Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 16 Jan 2025

A division bench of the Supreme Court passed this reportable Judgment,

From Paras 10-12,

10.Ordinarily, Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is invoked by the complainant when the police authorities decline to register a First Information Report. In such circumstances, a private complaint may be made in the court of the Judicial Magistrate and the complainant may pray that police investigation be ordered under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. However, it is the discretion of the concerned Magistrate whether to order police investigation under Section156(3) of Cr.P.C. or take cognizance upon the complaint and issue process or dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. Over a period of time and in view of many decisions of this Court, if the officer in-charge of the concerned Police Station for some reasons declines to register the FIR, then the law has left it open for the complainant to file an appropriate application before the Magistrate and pray for police investigation. Once an order is passed for police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., then it becomes a police case. At the end of the investigation the police may either file a charge-sheet or file an appropriate closure report.
11.However, what is important to observe is that whenever any application is filed by the complainant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate seeking police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., it is the duty of the concerned Magistrate to apply his mind for the purpose of ascertaining whether the allegations levelled in the complaint constitute any cognizable offence or not. In other words, the Magistrate may not undertake the exercise to ascertain whether the complaint is false or otherwise, however, the Magistrate is obliged before he proceeds to pass an order for police investigation to closely consider whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are borne out on plain reading of the complaint.

From Paras 24 and 25,

24.Thus, there are prerequisites to be followed by the complainant before approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. which is a discretionary remedy as the provision proceeds with the word ‘may’. The Magistrate is required to exercise his mind while doing so. He should pass orders only if he is satisfied that the information reveals commission of cognizable offences and also about the necessity of police investigation for digging out of evidence neither in possession of the complainant nor can be procured without the assistance of the police. It is, thus, not necessary that in every case where a complaint has been filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. the Magistrate should direct the Police to investigate the crime merely because an application has also been filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. even though the evidence to be led by the complainant is in his possession or can be produced by summoning witnesses, with the assistance of the court or otherwise. The issue of jurisdiction also becomes important at that stage and cannot be ignored.
25.In fact, the Magistrate ought to direct investigation by the police only where the assistance of the Investigating Agency is necessary and the Court feels that the cause of justice is likely to suffer in the absence of investigation by the police. The Magistrate is not expected to mechanically direct investigation by the police without first examining whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, investigation by the State machinery is actually required or not. If the allegations made in the complaint are simple, where the Court can straightaway proceed to conduct the trial, the Magistrate is expected to record evidence and proceed further in the matter, instead of passing the buck to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Ofcourse, if the allegations made in the complaint require complex and complicated investigation which cannot be undertaken without active assistance and expertise of the State machinery, it would only be appropriate for the Magistrate to direct investigation by the police authorities. The Magistrate is, therefore, not supposed to act merely as a Post Office and needs to adopt a judicial approach while considering an application seeking investigation by the Police.

From Para 31,

31.A comparison of Section 175(3) of the BNSS with Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. indicates three prominent changes that have been introduced by the enactment of BNSS as follows:
a. First, the requirement of making an application to the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to lodge
the FIR has been made mandatory, and the applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making the application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3).
b. Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to conduct such enquiry as he deems necessary before making an order directing registration of FIR.
c. Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the submissions of the officer in charge of the police station as regards the refusal to register an FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175(3).

From Paras 34-35,

34.In light of the judicial interpretation and evolution of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. by various decisions of this Court as discussed above, it becomes clear that the changes introduced by Section 175(3) of the BNSS to the existing scheme of Section 156(3) merely codify the procedural practices and safeguards which have been introduced by judicial decisions aimed at curbing the misuse of invocation of powers of a Magistrate by unscrupulous litigants for achieving ulterior motives.
35.Further, by requiring the Magistrate to consider the submissions made by the concerned police officer before proceeding to issue directions under Section 175(3), BNSS has affixed greater accountability on the police officer responsible for registering FIRs under Section 173. Mandating the Magistrate to consider the submissions of the concerned police officer also ensures that the Magistrate applies his mind judicially while considering both the complaint and the submissions of the police officer thereby ensuring that the requirement of passing reasoned orders is complied with in a more effective and comprehensive manner.

Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 16 Jan 2025

Index of Judgments under Sec 156(3) Cr.P.C. are here.

Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025

Posted on February 22 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court passed this judgment whereby the marriage of parties is severed and Rs.25 Lakhs alimony was ordered to be paid to wife. Also since DV cases are quasi-criminal in nature, thus, there cannot be any justification to require the personal presence of the appellant in these proceedings.

From Para 18,

18. In the afore-mentioned complaint case, an application10 was filed by the respondent under Section 26 of the DV Act against the appellant, her mother-in-law, and their five other relatives. A notice was issued to the appellant vide order dated 21st July 2022. Subsequently, on 11th August 2022, the learned JMFC passed an interim order in favour of the respondent, prohibiting her eviction from the matrimonial home and directing the personal appearance of the appellant (respondent therein) and other respondents on the next hearing date. However, when the matter was listed again, the Court noticed that the appellant had not returned to India, and the concerned authorities were directed to initiate the extradition process against him.
We may observe that as the proceedings under the DV Act are quasi-criminal in nature, thus, there cannot be any justification to require the personal presence of the appellant in these proceedings. Thus, the learned Magistrate grossly erred while directing the appellant to remain personally present in the Court.

From Para 20,

20. It is apparent that the appellant’s inability to travel to India and appear in Miscellaneous Case No. 440 of 2022, filed by the respondent under Section 26 of the DV Act, stemmed from the impoundment of his passport, a circumstance beyond his control. Consequently, the order of the learned JMFC directing the initiation of extradition proceedings against the appellant as a consequence of his non-appearance, despite being aware of the fact of impounding of the passport of the appellant, is untenable and unsustainable in the eyes of the law. Otherwise also, as noted above, there is no requirement for the personal presence of any party in the proceedings under the DV Act, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences except when there is a breach of a protection order, which is the only offence provided under Section 31 of the DV Act.

From Para 26,

26. On the issue as to grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, this Court, in a very recent judgment of Rinku Baheti v Sandesh Sharda13, held that the factual analysis has to be undertaken in each case to determine as to what constitutes an ‘irretrievable breakdown’ while keeping in mind the non-exhaustive factors laid down in Shilpa Sailesh (supra).

From Para 31,

31. The filing of the aforesaid cases by the respondent-wife reflects her vindictive attitude towards the appellant and his family members and unambiguously reflects the bitterness that has seeped into the marital relationship. The tumultuous state of the marital relationship between the parties is quite evident, irrespective of the fate of the criminal complaints and the imputations made by the parties against each other. The passport of the appellant was also impounded by the concerned authorities, pursuant to the pending cases filed by the respondent.

From Paras 35-37,

35. Whatever may be the justification for the spouses living separately, with so much time having passed by any marital love or affection that may have developedbetween the parties seems to have evanesced. This is a classic case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The admitted long-standing separation, nature of differences, prolonged and multiple litigations pending adjudication, and the unwillingness of the parties to reconcile are evidence enough to establish beyond all manner of doubt that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably and that there is no scope whatsoever for marriage to survive. Thus, no useful purpose, emotional or practical, would be served by continuing the soured relationship. On the basis ofthe above factual matrix, the present appears to be a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
36. Apart from the irreconcilable status of the relationship between the parties, in the present case, another factor that has weighed with this Court in favour of the exercise of the power under Article 142(1)of the Constitution of India is that there is no child born from the wedlock and therefore, any direction to allowthe parties to part ways would only affect the parties themselves and not any innocent child.
37. Thus, this is a fit case warranting the exercise of the discretion conferred under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage between the parties on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

From Paras 42-43,

42. Before we conclude our discussion, we must note that the act of impounding the passport of the appellant by the concerned authorities of the Government of India was ex-facie illegal in the eyes of the law. In the present case, the appellant’s passport was impounded on the mere premise that the respondent has filed numerous cases before the various courts in India.
43. The law regarding the impounding of a passport of an individual has been settled by this Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr.16, wherein it was held that the rules of natural justice must be followed before impounding a passport under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967.

