Ratheesh Vs Sreelakshmi and Ors on 14 Mar 2025

Posted on October 22, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Kerala High Court held as follows, Even to dispose Interim Maintenance Applications, call for affidavits.

From Paras 6 and 7,

6. A slew of directions in the form of guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) and extracted above are mandatory in nature and must be followed in all maintenance cases by all Courts dealing with maintenance throughout the country. The judgment in Rajnesh (supra) was delivered on 04/11/2020 and the guidelines therein have been circulated to all the Courts in India for compliance. After the judgment in Rajnesh (supra) was rendered, the Supreme Court in the judgment in Aditi Alias Mithi v. Jithesh Sharma [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1451] which was delivered on 06/11/2023 noticed that guidelines in Rajnesh (supra) have not been followed by many courts in the country while fixing the maintenance, either interim or final. The Supreme Court expressed its deep concern in not adhering to the mandatory guidelines given in Rajnesh (supra) so far as the requirement of filing the Affidavit of Disclosure is concerned. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has issued directions to re-circulate a copy of the judgment containing guidelines for expeditious disposal of cases involving grant of maintenance to judicial officers in all High Courts across the country. However, it is quite unfortunate to notice that, despite the specific directions of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) and Aditi Alias Mithi (supra), various Courts in the State, like in the present one, are passing orders, either interim or final, fixing maintenance, without there being any Affidavit of Disclosure on record filed by the parties. This Court can take judicial notice of the said fact from the number of Original Petitions [(OP(Crl.)] and Revision Petitions [(RP(FC)] filed before this Court challenging the interim as well as final order of maintenance passed without bringing on record the Affidavit of Disclosure of the parties in terms of the directions in Rajnesh (supra).
7. Coming to the facts of the case, admittedly, neither of the parties has filed the disclosure affidavit in terms of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Rajnesh (supra). However, the Family Court disposed of the interim maintenance application as per the impugned order considering the pleadings. The petitioner herein, while considering the application for interim maintenance, pointed before the Family Court that the 1st respondent did not file the affidavit showing her assets and liabilities. However, the Family Court took the view that since the petitioner himself did not file the affidavit, he could not take up such a contention. Guideline No.72.1(a) in Rajnesh (supra) specifically says that the parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings, throughout the country, shall file an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the concerned court as a mandatory requirement. Guideline No.72.2(b) in Rajnesh (supra) makes it mandatory for the applicant making a claim for maintenance to file a concise application accompanied by the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets. It was further observed that based on the pleadings filed by both parties and the Affidavits of Disclosure, the court would be in a position to make an objective assessment of the approximate amount to be awarded towards maintenance at the interim stage. It is true that guideline No.72.3 says that the respondent also must submit the reply along with the Affidavit of Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks, and the court may not grant more than two opportunities for submission of the affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to the respondent. But the mere fact that the petitioner herein did not file an Affidavit of Disclosure as directed in Rajnesh (supra) would not absolve the 1st respondent from filing such an affidavit. Since the impugned order is passed without the affidavits of both parties, it cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. The matter is required to be remitted back for fresh consideration in accordance with the law by complying with the directions in Rajnesh (supra). The counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the 1st respondent has now filed an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the Family Court.

Ratheesh Vs Sreelakshmi and Ors on 14 Mar 2025

Citations: [2025:KER:22087]

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here.

Srinivasa D Vs Asha on 20 Mar 2025

Posted on October 20, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A wonderful judgment from a single judge of Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru bench, acknowledging that litigants lie in their income affidavit and directing the Family Courts to initiate perjury proceedings in accordance with law.

