BNSS Sec 393 – Language and contents of judgment

Posted on February 28 by ShadesOfKnife

393. Language and contents of judgment.—
(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Sanhita, every judgment referred to in section 392,—
(a) shall be written in the language of the Court;
(b) shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision;
(c) shall specify the offence (if any) of which, and the section of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) or other law under which, the accused is convicted, and the punishment to which he is sentenced;
(d) if it be a judgment of acquittal, shall state the offence of which the accused is acquitted and direct that he be set at liberty.
(2) When the conviction is under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) and it is doubtful under which of two sections, or under which of two parts of the same section, of that Sanhita the offence falls, the Court shall distinctly express the same, and pass judgment in the alternative.
(3) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence.
(4) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of one year or more, but the Court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months, it shall record its reasons for awarding such sentence, unless the sentence is one of imprisonment till the rising of the Court or unless the case was tried summarily under the provisions of this Sanhita.
(5) When any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead.
(6) Every order under section 136 or sub-section (2) of section 157 and every final order made under section 144, section 164 or section 166 shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision.

BNSS is here.

Praveen Kumar Singh Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Feb 2026

Posted on February 28 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Allahabad High Court held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist had filed written submissions before the trial court specifically alleging that opposite party no. 2 was living in adultery with one Rocky @ Tarun. However, the trial court did not consider the said allegation on the ground that no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act had been filed in support of the electronic evidence.

From Para 7,

7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A., as well as perusal of the record and the order passed by the trial court, it appears that the WhatsApp chats annexed by the revisionist were not accepted solely on the ground that a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act had not been submitted. However, Section 14 of the Family Courts Act provides that a Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, document, information, or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it in effectively dealing with a dispute, whether or not such evidence would otherwise be relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Moreover, while adjudicating matrimonial disputes, the Family Court may lay down its own procedure.

Praveen Kumar Singh Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Feb 2026

Citations: [2026:AHC:34917]

Other Sources:

https://lawtrend.in/family-court-must-consider-whatsapp-chat-indicating-adultery-even-without-section-65-b-certificate-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-maintenance/

Index

Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs Manju Sharma on 27 Feb 2009

Posted on February 28 by Suprajaa Rajan

The Supreme Court examined whether a court exercising appellate jurisdiction can grant a decree of divorce on a ground not expressly enumerated in the statute. The matter required interpretation of Section 13 HMA and consideration of the constitutional limits on judicial law-making.

The Court analysed whether irretrievable breakdown, though recognised in certain judicial pronouncements, could operate as an independent ground for divorce in the absence of legislative incorporation. The judgment reaffirmed the principle of separation of powers and clarified that courts cannot expand statutory grounds through judicial innovation.

Important Extracts from the Judgment:

High Court Findings (Paras 13 & 17):
“On a reading of the entire evidence, it is not possible to conclude that the appellant has been able to establish that the respondent treated him with cruelty.”

“To grant divorce to the appellant despite this only on the ground of irretrievable breakdown would not, in the view of this Court, be doing justice to the respondent.”
On Findings of Fact:
“We are not inclined to interfere with the finding of fact of both the courts below that it was the appellant who treated the respondent with cruelty, rather than the other way around.”
On Irretrievable Breakdown Not Being a Statutory Ground:
“On a bare reading of Section 13 of the Act, reproduced above, it is crystal clear that no such ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is provided by the legislature for granting a decree of divorce. This Court cannot add such a ground to Section 13 of the Act as that would be amending the Act, which is a function of the legislature.”

“If we grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, then we shall by judicial verdict be adding a clause to Section 13 of the Act to the effect that irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is also a ground for divorce.”

“In our opinion, this can only be done by the legislature and not by the Court.”
On Mutual Consent:
“Had both parties been willing we could, of course, have granted a divorce by mutual consent as contemplated by Section 13B of the Act, but in this case the respondent is not willing to agree to a divorce.”

Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

The Court held that:

The appellant failed to establish cruelty.
Irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground under Section 13 HMA.
The judiciary cannot legislate by adding new grounds for divorce.
Only Parliament can amend the statute to include such a ground.

Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs Manju Sharma on 27 Feb 2009

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Divorce Judgements is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati Vs Anuradha Kovi (Divorce petition)

Posted on February 28 by ShadesOfKnife

After losing the Nullity petition here, I filed a divorce petition before Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District, AP, seeking Decree of Divorce of my marriage under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act.

