Kulvinder Singh Gehlot Vs Parmila on 22 Aug 2023

A division bench of Delhi High Court granted divorce to a couple who are separated for over 17 years…

From Para 17,

17. The divorce has been sought on the ground of cruelty. While “physical cruelty” is visible and easy to comprehend and determine, the more challenging aspect is “mental agony” which has been recognized as part of “cruelty” which once established, is a valid ground of divorce. The contours of “mental cruelty” were defined in case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1956 can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put-up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the party.What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case.

From Paras 22 and 23,

22. During the trial, the allegations had not been established as held by the Order of Ld. Mahila Court, South District and amounts to a clear and categorical character assassination of the appellant as well as his family members.
23. It is not under challenge that the criminal proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the parties. A Police Station is not the best of places for anyone to visit. It is a source of mental harassment and trauma each time he was required to visit the Police Station, like the “Damocles Sword” hanging over his head, not knowing when a case would be registered against him and he would be arrested. The respondent had done everything to get the appellant and his family entrapped in the criminal case. Such conduct of making false allegations and constant threat of being summoned to Police Station are the acts which severely impact the mental balance and all the acts of cruelty.

From Para 27,

27. A law of divorce based mainly on fault is inadequate to deal with a broken marriage. Under the “Fault theory”, guilt has to be proved; divorce courts are presented with concrete instances of human behaviour as they bring the institution of marriage into disrepute. We have been principally impressed by the consideration that once the marriage has broken down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for the law not to take notice of the fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interests of the parties. Where there has been a long period continuous separation, it may be fairly surmised that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction, though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie the law in such cases does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. The Family Court ought to have visualised that preservation of such a marriage is totally unworkable which has ceased to be effective and would be a greater source of misery for the parties. The Family Court ought to have considered that a human problem can be properly resolved by adopting a human approach. In the instant case, not to grant a decree of divorce would be disastrous for the parties. Otherwise, there may be a ray of hope for the parties that after a passage of time (after obtaining a decree of divorce) the parties may psychologically and emotionally settle down and start a new chapter in life.

Kulvinder Singh Gehlot Vs Parmila on 22 Aug 2023

Citations: [2023 SCC ONLINE DEL 5122]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186009176/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/64e4d541d2752322a69ddb3d

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/constant-threat-of-arrest-and-wifes-false-allegations-has-become-source-of-mental-cruelty-delhi-hc-grants-divorce-to-aggrieved-husband-1491232

Index of Divorce Judgments here.

Judgments on Transfer Petitions

Posted on September 23 by ShadesOfKnife

The MASTER INDEX is here.

Implementation of A4 paper usage in District Courts in Andhra Pradesh

Posted on September 22 by ShadesOfKnife

After some ground work (Representation to Registrar and RTIs to Home Department), got the PIL filed into AP High Court.

Here is the WP(PIL) petition copy…

2023-09-12 WP(PIL) for A4 Paper usage v0.1

It was listed on 21/09/2022 and miraculously, I got to speak nothing but still I am happy because…

CJ to GP for Home: What is the difficulty in issuing the gazette notification for so long?
GP for Home: I need time to seek instruction.
CJ to GP for Home: Granting 2 weeks time. Listed for 04/10/2023

Showkat Aziz Zargar Vs Nabeel Showkat and Anr on 02 Sep 2022

Posted on September 18 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of J&K&L High Court held as follows, while declaring two judgments as per incuriam, relying on multiple Supreme Court decisions as Precedents.

From Paras 13-15,

13) It is a settled principle of interpretation of Statutes that words and expressions used in a Statute have to be assigned their plain meaning. A court does not have power to add or subtract something from a Statute which is not there. If a court finds some ambiguity in a Statute which becomes an impediment in achieving the aim and object of the Statute, the court can give a purposive interpretation to the Statute but where the language of the Statute is clear and unambiguous, it is not open to the Court to add, alter or supply words to the said Statute and no need of interpretation would arise. The purpose of interpretation of Statutes is to help the Judge to ascertain the intention of the Legislature and not to control that intention or to confine it within the limits, which the Judge may deem reasonable or expedient.
14) The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has, in the case of A. R. Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602, held that if the words of the Statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the plainest duty of the Court to give effect to the natural meaning of the words used in the provision. The Court observed that the question of interpretation arises only in the event of an ambiguity or if the plain meaning of the words used in the Statute would be self defeating.
15) Again, the Supreme in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay, (2002) 4 SCC 297, has followed the same principle and observed that where the words are clear and there is no obscurity or ambiguity, the intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language used. The Court further observed that while doing so, what has been said in the statute as also what has not been said has to be noted. The construction which requires for its support addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words has to be avoided.

