In this bunch of cases, the false cases were crumbled by Courts.
Course of events in this case at High Court of Karnataka.
In this case, Single Judge discussed the admissibility of evidence in cases filed in Family Courts u/s 14 and also dispelled the false notion that if a spouse obtains an evidence illegally (by installing a CCTV in this case), such act would not be violative of the other spouse’s right to privacy. And also nothing in Constitution of India prohibits such evidence.
From Para 37,
37. While consistency in law is of utmost importance and law must get its full play regardless of the fact situation, this court must record the unease it feels with regard to a certain aspect that has arisen in this matter. Marriage is a relationship to which sanctity is still attached in our society. Merely because rules of evidence favour a liberal approach for admitting evidence in court in aid of dispensation of justice, this should not be taken as approval for everyone to adopt any illegal means to collect evidence, especially in relationships of confidence such as marriage. If the right to adduce evidence collected by surreptitious means in a marital or family relationship is available without any qualification or consequences, it could potentially create havoc in people’s personal and family lives and thereby in the society at large. For instance, if a spouse has the carte blanche to install a recording device in a bedroom or other private space or to adopt any means whatsoever to collect evidence against the partner, even if in circumstances of matrimonial discord, it would be difficult to foresee the length to which a spouse may go in doing so ; and such possibility would itself spell the end of the marital relationship. It is not uncommon for spouses to continue living together, even in matrimonial strife, for years on-end. So, while law must trump sentiment, a salutary rule of evidence or a beneficent statutory provision, must not be taken as a license for illegal collection of evidence.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/170404652/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5efb8cc29fca196e33048e01
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/deepti-kapur-versus-kunal-julka
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/07/01/del-hc-if-right-to-adduce-evidence-collected-by-surreptitious-means-in-a-marital-or-family-relationship-is-available-without-any-consequences-it-could-potentially-create-havoc-in-peoples-p/
Note: The nut case went to Supreme Court and the SC kicked out the SLP.
Index of Divorce judgments is here.
This is regarding adoption criteria under section 10() of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, which reads as follows,
10. Persons who may be adopted.―No person shall be capable of being taken in adoption unless the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:―
(i) he or she is a Hindu;
(ii) he or she has not already been adopted;
(iii) he or she has not been married, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who are married being taken in adoption;
(iv) he or she has not completed the age of fifteen years, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who have completed the age of fifteen years being taken in adoption.
From Para 16,
16. The aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recognized such a custom among the “Kamma” community of Andhra Pradesh of taking in adoption of a person even above the age of 15 years of age and has held the same to be legal and valid.
Citations: 2010 JT 12 4412011 AIR SC 5452010 CTC 6 5552010 SCJ 8 5992011 MLJ 1 7422011 ALT 1 312010 CLT 4 4612010 SLT 8 3982011 CUTLT SUPPL 8222010 AIOL 7842010 ALLMR SC 6 9792011 RCR CIVIL SC 2 972010 SCALE 12 1572010 SCC 14 4662010 SUPREME 7 8682012 SCC CIV 1 6442010 ALR 83 8812010 AIC 96 92011 CHN 1 217
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/663319/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aedae4b0149711414e5d
Shri Dalveer Bhandari J has held so with regards to civil cases such as DVC, HMA24 etc…
42. In civil cases, adherence to Section 30 CPC would alsohelp in ascertaining the truth. It seems that this provision which ought to be frequently used is rarely pressed in serviceby our judicial officers and judges. Section 30 CPC reads as under:-
30. Power to order discovery and the like. –
Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may, at any time either of its own motion or on the application of any party, –
(a) make such orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to the delivery and answering of interrogatories, the admission of documents and facts, and the discovery, inspection, production, impounding and return of documents or other material objects producible as evidence;
(b) issue summons to persons whose attendance is required either to give evidence or to produce documents or such other objects as aforesaid;
(c) order any fact to be proved by affidavit
Regarding punishing perjurers:
82. This Court in a recent judgment in Ramrameshwari Devi aptly observed at p. 266, para 43 that unless wrongdoers are denied profit from frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that the court’s otherwise scarce time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases. In this very judgment, the Court provided that this problem can be solved or at least can be minimised if exemplary costs is imposed for instituting frivolous litigation. The Court observed at pp. 267-68, para 58 that imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution in appropriate cases would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases, the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.