From Paras 45-46,

45. Further, this Court, in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P.17, while dealing with the question of arrest and fair investigation in a case alleging the offence of cruelty under Section 498A IPC, was of the view that in respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of ‘Red Corner Notice’ should not be a routine.
46. Applying the afore-mentioned legal principles to the present case, we find that the act of impounding the appellant’s passport under Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967, was carried out without granting the appellant an opportunity to be heard. This clear violation of the principles of natural justice renders the act of impounding the passport ex-facie illegal. Consequently, we hold that the concerned authorities should release the appellant’s passport within a period of one week from today.

Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025

Citations: [2025 INSC 254], [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 240]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97306350/

https://www.caseciter.com/vishal-shah-vs-monalisha-gupta-2025-insc-254-domestic-violence-act-passport-impounding-irretrievable-breakdown-of-marriage-permanent-alimony/

Index of Domestic Violence Judgments is here. Divorce Judgments are here. Passport judgements are here.

Mohd. Ghouse Khan Vs State of Telangana on 15 Oct 2019

Posted on February 19 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on one Apex Court decision here and two High Court decisions here and here, a single judge bench of Telangana High Court pass this short Order.

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to direct the lower Court i.e., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Criminal Court, Hyderabad, to dispose of Crl.M.P.No.2956 of 2019 in C.C.No.505 of 2016 at an early date in the light of judgment reported in 2002 (1) Supreme Court Cases 253 and unreported Judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Syed Nazim Husain v. Additional Principal Judge in (W.P No. 56 of 2002) and the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Civil Application No.2939 of 2017 in W.P.No.14039 of 2017, dated 26.04.2018.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
3. An innocuous prayer has been sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner to issue a direction to the Court below to dispose of the aforesaid Crl.M.P.No.2956 of 2019 in C.C.No.505 of 2016 at an early date.
4. Having regard to the same, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Criminal Court, Hyderabad, to dispose of Crl.M.P.No.2956 of 2019 in C.C.No.505 of 2016, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without granting any adjournment.

Mohd. Ghouse Khan Vs State of Telangana on 15 Oct 2019

Index of Perjury judgments is here.

Nabaghana Sahoo Vs Smruti Prava Sahoo and Anr on 11 Feb 2025

Posted on February 15 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge from Orissa HC remanded a Maintenance Order back to Trial Court, for not complying with SC judgments in Rajnesh and Aditi.

From Para 2,

2. …

It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra that admittedly neither of the parties has filed the disclosure affidavit in terms of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another; (2021) 2 SCC 324 which is the mandatory requirement for deciding application for maintenance under different provisions of law and although the Petitioner-husband has not filed such disclosure affidavit, but it is the mandatory requirement of the law as held in Rajnesh(supra).

From Para 3,

3. After having considered the rival submissions upon going through the materials placed on record, it appears that neither of the parties has filed the disclosure affidavit as mandated in Rajnesh(supra), but facts remain that the Apex Court in Rajnesh(supra) has issued a slew of directions in the form of guidelines making it mandatory for the Petitioner-Applicant to file disclosure affidavit at the time of bringing a proceeding for maintenance which is forthcoming from the following observation made by the Apex Court in paragraphs-72.2 and 72.3

In the above premises, viewing what should be the consequence for non-filing of disclosure affidavits which is mandatory in nature after the decision in Rajnesh(supra), this Court considers it useful to refer to the decision in Aditi Vs. Jitesh Sharma; (2023) SCC Online SC 1451

From Para 4,

4. It is also not in dispute that the judgment in Rajnesh(supra) was delivered on 4.11.2020 and the guidelines therein have been circulated to all the
Courts in India for compliance, but it has not been followed in this case while passing the impugned judgment. When the principle culled out in a decision is directed to be followed mandatorily, the Court concerned is under obligation to follow such guidelines, but in this case, the learned trial Court having not followed the provisions of the guidelines issued in Rajnesh(supra), the matter is required to be remitted back for fresh disposal in accordance with law by complying the guidelines of the Rajnesh(supra).