Now to serve the notice on the unavailable OP…

BNSS Sec 70 – Proof of service in such cases and when serving officer not present

Posted on February 28 by ShadesOfKnife

70. Proof of service in such cases and when serving officer not present.—
(1) When a summons issued by a Court is served outside its local jurisdiction, and in any case where the officer who has served a summons is not present at the hearing of the case, an affidavit, purporting to be made before a Magistrate, that such summons has been served, and a duplicate of the summons purporting to be endorsed (in the manner provided by section 64 or section 66) by the person to whom it was delivered or tendered or with whom it was left, shall be admissible in evidence, and the statements made therein shall be deemed to be correct unless and until the contrary is proved.
(2) The affidavit mentioned in this section may be attached to the duplicate of the summons and returned to the Court.
(3) All summons served through electronic communication under sections 64 to 71 (both inclusive) shall be considered as duly served and a copy of such summons shall be attested and kept as a proof of service of summons.

BNSS is here.

BNSS Sec 530 – Trial and proceedings to be held in electronic mode

Posted on February 28 by ShadesOfKnife

530. Trial and proceedings to be held in electronic mode.—
All trials, inquires and proceedings under this Sanhita, including—
(i) issuance, service and execution of summons and warrant;
(ii) examination of complainant and witnesses;
(iii) recording of evidence in inquiries and trials; and
(iv) all appellate proceedings or any other proceeding,
may be held in electronic mode, by use of electronic communication or use of audio-video electronic means.

BNSS is here.

State of Maharashtra Vs Satish Ramteke on 12 Feb 2026

Posted on February 28 by Suprajaa Rajan

A single Judge of Bombay High Court at Nagpur bench held that serving of summons through WhatsApp is valid.

From Para 2,

2. From the order it reflects that the case was posted for recording evidence of prosecution as the case being part heard. It is mentioned in the order
that the summons report was filed before the Court which discloses that summons is served through mobile phone to the witnesses. Witnesses namely Gunjal Prabhakar Kharabe and Dnyeshwar Sitaram Munde are absent. Service of summons through mobile phone to the witnesses is not allowed. Therefore, due to non-service of the summons by legal mode case is delayed and in that circumstances, the Special Judge has imposed the cost on the concerned Constable.

From Para 6,

6. From the impugned order, it reveals that as the summons was served through the mobile phone and therefore, the cost is imposed by the Special Court. Admittedly, there is amended provision in view of Section 70 of BNSS which deals with proof of service in such cases when serving officer not present. The sub-Section (3) specifically states that all summons served through electronic communication under sections 64 to 71 shall be considered as duly served and a copy of such electronic summons shall be attested and kept as a proof of service of summons as well as Section 530 of the BNSS also deals with the aspect of trial and proceedings to be held in electronic mode

State of Maharashtra Vs Satish Ramteke on 12 Feb 2026

Citations: [2026:BHC-NAG:2733]

Other Sources:

Index of such remedies from Judiciary are here.

Life Cycle Stages of a Restitution of Conjugal Rights Case

Posted on February 27 by Suprajaa Rajan

A Step-by-Step Guide Under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 : Understanding the procedural journey of a Restitution of Conjugal Rights case under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act helps spouses navigate matrimonial litigation with clarity and preparedness.

Restitution of Conjugal Rights is a matrimonial remedy available under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This provision allows an aggrieved spouse to seek a court order directing the other spouse to resume cohabitation.

The court grants relief only if it finds that one spouse has withdrawn from the society of the other without reasonable cause. This article explains the complete life cycle of a Restitution of Conjugal Rights case in a structured manner.

1. Legal Foundation of Restitution of Conjugal Rights

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 governs this remedy. The petitioner must prove withdrawal from marital society. The withdrawal must lack reasonable excuse.

The court examines whether the marriage remains legally valid. The court also verifies that no legal ground bars relief.

This remedy aims to preserve marriage rather than dissolve it.

2. Stage One: Pre-Filing Consultation and Case Assessment

The process begins with detailed consultation with a matrimonial lawyer. The lawyer evaluates whether the facts satisfy Section 9 requirements.

The petitioner must establish three essential elements:

A valid subsisting marriage.
Withdrawal by the respondent from marital society.
Absence of reasonable cause for such withdrawal.

The petitioner collects supporting documents before filing. These documents may include marriage certificate, communication records, and proof of separation.

Legal preparation strengthens the petition and reduces procedural objections.

3. Stage Two: Filing of Petition Before Family Court

The petitioner files a petition before the competent Family Court. Jurisdiction depends on residence of parties or place of marriage.

