In this judgment from Apex Court, Hon’ble Bench has, in detail, explained the procedure before framing charges and the discharge procedure thereof.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
Poongadi And Anr Vs Thangavel on 27 September, 2013
Hon’ble Apex Court in this judgment re-iterated that the imprisonment for a monthly maintenance payment failure is 1 single month, for each violation.
From Para 6,
6. In another decision of this Court in Shantha v. B.G Shivananjappa 2005 4 SCC 468 it has been held that the liability to pay maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is in the nature of a continuing liability. The nature of the right to receive maintenance and the concomitant liability to pay was also noticed in a decision of this Court in Shahada Khatoon v. Amjad Ali 1999 5 SCC 672. Though in a slightly different context, the remedy to approach the court by means of successive applications under Section 125(3) CrPC highlighting the subsequent defaults in payment of maintenance was acknowledged by this Court in Shahada Khatoon.
From Para 8,
8. In view of the above, we are left in no doubt that the order passed by the High Court needs to be interfered with by us which we accordingly do. The order dated 21-4-2004 of the High Court is set aside and we now issue directions to the respondent to pay the entire arrears of maintenance due to the appellants commencing from the date of filing of the maintenance petition (MC No. 1 of 1993) i.e 4-2-1993 within a period of six months and current maintenance commencing from the month of September 2013 payable on or before 7-10-2013 and thereafter continue to pay the monthly maintenance on or before the 7th of each successive month. If the above order of this Court is not complied with by the respondent, the learned trial court is directed to issue a warrant for the arrest of the respondent and ensure that the same is executed and the respondent taken into custody to suffer imprisonment as provided by Section 125(3) CrPC.
Citations : [2013 SCR 9 862], [2013 AIR BOMR 6 775], [2013 SLT 8 113], [2013 SCALE 12 186], [2013 CRIMES SC 4 371], [2013 AIR SC 5764], [2014 AIR SC 24], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 794], [2013 CRLJ SC 5006], [2014 SCC CRI 1 361], [2013 SCC 10 618], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 504], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 4 701], [2013 AIOL 65], [12013 SUPREME 7 254], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 893], [2013 GUJ LH 3 363], [2013 CTC 6 338], [2013 AIC 131 58], [2014 ECRN 1 720], [2014 AD SC 7 511], [2013 ALLCC 83 973], [2014 ALT CRL AP 1 299], [2013 DMC 3 460], [2014 GLR SC 3 2005], [2013 JLJR 4 575], [2014 LW CRL 1 69], [2013 NCC 2 840], [2014 PLJR 1 52], [2014 SCJ 1 797], [2013 AIR SCW 5764]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5626322/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2de4b0149711415baa
Index of maintenance cases under sec 125 CrPC are here.
Chandresh Shrivastava Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2018
Good judgment from MP High Court.
Para 6,
In the aforesaid circumstances, the allegation with regard to demand of dowry and harassment are prima facie absurd and the aforesaid facts show that after getting summons of the petition for divorce filed by the applicant no.1, as a counter blast, she lodged the FIR maliciously with a view to take revenge with the husband and in-laws.
Md.Barik Vs The State Of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Bihar on 2 June, 2016
This Patna High Court judgment highlights that illegal detention of accused is a violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India.
Thus, the detention of the petitioner being per se illegal and without jurisdiction. It would be violated of its constitutional rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Indiankanoon.org Link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31356999/
Citation:
This judgment is based on the landmark judgment of Patna High Court passed in 2011 which is available here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Ramdhani Sah Vs The State of Jharkhand on 22 June, 2016
This judgment from Jharkhand High Court explains the notorious arrests under CrPC 125(3)
Laljee Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011
This is a wonderful judgment explaining the imprisonment of accused who fails to make the maintenance payments to Knife under Sec 125(3) of CrPC.
Noticing the peculiar situation where virtually the petitioner has been made to serve life sentence and the insensitivity of the Judge in the matter, we called for the lower Court records to examine for ourselves the facts because if what is being said by the Principal Judge, Family Court is to be accepted then the petitioner would virtually be serving a life sentence with no remission possible.
What is more scandalous is, as will be shown, petitioner has been kept in prison mechanically and that too for months even without any order of remand by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court.
The Code itself provides by Section 421 for warrant for levy of fine….
… A reference to Section 421 and the proviso would show that it clearly prohibits a person to be imprisoned in execution of warrant levying fine which would simply for recovery of the maintenance and, thus, there is no scope for issuance of any distress warrant for detaining a defaulter husband.
For the purposes of sentencing, the Code has provision in terms of Sections 29 and 30 thereof but the question remains that can there be a sentence straightway upon default being shown. In our view, no.
Unfortunately, in total disregard to the binding precedent, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court proceeded. The result is that the petitioner is being detained in custody ad infinitum which is against the statutory provisions.
Again, this is significant inasmuch as the maintenance being a monthly payment, for each month’s default, defaulter can be sentenced for a month’s imprisonment.
As seen above, the maintenance is to be fixed on monthly basis. The sentence has, accordingly, been limited to a month maximum for each breach.
We, therefore, hold that the detention of the petitioner cannot be justified and is contrary to the scheme as provided under Section 125 (3) of the Code. We have no option accordingly but to direct the immediate release of the petitioner, while quashing the order committing the petitioner to custody and subsequent orders of remand. The writ application is allowed.
B Sunitha Vs The State Of Telangana on 5 December, 2017
In this case, the advocate asked for a percentage of the alimony amount from the Knife !!
Shalu Ojha Vs Prashant Ojha on 18 September, 2014
Interesting act of counsel !!
In Para 14,
Strangely, when the appellant’s application for the payment of current maintenance in C.M. No.18869 of 2013 was listed on 27.5.2014 before the High Court along with other connected matters in Appeal (Crl. Misc. Case No.1975 of 2013) preferred by the respondent, the application of the appellant was dismissed as “not pressed” on representation made by the counsel appearing for the appellant. The
appellant appeared in person before us and made a statement that such instructions not to press the application were never given to the counsel who appeared in the High Court and hence the present appeal.
The same parties have been fighting DVC case still and the case number at Apex Court is “Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3935/2016“.
Search for latest daily orders here.
Search link on Indiankanoon.org here.
The Case Index is available here.
Sanjaya Narayan Sahoo Vs State Of Odisha on 1 May, 2018
Another instance of advocate fraud this time whereby an advocate demanding percentage on the permanent alimony is against professional ethics which is not permissible in law.
Bobbili Ramakrishna Raju Yadav Vs State of AP Rep. By Its Public on 19 January, 2016
A key legal point enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this judgment.
In Para 13,
Giving of dowry and the traditional presents at or about the time of wedding does not in any way raise a presumption that such a property was thereby entrusted and put under the dominion of the parents-in-law of the bride or other close relations so as to attract ingredients of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