From Para 5,

5. In the result, the revision stands allowed and the impugned judgment dated 22.07.2023 passed by learned Judge Family Court, Khurda in
Criminal Petition No.431 of 2017 is hereby set aside. Ergo, the matter is remitted back for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
It is, however, made clear that the learned trial Court while adjudicating the matter afresh may receive the disclosure affidavits from the parties and provide opportunity to lead evidence on the very aspect of the disclosure affidavits by taking into consideration the mandatory guidelines of the Apex Court in Rajnesh(supra).
Since the maintenance proceeding is pending between the parties from the year 2017, the learned trial Court is hereby requested to dispose of the aforesaid proceeding after remand as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Nabaghana Sahoo Vs Smruti Prava Sahoo and Anr on 11 Feb 2025

Index of Maintenance Judgments which fail to follow RvN and AvJ Judgement is here.

Krishnawati Devi and 6 Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 22 Jan 2025

Posted on February 15 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Allahabad High Court held as follows,

From Paras 13-14,

13. From the above analysis, it is clear for holding a person liable u/s 3 of Domestic Violence Act, the following condition must be satisfied:
“The respondent must be related to the aggrieved person in the manner asmentioned in Section 2(f) and he lived or has been living together with aggrieved person in a shared household and then commits domestic violencein the manner mentioned in Section 3 of Domestic Violence Act.”
14. This Court came across number of cases where just to harass the family ofhusband or the person in domestic relationship, aggrieved party used to implicate the relatives of other side who are not even living or lived with theaggrieved person in shared household and they have been residing at separateplaces. Therefore, courts below while issuing notice u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act must look into this fact from the perusal of the application filedu/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act along with other available record including the report of the Protection Officer, if available on record. It isfurther observed that the concerned courts before issuing notices to the persons impleaded as respondents in the application under Domestic ViolenceAct should satisfy about the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in paragraph no. 13 of this judgment.

From Para 20,

20. The court below is free to proceed against applicant nos. 1 and 7 and decide Case No. 59 of 2016 (Smrita Srivastava Vs. Rajiv Kumar Srivastava and others) expeditiously within a period of 60 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order.

Krishnawati Devi and 6 Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 22 Jan 2025

Index of DV cases is here.

Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025

Posted on February 15 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Orissa HC reduced the maintenance amount granted by a Trial Court.

From Para 4,

4. Law never appreciates those wives, who remain idle only to saddle the liability of paying maintenance on the husband by not working or not trying to work despite having proper and high qualification. It is found in this case that the OP-wife had earlier worked in some media houses and she has got definite prospect to work and earn her livelihood. The intention and objective of legislature in enacting Section 125 of CrPC is to provide succor to those wives, who are unable to maintain themselves and have no sufficient income for their sustenance. The social objective behind the provision for grant of maintenance, if considered on the admitted facts as discussed in this case, it would go to disclose the wife’s need and requirement to be balanced not only with the income and liability of the husband, but also has to be considered on the backdrop of the education and prospect of the wife to earn.

Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025

Index of maintenance judgment u/s 144 BNSS here.

Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025

Posted on February 12 by ShadesOfKnife

A full bench of Supreme Court passed this order to a reference from a division bench.

From Para 6,

6. The following questions arise for our consideration:
(i)Whether a spouse of a marriage declared as void by a competent Court under Section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to claim permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the 1955 Act?
(ii)Whether in a petition filed seeking a declaration under Section 11 of the 1955 Act, a spouse is entitled to seek maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the 1955 Act?