From Paras 10 to 13,

10. Time and again, it is seen by this Court that in several matters, the parties deliberately do not disclose their correct income, avocation, details of assets and liabilities with an intent to portray lesser income and secure favourable order by misleading and misguiding the Court, which is highly deplorable. In the present case, the respondent has deliberately suppressed the materials, which was well within her knowledge and played mischief and mislead the Court to get a favourable order. The sanctity of the Court and its orders would necessarily have to be respected by all the parties to the proceedings and so also by the learned counsel representing the parties.
11. This Court hopes and trusts that the learned counsels representing the parties advise their respective parties with regard to seriousness and sanctity of the Court orders and also be aware themselves of the sanctity of the Court orders and warn their clients/parties with regard to legal consequences of misleading, misrepresenting, filing false affidavit and adducing false statements on oath by way of oral and documentary evidence.
12. In view of several instances where parties are careless and deliberately making false statements on oath and filing false affidavits, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Family Court/Trial Court dealing with such matters to initiate suitable action in accordance with law so that careless filing of affidavits and casual approach before the Court while filing assets and liabilities in the form of affidavits and adducing evidence before the Court is curbed and the person at fault is penalized by appropriate action of the Court.
13. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to issue following guidelines and directions to Family Courts and trial Courts dealing in maintenance applications:
a) Family Courts/Trial Courts dealing in maintenance applications shall insist on filing assets and liabilities and expenses as per the judgment in the case of Rajnesh -vs- Neha and another reported in (2021)2 SCC 324.
b) If an application is filed to summon salary details or other source of income by either spouse, the same shall be considered favourably, in the interest of justice.
c) If the Family Courts/Trial Courts are of the opinion that the salary certificates/details and particulars of other source of income are required to decide the maintenance application, it shall do so by passing suo motu orders for the same from either or both spouses.
d) In case of false Affidavits filed on oath and false information given deliberately to mislead and secure favourable orders by such information, the defaulting party shall be liable to face legal consequences in accordance to law.
e) Any such maintenance secured by way of such misleading and false/wrong information, shall be ordered to be refunded to the aggrieved party.
f) Maintenance applications both interim and main shall be decided expeditiously.
g) These Guidelines shall be strictly followed and adhered.

Srinivasa D Vs Asha on 20 Mar 2025

Citations: [2025:KHC:11787]

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here. Index of DV Judgments is here.

Vinod Kumar K Vs Chaitra N on 3 Apr 2025

Posted on October 20, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A good judgment from a single judge of Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru bench, refusing maintenance to a lying wife and directing to initiate perjury proceedings in accordance with law.

From Paras 7 to 11,

7. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh stated supra, in all the maintenance petitions, parties are duty bound to file assets and liabilities and disclose their true income, avocation, employment and so also details of income, assets and liabilities of the other spouse. In the present case, petitioner – husband has filed assets and liabilities showing the details of his employment, income etc., It is also stated about job of the respondent and what is the income drawn by the respondent – wife. On the contrary, respondent – wife though filed assets and liabilities for the 2nd time on 8.11.2022, very cleverly and intentionally suppressed fact of her employment as a Guest Teacher in Government Junior Primary School and income she is getting from the said employment. Nothing prevented the respondent from saying so in the affidavit of assets and she was not asked by her counsel with regard to disclosing her employment and the income and if it was brought to her notice and knowledge, she would have definitely disclosed the same in the affidavit. The fact that she has sought for unconditional apology itself apparently clear that she has suppressed the true facts before the Court. This kind of suppression of material before the Court with deliberate intention to mislead the Court to obtain a favourable order in the maintenance cases is deplorable and cannot be accepted. Fortunately, the petitioner is able to secure certain information under the RTI Act, due to which Court came to know with regard to employment of the respondent, otherwise, it would not have come to the notice of the Court. Such attitude and behaviour of the respondent before the Court is deplorable and cannot be accepted.
8. In the present case on hand, the income generated by the respondent – wife during her employment as a Guest Teacher was around Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-, which is not clearly stated. If the average is taken, it is Rs.12,500/- per month. Whereas, the petitioner – husband is earning Rs.47,240/- and after deduction getting Rs.21,000/- per month.
9. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, it is apparently clear that the respondent – wife was working and capable of working and earning as on the date of filing 2nd affidavit of assets and liabilities before the Family Court. It is not the case of the respondent that she is unable to work and incapable to earn income and therefore to be maintained by the petitioner. It is also stated that there are no children from the marriage. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent – wife would not be entitled to maintenance.
10. The intent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh stated supra is to render justice to the parties on the basis of self declaration of assets and liabilities including income and occupation. But, it is seen that in most of the cases, there is deliberate suppression of facts only with an intention to secure favourable order. In view of several instances where parties are careless and deliberately making false statements on oath and filing false affidavits, this Court in RPFC No.24/2023 decided on 20th March 2025 directed the Family Court/Trial Court dealing with such matters to initiate suitable action in accordance with law so that careless filing of affidavits and casual approach before the Court while filing assets and liabilities in the form of affidavits and adducing evidence before the Court is curbed and the person at fault is penalized by appropriate action of the Court. This Court issued certain guidelines and directions to the Family Courts/Trial Courts dealing in maintenance applications. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Family Court to initiate suitable action against the respondent – wife after affording reasonable opportunity
to both the parties.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order of the Family Court, petitioner has deposited Rs.25,000/- in the execution proceedings. In view of the respondent – wife having suppressed the material facts of her employment and income and this Court coming to the conclusion that the respondent – wife would not be entitled for maintenance, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent – wife to refund the said amount of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner – husband.

