Birendra Kumar Tiwari Vs Neetu Tiwari on 07 Dec 2022

Posted on May 27 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench at High Court of Chhattisgarh held as follows while denying maintenance to a major daughter, who refused to live with father.

From Para 5,

5. It is explicit from impugned order that respondent has attained the majority and also pursuing B.A. final year. As per Section 125 Cr.P.C. to get maintenance daughter has to make out a case that she is unable to maintain herself or not attained the majority but in the present case, no such averment has been made. So the respondent is not entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 recognize rights of maintenance to children and it is statutory obligation of Hindu to maintain his or her daughter, who is unmarried and is unable to maintain herself out of her own earning of other property.

This kind judge gave her legal advice through this judgment. Still have the tendency to think like an advocate!

From Paras 7 and 8,

7. Therefore, in view of the proposition held in Abhilasha (Supra) the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C before the Family Court is not maintainable. Further, this Court reserves liberty in favour of the respondent/daughter to take recourse to Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, if so advised, for claiming any maintenance against her father.
8. Reserving the aforesaid liberty, this revision is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed.

Birendra Kumar Tiwari Vs Neetu Tiwari on 07 Dec 2022

Citations: [2022 Latest Caselaw 7369 Chatt],

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32464509/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/639a08eae4e7915eb4d2599d

https://www.latestlaws.com/judgements/chattisgarh-high-court/2022/december/2022-latest-caselaw-7369-chatt/

Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here.

Parvinder Singh Khurana Vs Enforcement of Directorate on 19 May 2026

Posted on May 26 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court held that an accused must be given an opportunity of hearing under the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, even where the prosecution complaint was filed before July 1, 2024. The Court clarified that non-compliance with this requirement makes the cognizance order void ab initio.

From Para 27,

27. Though Chapter XVI of the BNSS lays down the procedural law dealing with complaints made to a Magistrate, we hold that the aforesaid proviso is substantive in nature, as it does not merely regulate the manner in which the proceedings are to be conducted, rather it confers a right upon the accused to be heard before taking cognizance which forms a part of the right of an accused to a fair trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. We further hold that the word “shall” occurring in the said proviso has to be construed to be mandatory in nature, which enures to the benefit of an accused. Resultantly, cognizance of an offence taken by a Court without due compliance of the aforestated proviso would be void ab initio.

The Bench observed that the proviso grants a substantive right to the accused and is part of the guarantee of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. It further held that the word “shall” in the proviso is mandatory in nature.

From Para 29,

29. A substantive right conferred under the BNSS would definitely enure to the benefit of an accused against whom none of the proceedings envisaged under Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS has been initiated. One has to see the nature of right. It is not a case of either a retrospective or retroactive application, rather it is a prospective one when a better right has been conferred under the BNSS.

The Court also ruled that ministerial acts like numbering a complaint and posting it for cognizance do not amount to an “inquiry” under Section 2(1)(k) BNSS.

From Para 34,

34. A mere ministerial act cannot be termed as an “inquiry” under Section 2(1)(k) of the BNSS. Taking cognizance is nothing but an application of judicial mind. So long as the application of the judicial mind is not exercised, an inquiry cannot commence. It is the judicial notice of an offence by the Court which is relevant. While doing so, it is presumed that the Court would take note of the complaint along with the materials placed before it.

From Para 36,

36. As rightly held by this Court in Hardeep Singh (supra), even the stage of ensuring compliance with Sections 207 to 209 of the CrPC, 1973 cannot be termed as an inquiry because there is no application of judicial mind. In the facts of the instant case, the direction issued by the Special Court, vide order dated 24.06.2024, to number the complaint and, thereafter, post the matter on a future date for hearing on cognizance would certainly not come within the purview of an “inquiry” under Section 2(1)(k) of the BNSS. In such view of the matter, the aforestated contention raised by the learned ASG falls to the ground.

Parvinder Singh Vs Enforcement of Directorate on 19 May 2026

Citations: [2026 INSC 519]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46844204/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6a0efbcf3da19f224cfa1ec5

https://www.verdictum.in/supreme-court/parvinder-singh-v-directorate-of-enforcement-2026-insc-519-pmla-complaints-filed-before-bnss-1614403

https://thelexpedia.com/judgements/parvinder-singh-v-directorate-of-enforcement-2026

Cognisance of Complaint under PMLA

Ankit Saha Vs State of UP and Anr on 03 Dec 2025

Posted on April 3 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Allahabad bench of Allahabad High Court held as follows on two aspects,

From Paras 9 to 11, (Failed to prove that Wife was ‘unable to maintain herself‘)

9. From the perusal of Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is clear that maintenance can be awarded to the wife, when she is unable to maintain herself.
10. A perusal of the paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment which is at internal page no. 12 of the impugned indicates that in the affidavit filed before the trial court, the opposite party no. 2 herself admitted that she is a Post-Graduate, Web Designer by qualification, and is working as a Senior Sales Coordinator in Keiath Telecom Pvt. Ltd., getting salary of Rs. 34,000/- per month but in her cross-examination she has further admitted that she is earning of Rs. 36,000/- per month and such amount, for a wife who has no other liability, cannot be said to be meagre, whereas the revisionist has the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents and other social obligations.
11. Thus, this Court is of the view that as per the provision of Section 125(1) (a), the opposite party no. 2 is not entitled to get any maintenance from her husband/revisionist as she is an earning lady and able to maintain herself.

