Palagani Samrajyam and Anr Vs Palagani Nagaraju on 30 Dec 2019

Posted on June 19, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

It was held that there were no justifiable reasons for living separately.

From Para 13,

13) According to Respondents, the 1st Petitioner voluntarily left the company of the Respondent in the year 2014 and went to her parents house and refused to join him despite several attempts by Respondent. On the other hand, P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that 1st Petitioner was necked out from matrimonial home on 27/05/2015 after she was severely beaten by the Respondent. It is admitted fact that the Criminal Case was filed by P.W.1 against the Respondent. It is admitted fact that the 1st Petitioner and the 2nd Petitioner are presently residing at the house of parents of 1st Petitioner. The reason for disputes between P.W.1 and the Respondent are not entirely proved. Except for admission of pending Criminal case filed by P.W.1 against the Respondent under Section 498AIPC and the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no proof produced on behalf of the Petitioners to prove that the Respondent was responsible for beating her and for demanding additional dowry. The initial burden in a Maintenance Case is on the Petitioner and only after proving the facts stated by her, the burden shifts onto the Respondent. In the instant case, as discussed above, none of the allegations levelled by the 1st Petitioner against the Respondent have been proved. Since the fact that the 1st Petitioner and 2nd Petitioner are living separately from the Respondent is undisputed and justifiable reasons for living separately are not established by 1st Petitioner, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered against the 1st Petitioner and in favour of the Respondent.

Palagani Samrajyam and Anr Vs Palagani Nagaraju on 30 Dec 2019

Gadesula Radhika Vs Gadesula Rajesh on 22 Jan 2019

Posted on June 19, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A DJ Court refused to interfere into a maintenance dismissal order for wife, as she voluntarily left the company of respondent.

From Para 11,

11. As seen from the cross examination of P.W.1 she admitted that after their marriage, her sister stayed along with them in Uppal Area, till her marriage and the respondent respected her sister. P.W.1 further admitted that she did not file any documentary proof to show that her mother sold Ac 1.00 land and gave Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent to settle the matter with Amala Jyothi. P.W.1 also admitted that she studied M.Sc., Computers and she left the house of her husband without informing him and she is not willing to join with the respondent to lead marital life. P.W.1 further admitted that her parents and elders went to Aswapuram for mediation, she filed D.V.C case and Sec.498-A IPC case against him. Except the oral evidence of P.W.1, she did not choose to examine any witnesses or any documentary proof in support her version to prove that her parents gave Rs.10,00,000/- cash to the respondent and also gave Rs.15,00,000/- to the respondent and his father by selling Ac 1.00 land by her mother to settle the dispute with Amala Jyothi and the respondent was addicted to vices and failed to provide maintenance to her. Further as seen from the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 it appears that even the respondent is ready to maintain the petitioner, she is not willing to join the company of respondent to lead marital life. In such circumstances, in the absence of reliable evidence, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court rightly concluded that the petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance from the respondent without sufficient cause as she voluntarily left the company of respondent. Hence, I see there are no valid grounds to interfere with the findings of trial court.

Gadesula Radhika Vs Gadesula Rajesh on 22 Jan 2019

Byru Rajeswari Vs Byru Suresh Babu on 30 Apr 2018

Posted on June 19, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

Maintenance was denied to wife, because she could not prove her allegations with cogent evidences.

From Para 14,

14) Broadly speaking there is no dispute about the legal status of 1st Petitioner as lawfully wedded wife of the Respondent and the legal status of the
2nd Petitioner as the son of the 1st Petitioner and the Respondent. Upon perusal of evidence of P.W.1 and 2 and R.Ws.1 and 2, it is admitted fact that the marriage of 1st Petitioner and Respondent was performed on 13.06.2012. Admittedly P.W.1 and Respondent lived happily for one and 1/2 years i.e., only after few months after the birth of the 2nd Petitioner in the year 2013. Admittedly, P.W.1 began living away from her husband at her parents house when the 2nd Petitioner was aged 11 months old i.e., from March, 2014. There is variation in the evidence of the Petitioners and Respondent as to the exact reasons for separation of P.W.1 from R.W.1. Once it is admitted that P.W.1 is living separately from R.W.1, the burden of proving that she is living separately from R.W.1 for a reasonable cause is on the P.W.1. In support of the same the Petitioner made many allegations regarding the harassment meted out to her at the Respondent’s house during her stay with the Respondent. However, she also admitted that she lived happily for one and half years. Although she alleged that the Respondent did not visit hospital after the 2nd Petitioner was admitted in Hospital for Typhoid fever, P.W.2 admitted that the Respondents were present at the hospital and subsequently she returned back to Respondent’s home. Therefore all the allegations of P.W.1 prior to March, 2014 are not entirely proved. It is admitted by P.W.2 that no complaint was filed against the Respondent and his family with regard to dowry harassment and neither his daughter P.W.1 gave any such complaint. Although, P.W.1 stated in her chief-affidavit that on 19.02.2016 a Complaint was filed against the Respondent by her and the same was registered as Crime No.38/16 no certified copy of the complaint was filed by her and no exhibit was marked in proof of such complaint. The alleged complaint as per P.W.1 pertains to incident on 23.01.2016 when the Respondent and his parents visited P.W.1’s parents house and demanded her signature on divorce papers and pressed her neck and threatened her that they will kill her. Even otherwise the alleged F.I.R in existence relates to incident which occurred in 2016 i.e., two years after P.W.1 started living at her parents house. There are no specific dates mentioned by P.W.1 about the time when she returned to her parents home and the time when she tried to go back to the Respondent’s house with the help of mediators. Apart from admitted facts of P.W.1 that Respondent and herself lived happily for one and half years, she admitted that she does not want to go back to the Respondent even after the Respondent is willing to take her back. P.W.2 also deposed that he is not willing to send the 1st Petitioner to the Respondent’s fold and there were talks through elders by the Respondents but they have not acted or responded to the same. In such circumstances, it can be said that the 1st Petitioner is living separately at her parents house without any reasonable cause and therefore she is not entitled to claim maintenance. Therefore, point No.1 is answered partly in favour of the Respondent and against the 1st Petitioner.