Vinod Kumar K Vs Chaitra N on 3 Apr 2025

Citations: [2025:KHC:14149]

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/67eef65cd50c1c738ee6dd37

Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here.

Jagdamba Trivedi Vs Neha Trivedi on 18 Jan 2021

Posted on October 19, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A good judgment from a single judge of High Court of Chhattisgarh Judgment explaining how important it is to follow the mandate u/s 421 Cr.P.C. while executing maintenance orders u/s 125(1) Cr.P.C.

From Paras 10, 11 and 12,

10.A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that for recovery of the amount of maintenance, procedure under Section 421(1) has to be followed by either issuing warrant for levying the amount due by attachment and sale of movable property belonging to the offender or by issuing a warrant to the Collector of the district, for authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter. Section 421(3) provides that where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of Subsection (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law.
11.A conjoint reading of the provisions contained under Section 125(3) read with Section 421 of CrPC would show that by virtue of Section 125(3) of CrPC, the Magistrate has been empowered to recover the amount of arrears of maintenance by following the procedure prescribed for levy of fine under Section 421 of CrPC. Two modes are prescribed under Section 421 of CrPC for recovery of the arrears of maintenance due as if it were a fine levied. The Court can either issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the defaulter or issue a warrant to the Collector of the District, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter under Section 421(1)(a) and 421(1)(b) of CrPC. It is only after the Magistrate has exhausted the two modes prescribed under Section 421 of CrPC and still fails to recover the arrears of maintenance due that he can sentence the person who committed the default to imprisonment as enjoined under Section 125(3) of CrPC for the period prescribed in the above-stated provision and if in the execution of sentence of imprisonment so awarded, the defaulter does not appear to suffer, the sentence so awarded, the Court should at the first instance issue summons/notice for his appearance and if the defaulter seems to be avoiding the summons, the Court in the second instance should issue bailable warrant for his appearance to undergo sentence. The Courts, at first and second instance, shall refrain from issuing non-bailable warrant.
12.It is quite vivid that the provisions contained under Section 125(3) of CrPC itself provide that the Court may sentence such a person for whole or
any part of each month’s allowance after the execution of the warrant, as such, Section 125(3) CrPC speaks only of issue of a warrant for levying the amount in the manner provided for levying fines and does not speak of a warrant of arrest. The issue of a warrant for levy of the amount due by way of attachment and sale is a condition precedent to the sentencing of the defaulter to imprisonment. As such, without following the procedure prescribed under Section 421(1)(a) and 421(1)(b) of CrPC and without issuance of warrant of attachment and sale, no warrant can be issued and no order for imprisonment can be passed under Section 125(3) of CrPC.

From Para 17,

17. Reverting to the facts of the instant case in light of the aforesaid legal analysis, it is quite vivid that learned Family Court, finding that the arrears of maintenance is due from the petitioner, straightway issued warrant of arrest without following the procedure laid down in Section 421(1)(a) and 421(1)(b) of CrPC, whereas learned Magistrate ought to have followed the procedure laid down in Section 421 of CrPC for recovering the arrears of the amount of maintenance, and if after following the procedure as envisaged in Section 421 of CrPC by issuance of warrant of attachment of movable and immovable property of the defaulter and sale thereof; still arrears of amount of maintenance remains due, then order of imprisonment can be passed, as such, the order directing issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner is contrary to Section 125(3) read with Sections 421(1)(a) and 421(1)(b) of the CrPC. Accordingly, the order dated 09/05/2019 (Annexure A/1) passed in MJC No. 43/2019 is hereby set aside and learned Family Court is directed to follow the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh (supra) strictly for recovery of the amount of maintenance.

