In this Judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is made absolutely clear that interim maintenance allowed under HMA takes precedence over that is allowed under Section 125 of CrPC.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
Velaga Lakshmi Rajeswari Vs V.Siva Sambasiva Rao on 27 April, 2018
In this DV case at Ongole Magistrate Court, Justice Mrs. M Anuradha has held that
Para 7,
The learned defence counsel further submits that PW1 filed M.C. No.2/2015 claiming maintenance and it was dismissed as not pressed by the aggrieved person and even R1 has been sending Rs.8,600/- per month to PW1 and thereby the complaint is devoid of merits
Para 10,
PW1 claims that her parents gave Rs.1,50,000/- cash, Ac,0-02 ½ Cents of site at Ongole and gold articles to R1 towards dowry during her marriage. However, except her self-serving statement, PW1 not produced either oral or documentary evidence to prove the alleged payments to R1.
Para 12,
In the present case on hand, except the self-serving statement of PW1 nothing discloses from the case facts that any such list of the alleged presented things were prepared.
A key point to note here:
The evidence of PW1 discloses that due to unbearable torture of R1 to R3, PW1 was forced to stay at her parents house and that she also gave report against the respondents at Ongole Taluq Police station for the offences U/Sec.498-A of I.P.C. and U/Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
If such declaration was not done in a case, that would amount to willful concealment of material information resulting in Perjury.
Para 15,
In the absence of the proof of stay of R4 with RW1 and PW1 and R4 being a house wife, PW1 cannot claim any relief against R4.
Notwithstanding the Para 16, in Para 17,
On the other hand, except the bald statement of RW1 that PW1 refused to join him, there is no supportive oral or documentary evidence.
You have to have an evidence that conclusively proves that the Knife has deserted the husband without any cause and husband made efforts to bring her back to matrimonial home.
In Para 22,
As the aggrieved person failed to prove to her stay with R4 under one roof, the aggrieved person can not claim any relief against R4 (Sister of Husband).
Under Para 23,
The aggrieved person also claims rental accommodation. Considering the facts and circumstances and the status of the parties, the petition is allowed partly, directing R1 to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the petitioner towards her rental accommodation U/Sec.19 of the Act.
In Para 24,
By considering the means of R1 and necessities of the aggrieved person and her minor child and also considering the quantum of maintenance already receiving by PW1 at Rs.8,600/- per month, it is just and necessary to grant an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the aggrieved person towards maintenance U/Sec.20 of the Act.
And in Para 25,
Further, for the mental agony of depriving her access to the conjugal life, the aggrieved person is entitled to receive compensation of Rs.50,000/- from R1.
Konda Ruthu Vs Konda Narasimha Rao on 19 March 2018
In this DVC at Ongole Magistrate Court, Hon’ble judge has held that since husband (accused) had expired during the case proceedings, no maintenance was granted even though the R1 having properties the same was proved by the petitioner.
Coming to the relief sought by the petitioner that is shelter to prove this aspect the petitioner failed to produce the documents to show that the respondent is having a properties in his name. So that the relief sought by the petitioner is dismissed.
Shobhnaben Vs Shekhar on 2 December, 2010
Gujarat High Court has held that as no source of funds could be proved from which Dowry amount is given to accused, the accused are acquitted from Dowry allegations and there by IPC 498A is not made out.
Subhash Vs State Of Haryana on 16 December, 2010
A Significant omission in the witness statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C amounted to a contradiction and resulted in acquittal of accused in this Supreme Court case under IPC 498A.
Explanation to Section 162 of the Cr.P.C.
Explanation. – An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact.”
Here is the Clincher…
A bare reading of this Explanation would reveal that if a significant omission is made in the statement of a witness recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the same may amount to a contradiction and that whether it so amounts is a question of fact in each case.
Sushma Pattanshetti Vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2017
As there are no specific allegations on family members other than husband, the proceedings under 489A are quashed in this Karnataka High Court judgment.
Hans Raj Sharma & Ors. Vs State Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 2 March, 2010
In this Delhi High Court judgment, Justice V.K.Jain has held that Money Demanded after marriage are not in connection of Marriage.
Hanumanthu Naik Vs Nirmala Bai on 11 June, 2018
This quash judgment is from Hon’ble AP High Court at Hyderabad, which is based on the conclusion that there are no specific allegations on A2 and A3, parents of the husband (A1).
Another important aspect is that this quash is done also based on another quash order for same High Court in regards to other accused (A4, A5 and A6) in this very same case, specifically because of same allegations on them too.
[google-drive-embed url=”https://drive.google.com/file/d/137Au9pa288Id2UqPir4o_zi1FcdX3_rq/preview?usp=drivesdk” title=”Hanumanthu Naik Vs Nirmala Bai on 11 June, 2018.pdf” icon=”https://drive-thirdparty.googleusercontent.com/16/type/application/pdf” width=”100%” height=”400″ style=”embed”]
Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Vs The State on 18 November, 2010
Citing many landmark Perjury precedents, Justice J.R.Midha of Delhi High Court has rendered this judgment. This CrPC 340 judgment is under Sections 193, 196, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code. Since there was ample evidence for fraud on court, Police were directed to conduct preliminary inquiry.
A precedent from Supreme Court of India is available here, which is also relied upon in this instant judgment.
Citations: [2011 DRJ 121 328], [2010 CCR 4 442], [2010 DLT 174 214], [2011 RCR CRI 7 2111], [2010 SCC ONLINE DEL 4006]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83621866/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090d95e4b014971117a12d
Pritish Vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 21 November, 2001
The main contention point in this case in the Hon’ble Apex Court was “he was not heard during the preliminary inquiry conducted by the reference court under Section 340 of the Code.”
An exercise of the court at that stage is not for finding whether any offence was committed or who committed the same. The scope is confined to see whether the court could then decide on the materials available that the matter requires inquiry by a criminal court and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to have it inquired into.