Byru Rajeswari Vs Byru Suresh Babu on 30 Apr 2018

Index here.

Manjunath Eshwar Vs State of TN on 16 Apr 2013

Posted on June 19, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Madras High Court relied on the Supreme Court decision here.

From Para 12,

12. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner places much reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2010 (1) MWN (Cr.) 39 (SC) [State of U.P. vs. Santosh Kumar] wherein Their Lordships have held as follows :-
40. Section 4 of the Dowry Act deals with penalty for demanding dowry, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be. The object of Section 4 is to discourage the very demand for property or valuable security as consideration for a
marriage between the parties thereto. Section 4 prohibits the demand for ‘giving’ property or valuable security which demand, if satisfied, would constitute an offence under Section 3 read with Section 2 of the Act.
41. Thus, the ambit and scope of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act is different from the ambit and scope of Section 498-A, IPC.

Manjunath Eshwar Vs State of TN on 16 Apr 2013

Citations:

Other Sources:

State of U.P Vs Santosh Kumar and Ors on 3 Sep 2009

Posted on June 18, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A decision from the erudite pen of Justice Dalveer Bhandari ji… clearly says, if demand for dowry is satisfied, such act of dowry giver constitutes an offence under section 3 of DP Act.

From Para 40,

40. Section 4 of the Dowry Act deals with penalty for demanding dowry, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be. The object of section 4 is to discourage the very demand for property or valuable security as consideration for a
marriage between the parties thereto. Section 4 prohibits the demand for ‘giving’ property or valuable security which demand, if satisfied, would constitute an offence under section 3 read with section 2 of the Act.

State of U.P Vs Santosh Kumar and Ors on 3 Sep 2009

Citations: [2009 AIR SC 2687], [2009 SCC 9 626], [2010 MWN CR 1 39], [2009 AIOL 1115], [2009 ANJ SC 2 350], [2009 JT 11 592], [2009 SCALE 12 269], [2010 SCC CRI 1 88], [2009 SCR 14 106], [2009 SUPREME 6 448], [2010 ECRN SC 1 196], [2010 MLJ CRL 1 679], [2010 ALL LJ 1 180]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/521213/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aecee4b0149711414da5

Sharanappa S. Kallur Vs State of Karnataka on 07 Jun 2011

Posted on June 18, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka HC, relying on case law here, held as follows,

From Para 10,

10. Unless it is shown from reliable evidence that there was demand made directly or indirectly from the parents of the complainant, Section 4 of the D.P. Act does not get attracted. In the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in the case of Sankar Prosad Shaw v. The State, reported in 1991 Cri.L.J. 639, it has been held that, even mere demand is not sufficient but, it should be given or agreed to be given and at the most, mere demand may come under section 498a of the i.p.c. but not under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. For the above reason, conviction under Section 4 of the D.P. Act cannot be sustained in law.

Sharanappa S. Kallur Vs State of Karnataka on 07 Jun 2011

Citations: [2012 DMC 1 22]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1430200/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e0ee77607dba38965ed263

Sankar Prasad Shaw and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 Jul 1990

Posted on June 18, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Calcutta High Court held as follows,

From Paras 5 and 6,

5. So, as per the definition, dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or after the carriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Sri Mukherjee has laid emphasis on the words ‘given’ or ‘agreed to be given’ at or before or after the marriage in connection with the marriage. Judged in terms of the definition, the learned counsel has submitted that in the case in hand, neither party to the marriage nor their relations had ever given or agreed to give any property or valuable security to the other party at or before or after the marriage, and, therefore, the learned counsel argues, s. 4 of the Act is not attracted to the case in hand.