Jagdamba Trivedi Vs Neha Trivedi on 18 Jan 2021

Citations: [LAWS(CHH)-2021-1-96]

Other Sources:

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1070468/jagdamba-trivedi-vs-neha-trivedi/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6050d0e69fca195f67640edb

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/jagdamba-trivedi-versus-neha-trivedi

https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=021202701000&title=jagdamba-trivedi-vs-neha-trivedi#:~:text=He%20would%20also%20submit%20that%20if%20the,(Annexure%20A/2)%20deserve%20to%20be%20set%20aside.

Index of Maintenance Orders u/s 144 BNSS is here.

S.Mumthas and Anr Vs M.Nizar @ Nizarudeen and Anr

Posted on October 19, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

Case No: OP (Crl.) 802/ 2024

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Sec 144 BNSS is here.

Rita Raj Vs Pabitra Roy Chaudhuri on 17 Oct 2025

Posted on October 19, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court observed as follows, while upholding the Family Court’s decision not to grant alimony.

From Paras 53 to 57,

53. In the present Appeal, the Appellant‟s primary challenge is directed against the learned Family Court‟s finding on cruelty. The evidence on record unequivocally establishes a sustained pattern of mental cruelty inflicted by the Appellant upon the Respondent.
54. The most compelling evidence comprises the series of text messages sent from the Appellant‟s mobile number between March and June 2011. These messages, which contained vile, derogatory, and scandalous language, including questioning the Respondent‟s legitimacy and making reprehensible allegations against his mother, were proved beyond doubt.
55. Specific messages dated 09.05.2011, 15.05.2011, and 27.06.2011, which included terms such as “bastard”, “son of a bitch,” and suggestions that his mother should “earn through prostitution”, are by themselves sufficient to constitute mental cruelty of the gravest kind.
56. The Appellant‟s explanation that the Respondent must have sent these messages to himself from her phone is inherently improbable and was rightly rejected by the learned Family Court as an afterthought, particularly since this defense was never pleaded in the written statement and no corroborative evidence was adduced to support it.
57. Words and communications of the sort proved in this case are not innocuous. The law recognizes that mental cruelty may be visited by persistent and deliberate verbal abuse and conduct that degrades a spouse and injures reputation and self-respect. The text messages in question contained imputations of illegitimacy, filthy epithets directed at the Respondent‟s mother and other degrading expressions a pattern of conduct which, cumulatively, the learned Family Court was entitled to regard as causing grave mental agony to the Respondent.

From Para 82,

82. The provision under Section 25 is fundamentally equitable in nature and aims to secure financial justice between spouses, ensuring that a party lacking independent means of subsistence is not left destitute following the dissolution of marriage. However, the grant of such relief is not automatic; it is contingent upon proof of genuine financial necessity and equitable considerations.
83. In the present case, the Appellant is an officer of the IRTS, a highly esteemed branch of the Indian Civil Services, whereas the Respondent is a practicing lawyer.
84. It is an undisputed fact that the Appellant, being a Group ‘A’ officer, holds a senior and responsible position in the Government of India and receives a regular and substantial salary along with numerous allowances and service benefits commensurate with her post. The material on record does not disclose any evidence of financial hardship, dependency, or extraordinary circumstances that would render her incapable of maintaining herself with dignity. There is also no pleading or proof of any financial liability, medical condition, or familial obligation that could necessitate monetary support from the Respondent. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest a substantial difference between the incomes of the parties.
85. Judicial discretion under Section 25 cannot be exercised to award alimony where the applicant is financially self-sufficient and independent, and such discretion must be exercised properly and judiciously, based on the record, the relative financial capacities of the parties, and the absence of any material demonstrating economic vulnerability on the part of the Appellant.
86. A careful examination of the record further reveals that the parties cohabited as husband and wife only for a brief and transitory period, and the marriage did not evolve into a stable or enduring union characterized by emotional, social, or financial interdependence. The absence of any child from the wedlock further eliminates a continuing financial responsibility that might otherwise justify an award of alimony or maintenance.
87. It is a settled principle that permanent alimony is intended as a measure of social justice and not as a tool for enrichment or equalizing the financial status of two capable individuals. The law requires that the applicant demonstrate a genuine need for financial assistance. In the present case, the Appellant‟s position as a senior government officer, her steady and substantial income, and the absence of dependents collectively establish that she is fully capable of maintaining herself. No evidence of financial incapacity, duress, or other compelling circumstances has been presented to justify judicial intervention.

