—Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
P.Sangeetha Vs The Inspector Of Police on 4 June, 2018
Hon’ble High Court of Madras has held that
Therefore, there is enough material to indicate that the petitioner herein had consciously got married to said Feroz Khan with full knowledge that the marriage between the first accused and the second respondent is very much in subsistence.
And…
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if a complaint contains allegations about commission of offence under Section 498A of the IPC which is a cognizable offence, apart from allegations about the commission of offence under Section 494 of the IPC, the court can take cognizance thereof even on a police report. This decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is a clear answer to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court cannot take cognizance of both the offences under Sections 494 as well as 498 of IPC in a single proceeding. This Court rejects the contention of the petitioner that the registration of F.I.R is illegal.
Biased judiciary favoring women,
However, considering the fact that the petitioner is a woman, this Court directs that the trial magistrate shall insist on the appearance of the petitioner herein only for answering the charges and at the time of examination of witnesses under Section 313 of Cr.PC and at the time of pronouncing judgement. Except the aforesaid occasions, on other hearing dates the petitioner can be permitted to be represented through counsel.
Surya Prakash Vs Rachna on 10 October, 2017
Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in this judgment held that,
If there is any instance of domestic violence, for which an affirmative or prohibitory order is passed under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the provisions of Section 31 of the Act can be invoked. Non-payment of maintenance allowance is also a breach of ‘protection order’ or ‘interim protection order’. The order passed in Sunil @ Sonu vs. Sarita Chawla (Smt.), reported in 2009 (5) MPHT 319 is in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Sachin Vs Sau. Sushma on 6 May, 2014
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in this judgment for recovering maintenance amount, has held that
From Para 5,
Therefore, it is abundantly clear that basically the learned Magistrate has to follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure for recovery of maintenance either final or interim. Subsection (2) of Section 28 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be pressed into service when there is no provision available for implementing a particular order passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. If the procedure is available in Code of Criminal Procedure, that is necessarily to be followed.
From Para 9,
As such the first option available to the Magistrate was to issue a warrant for levying fine. If whole of the amount was recovered by adopting the procedure under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the question of putting the defaulter in prison did not arise. In case amount was not recovered or part of it was recovered and part of it was not recovered, then the question would have arisen as to how much sentence should be imposed on the defaulter as per the provision laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The stage of issuing warrant comes only after sentencing and not before that.
Manjunath Reddy Vs Latha on 1 August, 2016
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka while rejecting this criminal petition, has held in this judgment that,
From Para 3,
Having regard to the object and scope of the legislation, the prescription of such enabling provision is obviously not to cramp the style of the court which requires to address the issues with some expedition. Therefore, the section providing that the court can form its own procedure, would also over-ride sub-section (1) of Section 28 to rule 6(5) of the Rules as well
This is from final Para,
Therefore, the present petition is misconceived and is rejected. The view taken by this court would also be relevant having regard to the circumstances of this case which has been hanging fire for the past two years in a matter which should have been summarily disposed of. Therefore, the court below is directed to expedite the proceedings and to deal mercilessly with any such applications filed by the petitioner.
Aniket Subhash Tupe Vs Piyusha Aniket Tupe And Anr on 22 March, 2018
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay while dismissing this writ petition, has held in this judgment that,
The opening words of Sub Section (2) of Section 28 viz.”Nothing in Sub Section (1) shall prevent the Court” clearly indicate that notwithstanding the procedure prescribed in 28(1) r/w. Rule 6(5) the Court is empowered to lay down its own procedure in deciding the application under Section 12 or 23(2) of the D.V.Act.
Anil Ambashankar Joshi Vs Reena Anil Joshi And Anr on 5 December, 2016
In this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, it is held that in a case of CrPC 125, whereby a knife comes begging for maintenance, she has to step into the witness box and depose her evidence. Affidavit of Evidence is not permitted per CrPC 126(2).
The affidavit of evidence filed by the Petitioner vide Exh.17 would have to be discarded. The Respondent however would be entitled to lead her evidence by stepping into the witness box.
Citations:
Other Sources:
Index of Maintenance Cases here.
CrPC 126 – Procedure for CrPC 125 Case
(1) Proceedings under section 125 may be taken against any person in any district-
(a) where he is, or
(b) where he or his wife, resides, or
(c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child.
(2) All evidence in such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proceed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons- cases: Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms at to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper.
(3) The Court in dealing with applications under section 125 shall have power to make such order as to costs as may be just.
Next section here.
K R Nandakumar Vs State Of Karnataka on 16 March, 2018
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that even though the marriage if deceased and the accused is registered, it is null and void, as the accused is already married to another woman and that marriage was subsiding.
If first wife is alive a second marriage is not permissible in the eye of law
Petitioner Vs State of Kerala on 19 January 2015
In this case, the knife alleged illicit relationship between the 1st accused and the petitioner herein.
Update: Since there is personal information displayed in the judgment, with due respect to and on request of the parties involved, the address particulars are removed in the below PDF.
Further Update as on 22-08-2020:
Upon further request received on Whatsapp and on call, I decided to oblige the caller and her husband, to remove the name of the petitioner also from the title, tag and pdf judgment.
Citations: [2015 SCC ONLINE KER 2315]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29927975/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e3c04a93261a672b6712