Citations: [2012 SCC CIV 3 126], [2012 AIR SC 1727], [2012 AIR SC 2162], [2012 RCR CIVIL SC 2 441], [2012 SCALE 3 550], [2012 AIR BOMR 3 857], [2012 AIOL 139], [2012 SLT 2 753], [2012 JT 3 451], [2012 BOMCR SC 4 75], [2012 CCC SC 2 344], [2012 SUPREME 2 602], [2012 SCC 5 370], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 281], [2012 ALR 92 251], [2012 LW 3 111], [2012 AIC 113 212], [2012 ALD 4 1], [2012 ALT SC 3 518], [2012 AWC SC 4 3645], [2012 CUT LT 114 437], [2012 SCSUPPL CHN 3 1]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100486606/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af13e4b014971141585f
(1) The parties to any proceeding under this Code in which a commission is issued may respectively forward any interrogatories in writing which the Court or Magistrate directing the commission may think relevant to the issue, and it shall be lawful for the Magistrate, Court or officer to whom the commission, is directed, or to whom the duty of executing it is delegated, to examine the witness upon such interrogatories.
(2) Any such party may appear before such magistrate, Court or Officer by pleader, or if not in custody, in person, and may examine, cross-examine and re-examine (as the case may be) the said witness.
Single Bench of Patna High Court held as follows, regarding interrogatories and their usage.
From Para 13,
13. Now coming to floor, it is apparent that object and purpose of serving interrogatories is to enable a party to require information from his opponent for the purpose of maintaining his own case and for destroying the case of the adversary and as such, it not only shorten the trial proceeding, save time of the court, it also deliverance the party from expenses, consumption of time as well as burden to collect and produce evidences. Side by side, it should always be guarded in a way to prevent misuse. Furthermore, as is apparent, it should be confined to the facts which are relevant to the matters in question in the suit. However, under Order-XI Rule 6, 7 the grounds have been enumerated whereupon interrogatories could be refused.
Basically, it has been settled at rest by different judicial pronouncement as:-
(i) A party is not entitled to administer interrogatories for obtaining discovery of facts which constitute exclusively the evidence of his adversary‟s case or title.
(ii) A party is not entitled to interrogate as to any confidential communications between his opponent and his legal adviser.
(iii) A party is not entitled to execute interrogatories which would involve disclosures injurious to public interest
Other sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32984899/
Interrogatories are allowed in the DV cases and they are independent of Written Statement/Counter filing. Such Interrogatories have to be disposed off in 7 days from filing.
The observations made by the learned trial Judge appear to be stringent and contrary to the provisions of CPC, as in view of the amendment of CPC w.e.f. July 1, 2002, it is mandatory for a Court to decide an application forleave to deliver interrogatories within a period of seven days from the date of filing of the said application. There is no provision warranting that stay could be granted merely for non-filing of the written statement.
And then…
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the defendant- petitioner wants to delay the filing of written statement on the pretext that an application for interrogatories under Order 11 Rule 4 CPC has been submitted before the trial Court. I have gone through the interrogatories. The interrogatories only seek to get a reply from the plaintiff- wife pertaining to an earlier application having been filed by her under the Domestic Violence Act, she being owner of properties mentioned in para Nos. 2 to 5 of the interrogatories. There is nothing mentioned in the interrogatories which could create an obstacle in fling of the written statement. Defendant- petitioner can conveniently take up a plea regarding plaintiff- respondent being owner of particular property disentitling her to any relief under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act while contesting her claim of permanent injunction. Besides this, obligation to file written statement is not subject to the adjudication of the application for interrogatories. There is an independent obligation on the part of the Court to decide the interrogatories within a period of seven days as per provisions of Order 11 Rule 2 CPC.
Other sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94382253/
When the proceedings have been instituted upon complaint, and on any day fixed for the hearing of the case, the complainant is absent, and the offence may be lawfully compounded or is not a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may, in his discretion, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, at any time before the charge has been framed, discharge the accused.
(1) If, in any case under this Chapter in which a charge has been framed, the Magistrate finds the accused not guilty, he shall record an order of acquittal.
(2) Where, in any case under this Chapter, the Magistrate finds the accused guilty, but does not proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 325 or section 360, he shall, after hearing the accused on the question of sentence, pass sentence upon him according to law.
(3) Where, in any case under this Chapter, a previous conviction is charged under the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 211 and the accused does not admit that he has been previously convicted as alleged in the charge, the Magistrate may, after he has convicted the said accused, take evidence in respect of the alleged previous conviction, and shall record a finding thereon:
Provided that no such charge shall be read out by the Magistrate nor shall the accused be asked to plead thereto nor shall the previous conviction be referred to by the prosecution or in any evidence adduced by it, unless and until the accused has been convicted under sub-section (2).
Bad Behavior has blocked 350 access attempts in the last 7 days.
