Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P and Anr on 27 Oct 2016

Posted on August 5, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A full bench of Allahabad High Court (at Lucknow) held as follows:

From Para 23,

23. Under Section 397 of Cr P C “the High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court…”. That the Court of Sessions is as an inferior Court to the High Court, cannot be disputed. Thus, the Court of Sessions before which an appeal has been prescribed under Section 29 of the Act, 2005 is a Criminal Court inferior to the High Court and, therefore, a revision against its order passed under Section 29 will lie to the High Court under Section 397 Cr P C. Section 401 Cr P C is supplementary to Section 397 Cr P C.

From Para 25,

25. In the result, we answer the first question in the affirmative holding that the decisions in Nishant Krishna Yadav (supra) and Manju Shree Robinson (supra) do not lay down the law correctly. In other words, we hold that a revision under Section 397/401 of Cr P C against a judgment and order passed by the Court of Sessions under Section 29 of the Act, 2005 is maintainable and that the decisions in Nishant Krishna Yadav (supra) and Manju Shree Robinson (supra) do not lay down the law correctly.

Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P and Anr on 27 Oct 2016

Index of all DV cases is here.

Balamuraly G Vs Vinod TR and Anr on 26 Oct 2023

Posted on August 5, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Kerala High Court held as follows.

From Para 6,

6. True, section 397 of the Code confers concurrent jurisdiction to the High Court as well as the Sessions Court to call for and examine the records of any proceedings before an inferior criminal court situated within its local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order rendered in such proceedings. When the power of revision is concurrent, it may not be illegal for a person to approach the High Court instead of the Sessions Court with a prayer for revision of an order. A Full Bench of this Court considered in Sivan Pillai v. Rajamohan and others [1978 KLT 223] the question whether a revision, where it is maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 397(1) of the Code, in the High Court as well as a Sessions Court, should be pinned down to the Sessions Court. The view taken by the majority is that the salutary principle that where concurrent jurisdiction is conferred on two fora, the lower forum should be exhausted first has to be given a go by in view of the specific provision conferring jurisdiction by Section 397(1) of the Code both on the High Court and the Sessions Courts. That is the law. But
propriety demands the aggrieved, as far as possible, to first invoke the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. It is apposite to approach the Sessions Court first for another reason also. That, the parties might be located in the Sessions Division concerned. In a revision petition any order, which causes prejudice to the accused, can be passed, in view of Section 401(2) of the Code, only after giving notice to him. Where the accused resides in a far away Sessions Division he has to be drawn to the High Court as though the matter can be heard and decided by the Sessions Court concerned without causing such an inconvenience. Therefore, it is just and appropriate for a party to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions first, where the revision is possible by both the High Court and the Sessions Court, albeit there is no bar for the High Court to entertain the revision filed without exhaustion of the lower forum.

Balamuraly G Vs Vinod TR and Anr on 26 Oct 2023

Ragimani Gangadhar Vs Ragimani Padmavathi and Anr on 08 Sep 2022

Posted on August 4, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

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

From Para 9,

9. This Court has gone through the said judgment. It did not hold that simultaneous proceedings under different enactments cannot be made. In fixing quantum of maintenance, it would be relevant in bringing to notice of the Court about filing of parallel proceedings for maintenance.
Further the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha 2, it is held,
“Directions on overlapping jurisdictions: It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes. For instance, there is no bar to seek maintenance both under the D.V.Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., or under H.M.A. It would, however, be inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a previous proceeding. If maintenance is awarded to the wife in a previously instituted proceeding, she is under a legal obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under another enactment. While deciding the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the civil court/family court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to the claimant.
To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, we direct that in a subsequent maintenance proceeding, the applicant shall disclose the previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed therein, so that the Court would take into consideration the maintenance already awarded in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount. If the order passed in the previous proceeding requires any modification or variation, the party would be required to move the concerned court in the previous proceeding.”

Ragimani Gangadhar Vs Ragimani Padmavathi and Anr on 08 Sep 2022

Citations : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6521 AP

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70415177/

https://www.latestlaws.com/judgements/andhra-high-court/2022/september/2022-latest-caselaw-6521-ap

https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?CaseId=402202795000&Title=RAGIMANI-GANGADHAR-Vs.-RAGIMANI-PADMAVATHI

https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/00200055810

Index of Domestic Violence cases is here.

Shivi Bansal Vs Gaurav Bansal on 16 Jul 2024

Posted on August 3, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Paras 11 and 12,

11. In our view, even though the conclusion reached by the Family Court Judge on this score is correct, i.e., that the divorce petition cannot be rejected in part, arraying a third party to a divorce petition is neither proper nor necessary. A necessary party is one in whose absence no effective decree can be passed, whereas, a proper party enables complete and final adjudication of issues involved in a given lis.
11.1 The alleged adulterer is, to our minds, not a necessary party as a decree can be passed in his/her absence. Likewise, the adulterer is not a proper party since the issue concerning adultery can be adjudicated without making the adulterer a party to the cause. Proof of adultery need not be conflated with who should be arrayed as a party to a divorce action.
11.2 A divorce action is a lis centered around the couple who have entered into matrimony. A third party [who does not claim the status of a spouse]
has no locus to intervene or seek impleadment in such a cause. [Also see Manjul Joshi v. Bhavna Khurana, 2024: DHC:4170-DB].
12. The alleged adulterer (third party) can either be summoned as a witness or other evidence can be placed before the Family Court to prove adultery. Therefore, on this count, we are not in agreement with the counsel for the appellant/wife.

Shivi Bansal Vs Gaurav Bansal on 16 Jul 2024

Index of Divorce judgment is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: August 2024

Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P and Anr on 27 Oct 2016

Balamuraly G Vs Vinod TR and Anr on 26 Oct 2023

Ragimani Gangadhar Vs Ragimani Padmavathi and Anr on 08 Sep 2022

Shivi Bansal Vs Gaurav Bansal on 16 Jul 2024