From Paras 22 and 24,

22) In a recent case of Abhilasha vs. Parkash & ors. (Criminal Appeal No.615 of 2020 decided on 15th September, 2020), a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether a Hindu unmarried daughter is entitled to claim maintenance from her father under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C only till she attains majority or she can claim maintenance till she remains unmarried. The Court observed that a bare perusal of Section 125(1) of the Cr. P. C indicates that it limits the claim of maintenance of a child until he or she attains majority.
24) From the foregoing analysis of the law on the subject, it is clear that the Supreme Court has taken a consistent view that a major son or daughter cannot be awarded maintenance by a Magistrate in exercise of his powers under Section 125 of the Central Cr. P. C/488 of the Jammu and Kashmir Cr. P. C but in an appropriate case, a Family Court has jurisdiction to grant maintenance to a major Hindu daughter on the basis of a combined reading of the provisions contained in Section 125 of the Cr. P. C and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.

Finally,

27) For what has been discussed hereinbefore, the petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial Magistrate as upheld by the Revisional Court is set aside and it is held that the respondents are entitled to maintenance from their father i.e., the petitioner herein, only up to the age of their majority. If any amount of maintenance has been paid by the petitioner to the respondents after the attainment of their age of majority, the same, having regard to the relationship between the parties, shall not be recovered from them. The amount deposited in the Registry pursuant to the order dated 11.09.2019, shall be released in favour of the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Showkat Aziz Zargar Vs Nabeel Showkat and Anr on 02 Sep 2022

Maintenance cases index here.

Sumeet Vs Himani Sumeet Ninave Nee on 29 Mar 2023

Posted on September 15 by ShadesOfKnife

Sunil Kumar and Ors Vs Elizabeth on 07 Feb 2023

Posted on September 14 by ShadesOfKnife

The Kalaburigi bench of Karnataka High Court held that instead of accommodation in the shared household, money towards rent can be given to the aggrieved person.

From Paras 3-6,

3. As per Section 19(1)(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [in short ‘DV Act’], wherever the Court feels to convenient to order for monetary expenses in lieu of the shared house and also taking note of the relationship existing among the parties, a suitable order can be passed in terms of money.
4. In the impugned order, the learned Trial Magistrate after exercising discretionary power granted a sum of Rs.6,000/- as monthly maintenance and a room to be given by the Revision Petitioner in the shared house.
5. Admittedly, the Revision Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the Respondent. However, the Revision Petitioner is living with first wife. Taking note of these aspects of the matter directing the respondent to stay in the same house in a separate room would not be feasible practically and it may give rise to further displeasure among the parties resulting in civil/criminal litigation.
6. Accordingly, this Court exercising its power as is contemplated under Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act, a sum of Rs.5,000/- be paid instead of the room be provided as the shared house. If a sum of Rs.5,000/- is being ordered, the respondent can find out a suitable alternate premises more than the room that would be provided in the shared house hold as ordered by the Trial Court, it would meet the ends of justice.

Sunil Kumar and Ors Vs Elizabeth on 07 Feb 2023

Index of DV cases here.

Bhawna Vs Bhay Ram and Ors on 17 Feb 2023

Posted on September 14 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court declared the act of imposing cost of DV complainant to examine witnesses.

The appellant is the complainant in a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the trial, the right of the appellant to lead evidence was closed and the complaint was rejected. Therefore, the appellant had filed an appeal. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal directing the trial court to reopen the case and allow the appellant to lead evidence subject to her paying cost of Rs.20,000/- per witness. When the appellant moved the High Court against the said order, the High Court reduced the cost to Rs.10,000/- per witness. In addition, the Appellate Court as well as the High Court said that the appellant will not be entitled to maintenance during the said period.
In a complaint filed under the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it is not open to the Court to impose such onerous conditions upon the appellant, who claims to be a victim of domestic violence. What the Appellate Court and the High Court have ordered are actually in the nature of penalty for the appellant not proceeding with the trial. In the first instance, it is impermissible in law.
Therefore, the appeal is allowed and that portion of the order of the Appellate Court and the High Court imposing the cost upon the appellant for examination of every witness and also depriving the appellant of interim maintenance is set aside.
The trial court shall permit the appellant to lead evidence without imposing the onerous conditions.
Physical presence of the parents-in-law of the appellant, who are also the respondents herein, shall be dispensed with by the trial court.

