Summons are served via Whatsapp and same is marked and taken as valid serving of summons by hon’ble High Court of Bombay.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel Vs Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel And others on 14 March, 2008
A landmark judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court which has seen many twists and turn of events spearheaded by the cunning knife who is an Advocate and filed a large number of cases against her husband and in-laws.
- Filing of false 498A in Ahmedabad, that got transferred to Baroda and later dismissed
- Another criminal proceeding against the appellants and their family members under Sections 323, 452, 427, 504, 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the same proceeding has also been dismissed as withdrawn.
- Another criminal case was initiated by her against appellant No.2, his son and another under Section 406, 420, 468 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, which is still pending.
- Another case, being No.2338 of 2006 was filed by her under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Another case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code being Case No.2145 of 1993 was filed against the appellants.
- Petitions filed for cancellation of bail granted to appellants, at magistrate, District and High Courts
At the end, the cunning foxy knife bit the dust and had to put her tail between her legs.
Another important aspect is the following from Para 24:
24. Section 4 provides for a non obstante clause. In terms of the said provision itself any obligation on the part of in-laws in terms of any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of law before the commencement of the Act, are no longer valid. In view of the non obstante clause contained in Section 4, the provisions of the Act alone are applicable. Sections 18 and 19 prescribe the statutory liabilities in regard to maintenance of wife by her husband and only on his death upon the father-in-law, Mother-in-law, thus, cannot be fastened with any legal liability to maintain her daughter-in-law from her own property or otherwise.
Citations: [AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2675], [2008 AIR SCW 4475], [2008 (5) SRJ 92], [(2008) 1 CRILR(RAJ) 259], [(2008) 6 ALLMR 75 (SC)], [(2008) 2 MARRILJ 376], [(2008) 2 JCC 1127 (SC)], [2008 CRILR(SC&MP) 259], [(2008) 65 ALLINDCAS 38 (SC)], [2008 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 259], [2008 (65) ALLINDCAS 38], [2008 (4) SCALE 601], [2008 (4) SCC 649], [2008 (2) CALCRILR 1], [2008 (2) JCC 1127], [2008 (2) MARR LJ 376], [2008 (6) ALL MR 75 NOC], [(2008) 3 CIVILCOURTC 570], [(2008) 2 MAD LJ(CRI) 1111], [(2008) 4 RAJ LW 3440], [(2008) 2 RECCRIR 699], [(2008) 2 WLC(SC)CVL 93], [(2008) 3 ALLCRILR 9], [(2008) 2 ALL WC 1636, (2009) 1 GUJ LR 200], [(2008) 4 SCALE 601], [(2008) 71 ALL LR 482], [(2008) 5 BOM CR 441]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/913087/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae92e4b01497114142ed
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=302265
Index of judgments under HAMA 1956 are here.
Kolli Babi Sarojini And Others Vs Kolli Jayalaxmi And Another on 29 April, 2014
A knife like complainant who by her adulterous life caused mental agony and family disorder both for husband and children was shown the door by the hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in this Criminal Revision on a DV Case which was allowed.
The knife was living in adultery and neglected/left the children and ultimately wanted property of the brother of husband and custody of major and married children!!
Highlight
As per the provisions of the Act, the proceedings have to be held in camera and to be tried summarily. According to the provisions of the Act, time fixed is 60 days for disposal from the date of the first hearing. This Act is to provide speedy remedy for deserving aggrieved person and for that reason, a summary enquiry is contemplated
Citation: [2015 ALL M.R. (Cri.) Journal 178]
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112132700/
The index page is here.
Twinkleben Umeshbhai Patel Vs State Of Gujarat on 4 May, 2018
One good judgment from High Court of Gujarat which held that woman who allegedly has a illicit relationship with the husband of a knife is not a relative of husband in the context of 498A IPC
A precedent is available here.
Rajeti Laxmi Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 July, 2006
One good judgment from High Court of Andhra Pradesh which held that woman who allegedly has a illicit relationship with the husband of a knife is not a relative of husband in the context of 498A IPC
Tammineedi Bhaskara Rao & Others Vs State of A.P. rep., by Public Prosecutor & Others on 18 November, 2006
In this quash judgment, hon’ble High Court of AP has held that
Learned Counsel would submit that the specific allegations made in the complaint, against the petitioners herein, relate to the demand of dowry attracting the ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Counsel would refer to Rule 10, of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules, to contend that since the allegation of demand of dowry against respondents 2 to 4 are at the time of the marriage which, even according to the complaint, took place in December 1996 and as the complaint was filed eight years thereafter in December 2004, it was barred by limitation.
And the Shri Ramesh Ranganathan J (as his Lorship was called then) held that,
There is considerable force in the submission of Sri K. Jagdishchandra Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner that, since Rule 10 of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules prescribes a limitation of one year, the complaint filed eight years after the marriage is barred by limitation. Rule 10 of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1998 provides that any offence under Section 3 and 4 shall be filed before expiry of one year.
Shri Ramesh Rangarajan is the ‘Longest serving Acting CHief Justice of AP High Court. Read article here.
Dr.Varun Kumar Vs The State of TN on 26 June, 2018
This is a case of malicious litigation per High Court of Madras in a complaint for offences under Sections 406, 417, 420, 506(i) IPC, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as DP Act), Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 (herein after referred to as TNPHW Act) and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 (herein after referred to as IT Act).
Hon’ble Court has mercilessly quashed the petition and threw it out the window, for good.
Jaggavarapu Satishkumar Reddy and 3 Otrs Vs The State Of AP On 20 February, 2018
A quash judgment here from High Court of A.P. wherein the request was to quash a false 498A IPC case with a argument that, “the allegations do not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners-A.1 to A.4 and that respondent No.2-defacto complainant deserted her husband (petitioner-A.1) long back and that continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioners-A.1 to A.4 is nothing but abuse of process of Court.”
Instead of quashing the case, the judge ordered to go for Discharge at lower court itself.
And the judge gave this order in Para 7 and 8,
As far as allegations against the petitioners-A.1 to A.4, the court below has to decide truth or otherwise of the allegations. The petitioners-A.1 to A.4 are at liberty to file an application for discharge in accordance with law, and on filing of such application, the Court below has to consider it on merits in accordance with law.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners-A.1 to A.4 that petitioner-A.4 is aged 88 years and is suffering from health problems and not in a position to move. Taking into consideration of age and health condition of the petitioner-A.4, her presence is dispensed with in the proceedings before the Court below subject to her complying with Section 205 Cr.P.C.. As and when her presence is specifically required, the Court below may order her presence. As far as other petitioners-A.1 to A.3 are concerned, in case of any difficulty in attending the Court, they are at liberty to invoke the relevant provisions of law.
Dolat Ram & Ors Vs The State Of Haryana on 11 November, 1994
Another good judgment from hon’ble Apex Court, setting aside a HC order which cancelled Anticipatory bail on improper ground.
