from Supreme Court here and held that a false DV case can be quashed u/s 482 CrPC.
From Paras 33, 34 and 33,
33. The argument of the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 in the opinion of this Court are valid as regard the nature and relief contemplated under the DV Act 2005, particularly those seen in Sections 18 to 22 which are civil in nature and can be sought for before any civil court, family court or a criminal court as provided under Section 26 of the said DV Act. However, the learned counsel has failed to notice that in Section 26 of the DV Act, the aggrieved person apart from a civil court or a family court, can seek the reliefs stated above even from a criminal court and in doing so, the aggrieved person would subject herself to the jurisdiction of a criminal court following the procedure of the Criminal Procedure Code.
34. In fact, Section 28 of the DV Act 2005 specifically provides that all proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 as well as Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though liberty was also given to the court to lay down its own procedure.
35. The applicability of the said provision of Section 28 of the said DV Act in criminal proceedings was emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja (supra) at paragraphs 138 and 139 where it has restated that the procedure to be followed shall be under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
From Paras 38, 39
38. It is also a fact that Section 482 Cr.P.C provides for inherent power on the High Court to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code and as stated above, proceedings under the DV Act being governed by the procedure under the Cr.P.C, therefore the logical conclusion would be that an application under Section 482 is maintainable qua order passed under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the DV Act.
39. With due respect, the decisions of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court and the Madras High Court cited above and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No 2, as far as the procedural aspects under the DV Act is concerned, would not stand the test in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja (supra).
V.K.Vijayalekshmi Amma Vs Bindu V on 2 Dec 2009
This case was decided by a single-judge bench and key points are highlighted below. This case law was cited here.
Citations : [2010 AIR KER NOC 415], [2010 ILR KER 1 60], [2010 CRLJ NOC 549], [2010 RCR CIVIL 6 1046], [2010 KERLT 1 79], [2009 SCC ONLINE KER 6448], [2010 AIC 87 367], [2010 KLT 1 79]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40197/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b48cef607dba348ffefb96
http://document.manupatra.com/kerala/2001-2003/ke2009/K090810.htm
Latha.P.C and Ors Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 15 Sep 2020
A single-judge bench of Kerala High Court, while denying to invoke 482 CrPC to quash a DV case based on the landmark judgment here, held as follows. But Supreme Court had taken a different view in the landmark judgment here just a month later.
From Para 8,
8. The Act is a welfare legislation enacted to provide a remedy in civil law for protection of women from domestic violence. The proceedings under the Act are, therefore, essentially civil in nature except in so far as it relate to Section 31 dealing with the breach of protection order issued under the Act
and Section 33 dealing with failure or refusal by Protection Offices in discharging their duties in terms of the orders issued by the Court. As such, in Vijayalekshmi Amma v. Bindu, 2010 (1) KLT 79, this Court held that a party against whom a proceedings is initiated under Section 12 of the Act cannot approach this court for quashing the proceedings, invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code, and that the power of this Court under Section 482 can be exercised only in appropriate cases either to give effect to any order passed under the Act or to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice, when cognizance is taken by the Magistrate for an offence under subsection (1) of Section 31 or Section 33 of the Act.…
As evident from the extracted paragraphs of the judgement, this Court has held in the said case that a person to whom notice is issued by the Magistrate in an application under Section 12 of the Act can appear before the Magistrate and contend that the proceedings is not maintainable against him, on the ground either that the person who filed the application is not an ‘aggrieved person’ as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act, or that he would not fall within the definition of the ‘respondent’ in Section 2(q) of the Act, or that the allegations do not make out a case of ‘domestic violence’ as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act or that the reliefs sought are not reliefs provided for in the Act. It was also held by this Court in the said case that such contentions as regards the maintainability of the application, if raised, shall be decided by the Magistrate. It was further held by this Court in the said case that so long as the respondent is not an accused in a proceedings initiated under the Act, he is not even obliged to apply for bail in respect of such proceedings and his personal presence is not mandatory for hearing and disposing of an application under Section 12. In the light of the decision of this Court in Vijayalekshmi, according to me, the Criminal M.C. is not maintainable.