From Para 26,

26. An apprehension is the expression by the learned counsel for the appellant that if it is held that Section 25 of the 1955 Act also applies to void marriages, it will lead to a ridiculous result. He gave an example of a wife whose first marriage is subsisting, inducing another man to marry her. He also gave an example of a daughter getting married to her father. We must note that Sub-Section 1 of Section 25 uses the word “may”. A grant of a decree under Section 25 of the 1955 Act is discretionary. If the conduct of the spouse who applies for maintenance is such that the said spouse is not entitled to discretionary relief, the Court can always turn down the prayer for the grant of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the 1955 Act. Equitable considerations do apply when the Court considers the prayer for maintenance under Section 25. The reason is that Section 25 lays down that while considering the prayer for granting relief under Section 25, the conduct of the parties must be considered.

From Paras 27 and 28,

27. Section 24 confers a power on a matrimonial Court to grant interim maintenance in pending proceedings seeking a decree contemplated under the 1955 Act. The power is to be exercised pending the proceedings for a grant of a decree under Sections 9 to 13 of the 1955 Act. The conditions for applicability of Section 24 are:
(i) There must be a proceeding under the 1955 Act pending and
(ii) the court must come to a conclusion that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding.
26. Even if, prima facie, the matrimonial court finds the marriage between the parties is void or voidable, the court is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite provided the conditions mentioned above are satisfied. The grant of relief under Section 24 is discretionary as the Section uses the word ‘may’. While deciding the prayer for interim relief under Section 24, the Court will always consider the conduct of the party seeking the relief. It provides for issuing a direction to pay a reasonable amount.

Final conclusions:

29. Accordingly, we answer the questions as follows:
a. A spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25 of the 1955 Act. Whether such a relief of permanent alimony can be granted or not always depends on the facts of each case and the conduct of the parties. The grant of relief under Section 25 is always discretionary; and
b. Even if a court comes to a prima facie conclusion that the marriage between the parties is void or voidable, pending the final disposal of the proceeding under the 1955 Act, the court is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite provided the conditions mentioned in Section 24 are satisfied. While deciding the prayer for interim relief under Section 24, the Court will always take into consideration the conduct of the party seeking the relief, as the grant of relief under Section 24 is always discretionary.

Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025

Citations: [2025 INSC 197]

Other Sources:

https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/permanent-alimony-interim-maintenance-can-be-granted-even-when-marriage-is-void-under-hindu-marriage-act-supreme-court-283751

https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/spouse-of-void-marriage-under-hindu-marriage-act-entitled-to-permanent-alimonymaintenance-supreme-court

https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=18508

https://lawtrend.in/hindu-marriage-act-alimony-and-maintenance-granted-even-if-marriage-is-void-supreme-court/

Roopa Soni Vs Kamal Narayan Soni on 06 Sep 2023

Posted on February 7 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court held as follows, while relying on landmark judgments like

From Para 10,

10. On the question of burden in a petition for divorce, burden of proof lies on the petitioner. However, the degree of probability is not one beyond reasonable doubt, but of preponderance.

From Para 17,

17. For a decade and half, the parties have been living separately. As fairly stated at the Bar, the marriage does not survive any longer, and the relationship was terminated otherwise except by a formal decree of divorce. The status quo continues, awaiting an approval from this Court.

From Para 19,

19. The Trial Court and the High Court adopted a hyper-technical and pedantic approach in declining the decree of divorce. It is not as if the respondent-Husband is willing to live with the appellant–Wife. The allegations made by him against her are as serious as the allegations made by her against him. Both the parties have moved away and settled in their respective lives. There is no need to continue the agony of a mere status without them living together.

Roopa Soni Vs Kamal Narayan Soni on 06 Sep 2023

Index of Divorce judgments is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: February 2025

Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 16 Jan 2025

Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025

Mohd. Ghouse Khan Vs State of Telangana on 15 Oct 2019

Nabaghana Sahoo Vs Smruti Prava Sahoo and Anr on 11 Feb 2025

Krishnawati Devi and 6 Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 22 Jan 2025

Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025

Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025

Roopa Soni Vs Kamal Narayan Soni on 06 Sep 2023