From Paras 12 to 15,

12. On the second issue, learned counsel for the revisionist has alleged that she did not came before the trial court with clean hands. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2 at page no. 67-70 clearly reflects that she has not mentioned that she is an earning lady as well as a perusal of application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. paper no. 33 to 38 at paragraph no. 16 reflects that she has claimed herself as an illiterate and unemployed woman but when the document filed by the revisionist was shown to her before the trial court, she has admitted her aforesaid income during her cross-examination. Thus, it is clear that she did not came before the trial court with clean hands.
13. It is settled law that when a person approaches a Court, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. It is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. The judicial process should never become an instrument of appreciation or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. Easy, access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. If a petitioner is guilty of suppression of very important fact his case cannot be considered on merits. Thus, a litigant is bound to make “full and true disclosure of facts”.
14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC641, para no. 11 is reproduced herein below:
“11. It is settled law that a litigant who, while filing proceedings in the court, suppresses material facts or makes a false statement, cannot seek justice from the court. The facts suppressed must be material and relevant to the controversy, which may have a bearing on the decision making. Cases of those litigants who have no regard for the truth and those who indulge in suppressing material facts need to be thrown out of the court.”
15. In view of the said judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, the opposite party no. 2 does not deserve any sympathy and is not entitled to receive maintenance from the revisionist.

Ankit Saha Vs State of UP and Anr on 03 Dec 2025

Index of Maintenance Judgements under Section 144 BNSS here.

Kamaljeet Kaur and Anr Vs Harbhajan Singh and Anr on 26 Aug 2022

Posted on March 7 by ShadesOfKnife

The High Court held that initiation of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was justified where the court found possible false statements regarding employment in a maintenance petition. The Court observed that such proceedings aim to protect the sanctity of judicial processes.

The Court ruled that the truth of the allegations must emerge during the enquiry. It dismissed the appeal and allowed the perjury proceedings to continue.

The following extracts form the basis of the Court’s reasoning.

“Admittedly, the dispute is between appellant No.1 and respondent No.1, who are husband and wife. Due to the matrimonial discord, appellant No.1 left the matrimonial home on 25.09.2017 and both of them started living separately.”

“A perusal of the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. makes it evident that if the Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 195… such Court after such preliminary enquiry is competent to order the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.”

“Initiation of the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is to carry out a thorough enquiry by affording opportunity to both the sides for establishing the truthfulness in the allegations.”

“Initiation of the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in itself cannot be said to be punitive. Rather the same is expedient in the interest of justice for maintaining the sanctity of the judicial proceedings.”

“After hearing the counsel for the appellants and perusing the record… this Court is of the opinion that the impugned complaint and impugned orders suffer from no illegality.”

Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal.

It upheld the Family Court’s decision to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Court held that such enquiry was necessary to determine the truth of the alleged false statements regarding employment.

However, the Court clarified that its observations would not influence the trial court during further proceedings.

Kamaljeet Kaur Vs Harbhajan Singh on 26 Aug 2022

Index of Perjury Judgements is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Dr.Praveen R Vs Dr.Arpitha on 31 Aug 2021

Posted on March 3 by ShadesOfKnife

The Karnataka High Court held that when a court records a specific finding that a party suppressed material facts on oath, it cannot dismiss a perjury application as premature merely because the main case remains pending. The Court ruled that allegations of false evidence affect the purity of judicial proceedings and require prompt consideration. It set aside the Family Court’s order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

The following paragraphs form the foundation of the Court’s decision.

Para 4(a):
“…If these IT Returns are taken into consideration, the respondent is having income and she is also earning income… She has not filed any counter to the objections filed by the petitioner and also with respect to these IT Returns. In fact, by filing a complaint she has admitted that she has filed Income Tax Returns… Under such circumstances, she has suppressed the fact that she was earning income…”
Para 4(b):
“…when the Court below has recorded a specific finding as to the income of the respondent from the medical profession that too on the basis of undisputed IT Returns for the relevant period; when it has also recorded a specific finding that the respondent has suppressed the fact that she was earning income; that being the position, the application of petitioner for initiating action for the offence of perjury, could not have been turned down as being premature merely because main matter is still pending…”
Para 4(c):
“…act of perjury is treated as a heinous offence in all civilized societies; consideration of complaints with regard to the same cannot be deferred or delayed; otherwise there is all possibility of the fountain of justice being polluted.”
Para 4(e):
“…applications of the kind need to be considered on merits at the earliest point of time so that a loud message goes to the unscrupulous section of the litigant public as to what would befall the perjuring parties.”

Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition.

It set aside the Family Court’s order.
It remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the perjury application.
It directed that the main matrimonial case remain in abeyance until such consideration.

All contentions remained open.

Praveen R Vs Arpitha on 31 Aug 2021

Citation :2021:KHC:33333

Other Sources :

Index of Perjury Judgements is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B, LL.M.

+91-9606345150

BNSS 379 – Procedure in cases mentioned in section 215

Posted on March 3 by ShadesOfKnife

379. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 215.—
(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 215, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,—
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 215.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,—
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.
(4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in section 215.

Entire BNSS is here.

Shailendra Sharma and Ors Vs Indus Residency Pvt Ltd and Ors on 07 Jan 2026

Posted on March 3 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madhya Pradesh Hugh Court at Jabalpur Bench held as follows,

From Para 8,

8. A police officer cannot directly register a crime for offence under Section 215 B.N.S.S. once the offence is committed in or in relation to a proceeding in the Court. As per Section 379 B.N.S.S., the Court has to cause preliminary enquiry and then can make a complaint in writing. However, in the present case, the Court has not made any enquiry, nor recorded any prima-facie satisfaction and has simply directed the police authorities to carry out an investigation and submit a report before the Court. Though the Court in its discretion could have directed the police authorities to investigate the matter and to furnish report before the Court, but the discretion to register FIR should not have been left at the discretion of the police authorities. It was for the Court to have applied its mind after receiving the preliminary enquiry report of the police authorities.

Shailendra Sharma and Ors Vs Indus Residency Pvt Ltd and Ors on 07 Jan 2026

Citations: [2026:MPHC-JBP:1337]

Other Sources:

Index of Perjury judgments is here.

BNSS Sec 393 – Language and contents of judgment

Posted on February 28 by ShadesOfKnife

393. Language and contents of judgment.—
(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Sanhita, every judgment referred to in section 392,—
(a) shall be written in the language of the Court;
(b) shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision;
(c) shall specify the offence (if any) of which, and the section of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) or other law under which, the accused is convicted, and the punishment to which he is sentenced;
(d) if it be a judgment of acquittal, shall state the offence of which the accused is acquitted and direct that he be set at liberty.
(2) When the conviction is under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) and it is doubtful under which of two sections, or under which of two parts of the same section, of that Sanhita the offence falls, the Court shall distinctly express the same, and pass judgment in the alternative.
(3) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence.
(4) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of one year or more, but the Court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months, it shall record its reasons for awarding such sentence, unless the sentence is one of imprisonment till the rising of the Court or unless the case was tried summarily under the provisions of this Sanhita.
(5) When any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead.
(6) Every order under section 136 or sub-section (2) of section 157 and every final order made under section 144, section 164 or section 166 shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision.

BNSS is here.

Praveen Kumar Singh Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Feb 2026

Posted on February 28 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Allahabad High Court held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist had filed written submissions before the trial court specifically alleging that opposite party no. 2 was living in adultery with one Rocky @ Tarun. However, the trial court did not consider the said allegation on the ground that no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act had been filed in support of the electronic evidence.

From Para 7,

7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A., as well as perusal of the record and the order passed by the trial court, it appears that the WhatsApp chats annexed by the revisionist were not accepted solely on the ground that a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act had not been submitted. However, Section 14 of the Family Courts Act provides that a Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, document, information, or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it in effectively dealing with a dispute, whether or not such evidence would otherwise be relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Moreover, while adjudicating matrimonial disputes, the Family Court may lay down its own procedure.

Praveen Kumar Singh Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Feb 2026

Citations: [2026:AHC:34917]

Other Sources:

https://lawtrend.in/family-court-must-consider-whatsapp-chat-indicating-adultery-even-without-section-65-b-certificate-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-maintenance/

Index

Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati Vs Anuradha Kovi (Divorce petition)

Posted on February 28 by ShadesOfKnife

After losing the Nullity petition here, I filed a divorce petition before Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District, AP, seeking Decree of Divorce of my marriage under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act.

Now to serve the notice on the unavailable OP…

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

Birendra Kumar Tiwari Vs Neetu Tiwari on 07 Dec 2022

Parvinder Singh Khurana Vs Enforcement of Directorate on 19 May 2026

Ankit Saha Vs State of UP and Anr on 03 Dec 2025

Kamaljeet Kaur and Anr Vs Harbhajan Singh and Anr on 26 Aug 2022

Decision

Dr.Praveen R Vs Dr.Arpitha on 31 Aug 2021

BNSS 379 – Procedure in cases mentioned in section 215

Shailendra Sharma and Ors Vs Indus Residency Pvt Ltd and Ors on 07 Jan 2026

BNSS Sec 393 – Language and contents of judgment

Praveen Kumar Singh Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Feb 2026

Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati Vs Anuradha Kovi (Divorce petition)