A copy of the order of maintenance shall be given without payment to the person in whose favour it is made, or to his guardian, if any or to the person to whom the allowance is to be paid; and such order may be enforced by any Magistrate in any place where the person against whom it is made may be, on such Magistrate being satisfied as to the identity of the parties and the non-payment of the allowance due.
First section in this series is here.
(3) Where any order has been made under section 125 in favour of a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband, the Magistrate shall, if he is satisfied that-
(b) the woman has been divorced by her husband and that she has received, whether before or after the date of the said order, the whole of the sum which, under any customary or personal law applicable to the parties, was payable on such divorce, cancel such order,-
Next section here.
Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this Sub-Section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct;
Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.
For the purposes of this Chapter–
a) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority;
b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.
An amendment to this 1973 Act is here. A terrible one.
Next section here.
These are the 5 subjects in third semester of 3 years LLB (General) of Sri Krishna Devaraya University, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh, India.
1. Property Law
2. Administrative Law
3. Company Law
4. Public International Law
5. Labour and Industrial Law
Here are the PDFs for the previous years question papers for third semester.
2012
2014
2015
2016
2017
Click here for Home Page which contains answers
The Metropolitan Magistrate had dismissed the DVC due to absence of the complainant on 1 date and acquitted the husband under 256 CrPC with this reasoning.
From Para 7,
Admittedly, on 19.10.2010, due to non-appearance of the complainant/appellant herein, complaint was dismissed and the accused were acquitted, against the same only, the present appeal has been preferred. While perusing the order, the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate has specifically mentioned as follows:
“Complainant absent. No representation. Respondent 1 present. Respondents 2 & 3 are absent. Petition u/s 317 Cr.P.C. filed allowed. Direction issued by the Fast Track Court to dispose within the stipulated time. Even after specific direction to appear & proceed with the case complainant is absent. No representation. Hence complaint is dismissed. Accused are acquitted.
The Hon’ble High Court of Madras has set aside the acquittal order with this reasoning picked from Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment from 2004. There is a later judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2008 on same subject here.
From Para 8,
At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in 2004 (1) CTC 689 (R.Sekar v. S.Rajendran) in para-4, it reads as follows:
“4.The Supreme Court in the case in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshjvanand 1998 Crl.L.R. 856 has held as follows:
“Two constraints are imposed on the Court for exercising the power under section 256. First is, if the Court thinks that in a situation it is proper to adjourn the hearing, then the Magistrate shall not acquit the accused. Second is, when the Magistrate considers that personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary on that day, the Magistrate has the power to dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. When the Court notices that the complainant is absent on a particular day, the Court must consider whether personal attendance of the complainant is essential on that day for the progress of the case and also whether the situation does not justify the case being adjourned to another date due to any other reason. If the situation does not justify the case being adjourned the Court is free to dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused. But if the presence of the complainant on that date was quite unnecessary, then resorting to the step of axing down the complaint may not be proper exercise of power envisaged in the Section. The discretion must, therefore, be exercised judicially and fairly without impairing the cause of administration of criminal justice.“
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Crucial judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court in regards to when can a case be dismissed for default under 256 CrPC.
In simple terms, if the examination/enquiry stage has started in a case and then there is absenteeism from complainant, Hon’ble magistrate is expected to proceed with the case on merit and dispose it accordingly. Dismissal for default is not to be invoked at the stage.
From Para 10,
Section 256 of the Code provides for disposal of a complaint in default. It entails in acquittal. But, the question which arises for consideration is as to whether the said provision could have been resorted to in the facts of the case as the witnesses on behalf of complainant have already been examined.
From Para 13,
Furthermore, when the prosecution has closed its case and the accused has been examined under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court was required to pass a judgment on merit of the matter.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Non appearance or death of complainant
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
In this case in front of Hon’ble High Court of Madras, it was held that “a Court of Law is to deliver a substantial Justice to the parties to secure the ends of Justice. A shortcut approach adopted by the trial Court resulting in dismissal of the complaint really would cause disaster effect on the complaint filed by the Appellant/Complainant.”
Meaning, instead of acquitting the accused based on attendance aspect by dismissing the complaint, the trial court magistrate must have proceeded further with case on merits.
This is the case of Film and TV personalities wherein the woman committed suicide and her live-in partner was accused for the same. Read through the below series of orders in this case wherein Anticipatory Bail is granted to the accused person by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.
Anticipatory Bail Application filed by accused under 438 CrPC; Interim AB granted
Next Date; Special PP is assigned to the case; Hence adjourned
Mommy of deceased woman files transfer of case to CBI application; Dismissed as pre-mature
AB is confirmed
Snapshop of the case at Lower Court
Some news snippets around the parties in above case.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Except for a paltry maintenance and residence order, rest of the beggings are dismissed by the Hon’ble Court in this DV Case.
Bad Behavior has blocked 314 access attempts in the last 7 days.