Rita Raj Vs Pabitra Roy Chaudhuri on 17 Oct 2025

Citations: [2025:DHC:9233-DB]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/156230068/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/68f2a09ee5e6a9673013a510

Index of Maintenance and Alimony judgment under Hindu Marriage Act is here.

Himanshu Kumar and Ors Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 14 Jul 2022

Posted on October 18, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Supreme Court held as follows,

From Para 79,

79. It is true that an affidavit is ‘evidence’ within the meaning of Section 191 of the IPC and a person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury. But the matter does not rest here. Before initiating the proceedings for perjury, the court concerned has to consider whether it would be expedient in the interest of justice to sanction such prosecution. What the courts have to see at this stage is whether there is evidence in support of the allegations made by the Union of India (respondent herein) to justify the initiation of proceedings against the writ petitioners, more particularly, the writ petitioner no. 1 herein who had filed the affidavit on behalf of himself and the other writ petitioners and not whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant his conviction. However, this does not mean that the court should not prima facie be of the opinion that there are sufficient and reasonable grounds for setting the machinery of criminal law in motion against the accused. As noted above, the Court has further to see that the false statement was deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. In other words, before sanctioning the prosecution there must be a prima facie case of a falsehood on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge. (see S.P. Kohli v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, (1979) 1 SCC 212 : AIR 1978 SC 1753)

From Paras 86 and 87,

86. The conflict between the two decisions of this Court of equal strength, i.e. Pritish (supra) and Sharad Pawar (supra), was taken notice of by this Court in the case of the State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh, (2020) 12 SCC 96. A Bench of two Judges of this Court ultimately thought fit to refer the question to a Larger Bench. The Court observed as under :
“14. In any event, given that the decision of the three-Judge Bench in Sharad Pawar (supra) did not assign any reason as to why it was departing from the opinion expressed by a Coordinate Bench in Pritish (supra) regarding the necessity of a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC, as also the observations made by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), we find it necessary that the present matter be placed before a larger Bench for its consideration, particularly to answer the following questions:
14.1 (i) Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court ?
14.2 (ii) What is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry ?”
87. It appears that the reference on the aforesaid two questions to a larger Bench is still pending.

From Paras 90 and 91,

90. The essential ingredients for invoking Section 211, I.P.C. are that the complaint must have falsely charged a person with having committed an offence. The complainant, at the time of giving the complaint must have known that there is no just or lawful ground for making a charge against the person. This complaint must have been given with an intention to cause injury to a person.
91. The CrPC does not define what constitutes the making of a “charge” of an offence or what amounts to the “institution of criminal proceedings”. But, in our opinion, a false “charge” in this Section must not be understood in any restricted or technical sense, but in its ordinary meaning, of a false accusation made to any authority bound by law to investigate it or to take any steps in regard to it, such as giving information of it to the superior authorities with a view to investigation or other proceedings, and the institution of criminal proceedings includes the setting of the criminal law in motion. The nature of both expressions, and the difference between them has been explained in lucid terms in the decision of the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Karim Buksh v. Queen Emp, 17 C. 574. It points out that there may be a charge which does not amount to the institution of criminal proceedings “and there may be criminal proceedings which do not necessarily involve a charge” of any offence. As an illustration of the former it points out that a charge made to the Judge of a Civil Court or to public officers of other kinds, in order to obtain sanction to prosecute may well be a charge “but is not the institution of criminal proceedings”. It further points out that an aggrieved person may seek to put the criminal law in motion either by making a charge or in the language of the Code giving information to the Police (Section 154 CrPC) “or he may” lay a charge, or as the Code calls it, a complaint (Section 190 CrPC) before a Magistrate”.