The petition contains material facts of the marriage. It specifies the date of marriage and details of separation. It clearly states how the respondent withdrew without reasonable cause. The petitioner prays for a decree directing restitution of conjugal rights.

After scrutiny, the court registers the petition and issues notice.

4. Stage Three: Service of Notice to the Respondent

The court ensures proper service of notice upon the respondent. Service of notice guarantees compliance with principles of natural justice.

The notice specifies the date of first hearing. The respondent must appear personally or through counsel. If the respondent fails to appear, the court may proceed ex parte.

Proper service validates subsequent proceedings.

5. Stage Four: Filing of Written Statement

The respondent files a written statement in response to the petition. The written statement addresses each allegation made by the petitioner. The respondent may deny withdrawal from marital society. The respondent may also assert reasonable cause for separation.

Common defences include cruelty, harassment, or apprehension of harm. The burden shifts to the respondent to prove reasonable excuse.

This stage defines the core dispute between the parties.

6. Stage Five: Reconciliation and Mediation Efforts

Family Courts prioritise reconciliation in matrimonial matters. The court may refer the parties to mediation or counseling. The judge may personally attempt settlement during hearings. The objective is restoration of marital harmony.

If reconciliation succeeds, the parties resume cohabitation. If reconciliation fails, the matter proceeds to trial.

This stage reflects the restorative intent of Section 9.

7. Stage Six: Framing of Issues

If disputes remain, the court frames issues for adjudication. Issues identify disputed questions of fact and law.

Typical issues may include:

Whether the respondent withdrew from marital society.
Whether such withdrawal lacked reasonable cause.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree under Section 9.

Framing of issues narrows the scope of trial. It guides the evidence stage systematically.

8. Stage Seven: Evidence and Trial

The petitioner presents evidence first. The petitioner may submit oral testimony and documentary proof. Witnesses may testify regarding separation and conduct of parties. The respondent has the right to cross-examine the petitioner.

After petitioner’s evidence, the respondent presents defence evidence. The respondent may produce documents and witnesses. The petitioner may cross-examine defence witnesses. The Court records all testimonies carefully.

The trial ensures fairness and evidentiary scrutiny.

9. Stage Eight: Final Arguments

After completion of evidence, the court schedules final arguments. Both parties present legal submissions through their advocates. The petitioner argues absence of reasonable cause. The respondent argues justification for withdrawal.

Counsel may rely on judicial precedents interpreting Section 9. The court evaluates facts and legal principles carefully.

Final arguments assist the court in reaching a reasoned decision.

10. Stage Nine: Judgment and Decree

The court delivers judgment after analysing pleadings and evidence. The judgment contains findings on each framed issue. If satisfied, the court grants a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.The decree directs the respondent to resume cohabitation. If the court finds reasonable cause for withdrawal, it dismisses the petition.

The decree is enforceable under civil procedure mechanisms.

11. Enforcement of Decree

The decree does not compel physical force for cohabitation. The law does not permit forced marital relations. The decree operates through attachment of property under execution proceedings. Non-compliance may result in attachment of respondent’s property.

However, courts prioritise voluntary compliance over coercive enforcement.

12. Consequences of Non-Compliance

Non-compliance has important legal consequences. If no cohabitation occurs for one year after decree, either party may seek divorce. Section 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act provides this ground. Thus, restitution proceedings may indirectly lead to divorce.

This provision balances reconciliation with eventual finality.

13. Appeal and Post-Judgment Remedies

An aggrieved party may file an appeal before the appropriate appellate court. Appeals must comply with limitation periods under applicable law. The appellate court reviews legal and factual findings.The court may affirm, modify, or set aside the decree.

Parties may also seek review under limited circumstances.

Conclusion

A Restitution of Conjugal Rights case follows a structured judicial pathway. The remedy aims to preserve marriage rather than dissolve it.Each procedural stage ensures fairness, reconciliation, and legal scrutiny. Understanding the life cycle empowers individuals to approach the process responsibly.

Proper legal advice and timely action significantly influence the outcome of such proceedings.

Other Life Cycles: 498A IPC Case Lifecycle || Maintenance Case u/s 125 CrPC Lifecycle. Index of all life cycles is here.

Key Contributor:
Mrs Suprajaa Rajan B.Com, LL.B., LL.M.
+91-9606345150

Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar

Posted on February 26 by Suprajaa Rajan

Understanding the legal safeguards that protect personal liberty in matrimonial criminal proceedings.