Misuse of Social Welfare (Gender-biased) Laws in India:
From Para 9,
9. Despite the findings aforesaid, it is necessary to mention that in so far as the proceedings under the Act are to be dealt with by criminal courts in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code, it has become a common practice now to rope in the relatives, at times even distant relatives of the person from whom relief is essentially intended, as respondents in the applications instituted under the Act without any bonafides and with oblique motives, on omnibus and vague allegations, despite various judgements of the Apex Court deprecating that practice. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Apex Court has taken note of the said fact and observed that majority of such complaints are filed either on the advice of the lawyers or with their concurrence. Be that as it may. It is also observed that notice is invariably issued to all the respondents in such applications without application of mind as to whether the aggrieved person has made out a case of domestic violence against all of them, as a result of which, it is noticed that some of the proceedings under the Act, where parties are arrayed as respondents without making out a case of domestic violence against them, have become a tool of harassment at the hands of the aggrieved persons to obtain reliefs which they are not entitled to. The statute being a remedial one to protect the women from domestic violence, it has to be enforced having regard to the realities of life. As such, even while taking all endeavours possible to protect the aggrieved persons from domestic violence, the courts have to be extremely cautious and careful to ensure that its powers are not being abused. One of the important steps to be taken towards that direction is to scrutinize the applications meticulously and satisfy that a case of domestic violence as defined in the Act is made out against all the respondents and no one is arrayed as a party to the proceedings on omnibus and vague allegations, so that the court can refrain from issuing notice to them. The provisions in the statute especially Section 28, conferring power on the Magistrate to lay down its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 or under subsection (2) of Section 23 would indicate that the scheme of the statute is that the approach of the courts shall be to enforce the provisions of the Act, keeping in mind the fact that the parties who are close relatives in most of the cases, would at some point of time reconcile their differences and lead a life in harmony and the opportunity for the parties to bring about a settlement of their differences is not lost on account of the steps taken in the proceedings. If proceedings under the Act are permitted to be used as tools of harassment, I have no doubt that the possibility of the parties settling their disputes amicably and leading a life in harmony would be bleak.
Citations: [2020 SCC ONLINE KER 4238]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126633191/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5f80abd89fca190ae54bcb50
Index to DV Judgements is here.
Bhagya and Ors Vs Jayalakshmi and Ors on 13 Feb 2019
The Division Bench clarified the legal position on obtaining NOC from an advocate before engaging the services of another advocate while perusing an earlier case law here.
Memo for withdrawal of the appeal is filed on 31-1-2019 signed by the three appellants. The memo filed by the new counsel does not have a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the earlier counsel. On questioning, he places reliance on the Judgment of this Court passed in MFA No.6526 of 2013 on 2-12-2016 (KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED., vs. M.RAJASHEKAR AND OTHERS) and submits that it is not necessary to obtain a No Objection Certificate to file a vakalath. We are unable to accept the submission. Reliance placed by the counsel on para-8 of the Judgment is misconceived. The Division Bench held therein that ‘No Objection Certificate’ is not required only in a situation where the Advocate is discharged by his client in a manner known to law, only then a new counsel can enter vakalath without a ‘No Objection Certificate’. When the earlier counsel still holds a valid vakalath, the question of a new Advocate entering the case cannot be accepted. Therefore, the counsel has misread the aforesaid Judgment.
Citations : [2019 SCC ONLINE KAR 1974], [2019 KCCR 2 1453], [2019 AIR KAR 133], [2019 AIR KANT R 3 50], [2019 ICC 4 31]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26814810/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c8d0f119eff430a1ad75a63
https://www.lawyerservices.in/Bhagya-andamp-Others-Versus-Jayalakshmi-andamp-Others-2019-02-13
Other Judgements on this subject here.
Sarita Gosawi Vs Bharat Gosawi on 05 Mar 2021
There was mental cruelty done to husband and the High Court nailed the point straight.