From Para 94,

94. Thus, as explained by this Court in Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain (supra), the essential ingredient of an offence under Section 211 IPC is to institute or cause, to be instituted any criminal proceeding against a person with intent to cause him injury or with similar intent to falsely charge any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge. Instituting or causing to institute false criminal proceedings assume false charge but false charge may be preferred even when no criminal proceedings result. Now, the expression “falsely charges” in this section, in our opinion, cannot mean giving false evidence as a prosecution witness against an accused person during the course of a criminal trial. “To falsely charge” must refer to the original or initial accusation putting or seeking to put in motion the machinery of criminal investigation and not when seeking to prove the false charge by making deposition in support of the charge framed in that trial. The words “falsely charges” have to be, read along with the expression “institution of criminal proceeding”. Both these expressions, being susceptible of analogous meaning should be understood to have been used in their cognate sense. They get as it were their colour and content from each other. They seem to have been used in a technical sense as commonly understood in our criminal law. The false charge must, therefore, be made initially to a person in authority or to someone who is in a position to get the offender punished by appropriate proceedings. In other words, it must be’ embodied either in a complaint or in a report of a cognizable offence to the police officer or to an officer having authority over the person against whom the allegations are made. The statement in order to constitute the “charges” should be made with the intention and object of setting criminal law in motion.

Himanshu Kumar and Ors Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 14 Jul 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/62d7ae969fca1923f0b04184

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/himanshu-kumar-and-others-versus-state-of-chhattisgarh-and-others

Index of Perjury Judgment is here.

Prabhu Chawla Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 05 Sep 2016

Posted on October 8, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

Re-affirming Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd judgment here, Full bench of Supreme Court held that, A Petition under section 482 CrPC is maintainable even when a Revision is available under 397/401 CrPC.

From Para 4,

4. The facts of these appeals need not detain us because in our considered opinion the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the impugned order is contrary to law and therefore matters will have to be remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits within the scope of inherent powers available to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It would suffice to note that in both these appeals, the miscellaneous petitions before the High Court arose out of an order dated 30.11.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur in the complaint no. 1669 of 2006, whereby it took cognizance against the appellants under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code and summoned them through bailable warrants to face further proceedings in the case.

From Paras 6-8,

6. In our considered view any attempt to explain the law further as regards the issue relating to inherent power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is unwarranted. We would simply reiterate that Section 482 begins with a non-obstante clause to state: “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” A fortiori, there can be no total ban on the exercise of such wholesome jurisdiction where, in the words of Krishna Iyer, J. “abuse of the process of the Court or other extraordinary situation excites the court’s jurisdiction. The limitation is self-restraint, nothing more.” We venture to add a further reason in support. Since Section 397 Cr.P.C. is attracted against all orders other than interlocutory, a contrary view would limit the availability of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only to petty interlocutory orders! A situation wholly unwarranted and undesirable.
7. As a sequel, we are constrained to hold that the Division Bench, particularly in paragraph 28, in the case of Mohit alias Sonu and another (supra) in respect of inherent power of the High Court in Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. does not state the law correctly. We record our respectful disagreement.
8. In our considered opinion the learned Single Judge of the High Court should have followed the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. (supra) and other earlier cases which were cited but wrongly ignored them in preference to a judgment of that Court in the case of Sanjay Bhandari (supra) passed by another learned Single Judge on 05.02.2009 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 289 of 2006 which is impugned in the connected Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 4744 of 2009. As a result, both the appeals, one preferred by Prabhu Chawla and the other by Jagdish Upasane & Ors. are allowed. The impugned common order dated 02.04.2009 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan is set aside and the matters are remitted back to the High Court for fresh hearing of the petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the light of law explained above and for disposal in accordance with law. Since the matters have remained pending for long, the High Court is requested to hear and decide the matters expeditiously, preferably within six months.

Prabhu Chawla Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 05 Sep 2016

Index of Quash Judgments is here.

Sumit Raj Shivhare Vs Anushree Gupta Shivhare on 05 Nov 2024

Posted on October 7, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court directed to enhance Maintenance amount at 5% annually.