Arrest in matrimonial disputes under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was once routine and immediate. Complaints often led to mechanical arrests of husbands and relatives.

The legal landscape changed significantly after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in:

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar

In this case, the judgment reshaped arrest jurisprudence in matrimonial offences and reinforced constitutional protection under Article 21.

This article explains the law thereafter, the procedural safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and what accused persons must know.

I. The Legal Position Before Arnesh Kumar

Indian Penal Code

Section 498A IPC is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable. Since the offence is cognizable, police had wide discretion to arrest without warrant. Accordingly, in practice, arrest often followed immediately after FIR registration.

Courts observed misuse through mechanical implication of elderly parents, married sisters living separately and distant relatives. This raised serious concerns regarding the abuse of process.

II. The Turning Point: Arnesh Kumar Judgment

In Arnesh Kumar, the Supreme Court held that:

Arrest is not mandatory in every 498A case.
Police must justify necessity of arrest under Section 41 CrPC.
Failure to comply may invite departmental action.

The Court emphasised that personal liberty cannot be curtailed casually. Additionally, this ruling applies not only to 498A but to all offences punishable up to seven years.

III. Section 41 CrPC – When Can Police Arrest?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Under Section 41(1)(b) CrPC, police may arrest only if they believe it is necessary to:

Prevent further offence
Ensure proper investigation
Prevent tampering of evidence
Prevent inducement or threat to witnesses
Ensure presence in court

Police must record reasons in writing and the arrest cannot be automatic.

IV. Section 41A CrPC – Notice of Appearance

Instead of immediate arrest, police must ordinarily issue:

Notice under Section 41A CrPC

The accused must:

Appear before the Investigating Officer and,
Cooperate with investigation

If the accused complies, arrest should not follow unless justified by fresh reasons.

V. Checklist Police Must Follow

After Arnesh Kumar, police must:

Assess necessity of arrest
Record written reasons
Issue 41A notice
Avoid mechanical detention
Forward reasons to Magistrate

The Magistrate must independently examine whether arrest is justified.

VI. What Happens If Police Violate These Safeguards?

If arrest occurs without compliance:

Accused may seek immediate bail
Courts may criticise investigative conduct
Departmental action may follow
Compensation may be claimed in extreme cases

Violation of procedure can strengthen defence during trial.

VII. Protection for Relatives and Senior Citizens

Courts frequently reiterate that distant relatives cannot be arrested without specific allegations. General and omnibus accusations are insufficient grounds for custodial arrest. High Courts often intervene under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse.

VIII. Practical Steps If You Receive 41A Notice

If you receive a Section 41A notice:

Do not ignore it.
Consult legal counsel immediately.
Appear as required.
Cooperate with investigation.
Preserve documentary evidence.

Non-compliance may weaken your position.

IX. Anticipatory Bail Still Remains Important

Even after Arnesh Kumar, anticipatory bail remains a vital safeguard.

Where there is:

Risk of arbitrary arrest
Threat of custodial harassment
Multiple accused family members

Filing under Section 438 CrPC ensures additional protection.

X. Judicial Approach After Arnesh Kumar

Post-2014, courts increasingly:

Scrutinise arrest memos
Examine compliance with Section 41
Criticise routine detention
Emphasise proportionality

The guiding principle remains: Arrest is an exception, not the rule.

Conclusion

The decision in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, hence, marked a watershed moment in matrimonial criminal jurisprudence. Altogether, it restored balance between protection of complainants and preservation of personal liberty.

Section 498A remains a serious offence. However, arrest cannot be mechanical or punitive. Police must undeniably demonstrate necessity. Magistrates must exercise independent scrutiny.

Understanding arrest procedure subsequently empowers accused persons to assert their constitutional rights lawfully and strategically.

Frequently Asked Questions

No. They must comply with Section 41 CrPC and consider issuing notice under Section 41A.

No. Arrest is permissible where statutory conditions are satisfied.

It applies to offences punishable up to seven years.

Courts may treat such arrest as illegal and grant relief.

Index of Legal Strategies and Defence is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Pradeep Bhardwaj Vs Priya on 15 July 2025

Posted on February 25 by Suprajaa Rajan

This judgment addresses the Supreme Court’s power to dissolve a marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution where the marriage has irretrievably broken down. The Court examined whether prolonged separation, failed mediation, and complete loss of marital bond justify dissolution, even when statutory grounds such as cruelty are not established.

The Court also considered the impact of acquittal in criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/406 IPC and the welfare of the minor child. The decision reflects the Court’s evolving approach toward dead marriages that survive only on paper.