From Paras 18 and 19,
18. Keeping in mind the aforesaid guiding parameters, now we proceed to examine the evidence on record. Apart from the allegations and counter allegations by the parties against each other with regard to their mutual misbehavior, the crucial point on which the respondent/ husband sought decree of divorce, and which according to him is the reason for his mental sufferings and anguishes, is the suspicious and skeptical nature of the appellant/ wife, as she used to have a doubt on his character. She was doubting his relations with one lady employee from his office. It is his case that the appellant/ wife used to visit his office and used to create scenes. She used to abuse him in filthy language on his character and used to humiliate him in front of their adolescent daughters.
19. The respondent/ husband, in his pleadings and evidence, further stated that he had purchased one plot of land and constructed a house thereon on loan and at present, the same is in possession of the appellant/ wife. He is paying installments for the repayment of the loan for house from his
salary account. To pacify her, he even transferred his house in her name. He has stated that fed-up with her acrimonious behaviour, he had to lodge reports at police station, and there were counselling before the Women Cell, and in consequence thereof, she resumed cohabitation. Lastly, he said, he had no option but to leave the house and to reside in a rented house.
20. A perusal of the written statements of the appellant/ wife would reflect that she has not denied, even by way of simple denial, about the contents in para 3 of the divorce petition of the respondent/ husband which are with regard to the suspicious nature of the appellant/ wife, doubting his character, abusing in a filthy language and visiting his office and creating scenes etc.
Crucial Paras 22 and 25,
22. In the instant case, admittedly, there are no positive allegations with regard to the character of the respondent/ husband in the written statement of the appellant/ wife. However, maintaining silence in her written statement and not countering the case of cruelty of the respondent/ husband on this ground, coupled with the fact that there were specific suggestions in the cross-examination of the respondent/ husband by taking the name of the alleged lady, in the opinion of this Court, is nothing but the unfounded allegation on the character of the husband as held in the above cited case.
25. A collective reading of his cross-examination, it appears, it is more focused on the maintenance part and less on the allegations of mental cruelty as alleged by the respondent/ husband. So the material allegations, with regard to mental cruelty as pleaded by the respondent/ husband, have neither be denied in the written statement of the appellant/ wife nor have they been sufficiently countered during his cross examination. As per law, the facts, which are not denied, are deemed to have been admitted. As per Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the facts which are not denied specifically are deemed to have been admitted, and simple denial is no denial. In the instant case, there is no denial at all.
Law involved,
26. The effect of non cross-examination of a witness was discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (Dead) Through Legal Representatives Vs. Muddasani Sarojana, reported in (2016) 12 SCC 288, wherein Their Lordships have held that the cross-examination is a matter of substance not of procedure one isrequired to put one’s own version in cross-examination of opponent. It is further observed that the effect of non-cross examination is that the statement of witness has not been disputed. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court relied on the judgment in the case of Maroti Bansi Teli Vs. Radhabai, reported in AIR 1945 Nag 60, wherein it has been laid down that the matters sworn to by one party in the pleadings notchallenged either in pleadings or cross-examination by other party must be accepted as fully established.
Closure:
31. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/ husband the case of Vijaykumar Bhate (supra) wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court took the view that the false and malicious allegations against the character of a spouse is a ground for dissolving the marriage on account of causing mental cruelty.
32. Furthermore, the appellant/ wife could not prove her allegations with regard to demand of dowry and ill-treatment. On the contrary, it is borne out from the record that the respondent/ husband himself had to leave from his own house fed-up with her mis-behaviour.
Kudari Chandrasekhar Vs State of AP on 08 Mar 2021
Helpful decision from AP High Court in a petition which was filed because Lower Court (staff?) returned a Perjury application u/s 340 asking how it was maintainable at that point in time/stage. Despite being explaining the reasons how such an application is maintainable, the Court returned the application with same endorsement.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid return of the petition is legally not sustainable under law. When the petitioner has explained as to how the petition is maintainable, the learned Judge has to hear him and then register the petition and then dispose of the same according to law and if the same is ultimately found to be not maintainable, it is well within the purview of the learned Judge to pass an appropriate reasoned order and a speaking order to that effect.
Therefore, this Criminal Petition is allowed with a direction to the trial Court to register the petition and then hear both the parties and dispose of the said petition according to law.
Index to Perjury Judgments here.