From Para 21,

(21) So far as the question for grant of interim maintenance to respondent-wife is concerned, an affidavit along with salary slip filed by appellant-husband clearly shows that he is a Software Engineer working in a private Firm, namely, Dassault System Software Solution Private Limited in Pune and getting gross salary of approximately Rs.1,18,875/-per month including other liability. It is averred that respondent- wife is a B. Com, MBA in Retail Business Management and Marketing from MIT College, Pune. From the record, it is found that the learned Family has already awarded maintenance amount to the extent of Rs.25,000/- per month by allowing the application under Section 125 of CrPC to maintain herself and her minor son Aryaman. The same amount of Rs.25,000/- per month awarded by the Family Court is found to be just and proper and, therefore, there is no need to pass separate order for the same.
However, we may add here that the amount of Rs.25,000/- per month shall fetch enhancement every calendar year @ 5% to meet the ends of justice, till it attains finality or altered subsequently in future, in some appropriate proceedings at the instance of parties.

Sumit Raj Shivhare Vs Anushree Gupta Shivhare on 05 Nov 2024

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Sec 144 BNSS is here.

Arun R.Naik Vs Shwetha Arun Naik and Anr on 17 May 2021

Posted on October 6, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Kerala High Court directed to set aside the enhancement of Maintenance amount at 10% annually.

From Para 3,

3. In the M.C, the 1st petitioner had adduced oral evidence as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A10 as documentary evidence. On the respondent’s side, oral evidence was adduced by him as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B11 were marked as documentary evidence. The Family Court has appreciated the above evidence and allowed the M.C granting monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.7,000/- to the 2nd petitioner, from the date of the petition. The Family Court has also directed the respondent to pay a lumpsum of Rs.30,000/- at the beginning of every academic year before June 30th subject to enhancement at the rate of 10% yearly to the 2nd petitioner for her education with effect from the date of the petition.

From Para 16,

16. The Family Court has ordered the monthly maintenance allowance in favour of the 2nd petitioner as Rs.7,000/- and directed the respondent to pay the same and also an additional sum of Rs.30,000/- within June 30th of every academic year subject to 10% increase annually. The said direction undoubtedly is an unjustifiable one and will not sustain for the reason that the monthly maintenance allowance contemplated under Section 125 Cr.P.C will take within it’s sweep all genuine expenses of the child viz. expenses for education, food, shelter, medicine etc. and therefore, a court while fixing it shall take into account all possible and reasonable expenditures of a child. Therefore, if a lumpsum amount is fixed by the Family Court as payable, undoubtedly it would take care of all reasonable expenditures of the child. Moreover, the direction to pay Rs.30,000/- annually to the 2nd petitioner, in every academic year in addition to a lumpsum amount ordered as payable towards monthly maintenance allowance, is devoid of any basis.

From Para 17,

17. The Family Court has fixed the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the 2nd petitioner as Rs.7,000/- after duly considering the educational expenses also. Therefore the direction to pay Rs.30,000/- as additional sum only to meet the educational expenses is devoid of merits and liable to be set aside.

Finally,

In the result, both revisions are allowed in part. The monthly maintenance allowance stands ordered in favour of the 1st petitioner by the impugned order is modified and reduced to Rs.7,000/- and that to the 2nd petitioner is modified and enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The direction to pay Rs.30,000/- before 30th June of every academic year subject to 10% enhancement annually is set aside.

Arun R.Naik Vs Shwetha Arun Naik and Anr on 17 May 2021

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Sec 144 BNSS is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: October 2025

Ratheesh Vs Sreelakshmi and Ors on 14 Mar 2025

Srinivasa D Vs Asha on 20 Mar 2025

Vinod Kumar K Vs Chaitra N on 3 Apr 2025

Jagdamba Trivedi Vs Neha Trivedi on 18 Jan 2021

S.Mumthas and Anr Vs M.Nizar @ Nizarudeen and Anr

Rita Raj Vs Pabitra Roy Chaudhuri on 17 Oct 2025

Himanshu Kumar and Ors Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 14 Jul 2022

Prabhu Chawla Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 05 Sep 2016

Sumit Raj Shivhare Vs Anushree Gupta Shivhare on 05 Nov 2024

Arun R.Naik Vs Shwetha Arun Naik and Anr on 17 May 2021