“21. There are two main considerations which have weighed heavily with this Court while considering the rival contentions. Firstly, that the appellant-husband has been acquitted in the case of cruelty preferred by the respondent against him and his family members. Secondly, it is an admitted fact that the parties have been living separately since October 2009, i.e. almost for the past sixteen years.”

“22. It has been consistently held by this Court that the institution of marriage is rooted in dignity, mutual respect and shared companionship, and when these foundational aspects are irreparably lost, forcing a couple to remain legally bound serves no beneficial purpose.”

“23. In the present case, it is apparent that due to complete detachment and the prolonged estrangement, there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marital bond, which cannot be mended by any means.”

“24. It is as clear as a day that in the case at hand, the continuance of marriage shall only fuel animosity and litigation between the parties, which runs contrary to the ethos of matrimonial harmony envisioned by the law.”

“25. This Court finds it a fit case to exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and grant the relief of divorce to the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.”

Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

The Court:

Set aside the High Court’s judgment.
Granted divorce under Article 142 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.
Enhanced monthly maintenance to Rs. 15,000/- for the wife and minor son.

Pradeep Bharadwaj Vs Priya on 15 Jul 2025

Citation : 2025 INSC 852

Other Sources :

Index of Divorce Judgments is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: February 2026

BNSS Sec 393 – Language and contents of judgment

Praveen Kumar Singh Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Feb 2026

Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati Vs Anuradha Kovi (Divorce petition)

BNSS Sec 70 – Proof of service in such cases and when serving officer not present

BNSS Sec 530 – Trial and proceedings to be held in electronic mode

State of Maharashtra Vs Satish Ramteke on 12 Feb 2026

Life Cycle Stages of a Restitution of Conjugal Rights Case

1. Legal Foundation of Restitution of Conjugal Rights

2. Stage One: Pre-Filing Consultation and Case Assessment

3. Stage Two: Filing of Petition Before Family Court

4. Stage Three: Service of Notice to the Respondent

5. Stage Four: Filing of Written Statement

6. Stage Five: Reconciliation and Mediation Efforts

7. Stage Six: Framing of Issues

8. Stage Seven: Evidence and Trial

9. Stage Eight: Final Arguments

10. Stage Nine: Judgment and Decree

11. Enforcement of Decree

12. Consequences of Non-Compliance

13. Appeal and Post-Judgment Remedies

Conclusion

Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar

I. The Legal Position Before Arnesh Kumar

II. The Turning Point: Arnesh Kumar Judgment

III. Section 41 CrPC – When Can Police Arrest?

IV. Section 41A CrPC – Notice of Appearance

V. Checklist Police Must Follow

VI. What Happens If Police Violate These Safeguards?

VII. Protection for Relatives and Senior Citizens

VIII. Practical Steps If You Receive 41A Notice

IX. Anticipatory Bail Still Remains Important

X. Judicial Approach After Arnesh Kumar

Conclusion

Frequently Asked Questions

Pradeep Bhardwaj Vs Priya on 15 July 2025

Decision

Decision

1. Legal Foundation of Restitution of Conjugal Rights

2. Stage One: Pre-Filing Consultation and Case Assessment

3. Stage Two: Filing of Petition Before Family Court

4. Stage Three: Service of Notice to the Respondent

5. Stage Four: Filing of Written Statement

6. Stage Five: Reconciliation and Mediation Efforts

7. Stage Six: Framing of Issues

8. Stage Seven: Evidence and Trial

9. Stage Eight: Final Arguments

10. Stage Nine: Judgment and Decree

11. Enforcement of Decree

12. Consequences of Non-Compliance

13. Appeal and Post-Judgment Remedies

Conclusion

I. The Legal Position Before Arnesh Kumar

II. The Turning Point: Arnesh Kumar Judgment

III. Section 41 CrPC – When Can Police Arrest?

IV. Section 41A CrPC – Notice of Appearance

V. Checklist Police Must Follow

VI. What Happens If Police Violate These Safeguards?

VII. Protection for Relatives and Senior Citizens

VIII. Practical Steps If You Receive 41A Notice

IX. Anticipatory Bail Still Remains Important

X. Judicial Approach After Arnesh Kumar

Conclusion

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can police arrest immediately after FIR under 498A?+

2. Is arrest completely barred in 498A cases?+

3. Does Arnesh Kumar apply only to 498A?+

4. What if police ignore Section 41A notice procedure?+

Decision