6. I find much substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The complaint petition does not disclose that the complainant had given any property or valuable security or that he had agreed to give such things to the accused petitioner No. 1, either at or before or after the marriage between Usha Shaw and petitioner No. 1 or to his parents or other relations. Although in common parlance we very often use the term “dowry demand” in the cases where the husband or his relations demand valuable security from the parents and other relations of the wife after the marriage, yet, in my opinion this will not amount to demand for dowry under the Act in view of the definition of dowry contained in s. 2 the Act. Demand for dowry under the Act and in the legal sense will mean the demand for dowry only when it refers to property or valuable security given or agreed to be given at or before or after the marriage. The alleged offence as made out in the complaint petition may attract the penal provisions as contained in s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Parliament in its wisdom appended the explanation as to what “cruelty” means and has constructed sub clause (b) of s. 498A in the following words, “Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand”. In my opinion, if the cases of this nature are to be brought within the ambit of s. 4 of the Act, then the word ‘dowry’ under s. 2 of the Act shall have to be redefined in the light of sub-clause (b) under s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The term “extortion demand” popularised by the media may also find a place in the definition of dowry.

Sankar Prasad Shaw and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 Jul 1990 (CM Ver)

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/946303/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56095f9ee4b01497112cab8b

Artificial Intelligence Tools

Posted on June 16, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

https://www.tryleap.ai/

Divya Ganesh Nallur Vs Ganesh Nallur Shivu on 08 Jun 2023

Posted on June 15, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Karnataka High Court held as follows,

From Para 2,

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners finds fault with the impugned order contending that in matters like this, the fact that the parties are residing under the same roof, pales into insignificance except for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction. The fact that the spouses are residing in the same premises could not have been a ground for making the order of the kind. Such a flawed reasoning bewilders the Court, to say the least. Such a fact arguably may show the good culture of the spouses who are otherwise at loggerheads. The reason assigned by the Court below for denying relief to the parties constitutes as error of great magnitude apparent on the face of the record.

In view of the above, this Petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issued quashing the impugned Order; matter is remitted to the portals of the learned Judge of the Court below, requesting him to pass a judgment and decree in terms of the Compromise Petition and the report of the Mediator. This is to be done at the earliest.

Divya Ganesh Nallur Vs Ganesh Nallur Shivu on 08 Jun 2023

Kadar Valli Shaik Vs Union of India and 3 Ors on 07 Mar 2023

Posted on June 13, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held as follows,

From Paras 102 and 103,

102. In view of the law as laid down by this Court in Marupudi Dhana Koteswara Rao (supra) that the authorities can seek NOC in case of renewal of passport which is implicit in Rule-5, with which view I am also in agreement that the renewal of passport is also governed by the provisions of the Passport Act, including Sections 5, 6 and the Rules, 1980, the submission of the learned counsels for the petitioners to the contrary based on the view taken by the other High Courts is not acceptable and is rejected.
103. To sum up, this Court holds that;
(i) “Issue‟ of passport in Section 5 of the Passports Act includes “renewal‟ of the passport as well;
(ii) While considering the renewal of the passport, the passport authority would be within its jurisdiction and authority to refuse renewal, on the same grounds as in the cases of issuance of the passport for “the first time‟, provided by Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act. In other words, Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act applies to renewal of the passport, as well;
(iii) In the cases for renewal, to which Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act is attracted, i.e., where the applicant is facing criminal trial in a criminal Court in India, renewal of the passport shall be refused, subject to the fulfillment of the condition under the notification of the Central Government, dated 25.08.1993, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Passports Act, upon which such applicant shall stand exempted from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6;
(iv) In a case where clause (f) of Section 6 (2) is attracted, the holder of the passport, for its renewal, will have to produce an order from the Court concerned, where the proceedings against him are pending trial in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him, permitting him to depart from India;
(v) The notification dated 25.08.1993 applies to the citizen applicants for renewal of the passport even if already departed from India under the passport of which renewal is sought.
(vi) On production of an order, from the concerned Court, as referred in the notification, the renewal of the passport shall not be refused only on the ground of Section 6 (2) (f), i.e., mere pendency of the criminal case for trial;
(vii) Condition (d) of the notification dated 25.08.1993 is an additional requirement and is not in substitution of the requirement from those citizen/applicants who have to produce an order of the Court concerned, where the criminal case is pending, permitting him to depart from India.

Kadar Valli Shaik Vs Union of India and 3 Ors on 07 Mar 2023

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: June 2023

Palagani Samrajyam and Anr Vs Palagani Nagaraju on 30 Dec 2019

Gadesula Radhika Vs Gadesula Rajesh on 22 Jan 2019

Byru Rajeswari Vs Byru Suresh Babu on 30 Apr 2018

Manjunath Eshwar Vs State of TN on 16 Apr 2013

State of U.P Vs Santosh Kumar and Ors on 3 Sep 2009

Sharanappa S. Kallur Vs State of Karnataka on 07 Jun 2011

Sankar Prasad Shaw and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 Jul 1990

Artificial Intelligence Tools

Divya Ganesh Nallur Vs Ganesh Nallur Shivu on 08 Jun 2023

Kadar Valli Shaik Vs Union of India and 3 Ors on 07 Mar 2023