Bhawna Vs Bhay Ram and Ors on 17 Feb 2023

Index of DV cases is here.

Career Institute Educational Society Vs Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society on 24 Apr 2023

Posted on September 12 by ShadesOfKnife

A Division bench of Apex Court discussed the distinction between Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dicta.

The distinction between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi in a judgment, as a proposition of law, has been examined by several judgments of this Court, but we would like to refer to two, namely, State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. Utility Users’ Welfare Association & Ors.8 and Jayant Verma & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.9

Testing for Ratio Decidendi:

The first judgment in State of Gujarat (supra) applies, what is called, “the inversion test” to identify what is ratio decidendi in a judgment. To test whether a particular proposition of law is to be treated as the ratio decidendi of the case, the proposition is to be inversed, i.e. to remove from the text of the judgment as if it did not exist. If the conclusion of the case would still have been the same even without examining the proposition, then it cannot be regarded as the ratio decidendi of the case.

What is vital for decision making?

In Jayant Verma (supra), this Court has referred to an earlier decision of this Court in Dalbir Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab10 to state that it is not the findings of material facts, direct and inferential, but the statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts, which is the vital element in the decision and operates as a precedent, albeit operates as res judicata. Even the conclusion does not operate as a precedent. Thus, it is not everything said by a Judge when giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge’s decision binding as a legal precedent is the principle upon which the case is decided and, for this reason, it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the obiter dicta.

Career Institute Educational Society Vs Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society on 24 Apr 2023

CrPC 273 – Evidence to be taken in presence of accused

Posted on September 7 by ShadesOfKnife

Except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader:
Provided that where the evidence of a woman below the age of eighteen years who is alleged to have been subjected to rape or any other sexual offence, is to be recorded, the court may take appropriate measures to ensure that such woman is not confronted by the accused while at the same time ensuring the right of cross-examination of the accused.
Explanation.—In this section, “accused” includes a person in relation to whom any proceeding under Chapter VIII has been commenced under this Code.

Rangesh Srinivasan Vs Madhulika Bawa on 07 Jun 2023

Posted on September 5 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Paras 12-14,

12. Going a step deeper, there is another aspect. While exercising the revisional scrutiny of an interim maintenance order passed in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, the revisional court for yet another reason cannot impose as a pre-condition to grant of stay on operation of the assailed interim maintenance order, such general rider of deposit of the entire amount of awarded maintenance ignoring the overall circumstances of the case. The provision under Section 397 CrPC confers suo motu powers on the Court of Sessions and the High Court. Wherever the statute confers suo motu powers on any judicial authority, such powers are always implicitly accompanied with attendant duty to invoke the powers in order to meet the ends of justice. Once an illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in a judicial order is brought to the notice of the revisional court under Section 397 CrPC, the Court cannot justifiably refuse to entertain the challenge on the grounds of non-compliance with the order impugned before it. From that angle also, in my view, there cannot be generalized direction not to stay the operation of the interim maintenance order solely on the ground that the revisionist did not deposit the entire amount of awarded maintenance. Of course, if otherwise the factual and legal matrix justifies, grant of stay can be denied as well.

13. It is clarified that in the present case this court has refrained itself from analysing as to whether operation of the interim maintenance order facing appellate challenge is otherwise liable to be stayed or not. This issue has to be considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the facts and circumstances of the case in the backdrop of settled legal position.

14. In view of above discussion, the petition is allowed and accordingly the impugned order is set aside, consequently remanding the matter back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to decide afresh as to whether the interim maintenance order passed by the magisterial court is liable to be stayed during pendency of the appeal.

Rangesh Srinivasan Vs Madhulika Bawa on 07 Jun 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of PWDV Act cases here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: September 2023

Kulvinder Singh Gehlot Vs Parmila on 22 Aug 2023

Judgments on Transfer Petitions

Implementation of A4 paper usage in District Courts in Andhra Pradesh

Showkat Aziz Zargar Vs Nabeel Showkat and Anr on 02 Sep 2022

Sumeet Vs Himani Sumeet Ninave Nee on 29 Mar 2023

Sunil Kumar and Ors Vs Elizabeth on 07 Feb 2023

Bhawna Vs Bhay Ram and Ors on 17 Feb 2023

Career Institute Educational Society Vs Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society on 24 Apr 2023

CrPC 273 – Evidence to be taken in presence of accused

Rangesh Srinivasan Vs Madhulika Bawa on 07 Jun 2023