Aggrieved by the dissolving of the marriage here, the wife approached the Apex Court…
The Impugned Order was stayed.
Adjourned for filing of Counter.
Mediation Ordered
Mediation failed
Index is here.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur Cases
Here are the cases between this Ex-Couple…
- Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022 [PHHC: A division bench terminated the marital tie due to the cruelty and desertion of the wife]
- Harpreet Kaur Vs Ratandeep Singh Ahuja [Appeal filed before the SC]
Sharnavva @Kasturi Vs Shivappa on 18 Apr 2023
A single judge at Kalaburagi bench of Karnataka High Court held as follows,
From Para 10,
10. The Appellate Court ought not to have gone into the validity of the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, unless and until the validity of the marriage has been challenged by the respondent before the appropriate Court and it is nullified by the competent Court having jurisdiction to pass such order. The Courts while dealing with the maintenance matters, either under Section 12 of the Act or under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. should not go into the validity of the marriage. However, the Court may peruse the evidence of the wife as to whether she is able to maintain herself or not. Once the trial Court appreciated the evidence and passed an order of maintenance, the appellant Court may either modify it or set aside the same in case it is found that the wife is able to maintain herself. If any order passed by the appellant Court regarding the validity of the marriage or otherwise, it dehors its jurisdiction. In the present case, the Appellant Court gone into the validity of the marriage and set aside the order of maintenance passed under section 12 of the Act, which is beyond its jurisdiction and hence, it is liable to be set aside.
Citations:
Other Sources:
Index is here.
Deoki Panjhiyara Vs Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad and Anr on 12 Dec 2012
A division bench of Apex Court held that, Unless there is a declaration of nullity by a competent Court or authority, a aggrieved person can take advantage of benefits under DV Act.
From Para 19,
19. In the present case, if according to the respondent, the marriage between him and the appellant was void on account of the previous marriage between the appellant and Rohit Kumar Mishra the respondent ought to have obtained the necessary declaration from the competent court in view of the highly contentious questions raised by the appellant on the aforesaid score. It is only upon a declaration of nullity or annulment of the marriage between the parties by a competent court that any consideration of the question whether the parties had lived in a “relationship in the nature of marriage” would be justified. In the absence of any valid decree of nullity or the necessary declaration the court will have to proceed on the footing
that the relationship between the parties is one of marriage and not in the nature of marriage. We would also like to emphasise that any determination of the validity of the marriage between the parties could have been made only by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding by and between the parties and in compliance with all other requirements of law. Mere production of a marriage certificate issued under Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 in support of the claimed first marriage of the appellant with Rohit Kumar Mishra was not sufficient for any of the courts, including the High Court, to render a complete and effective decision with regard to the marital status of the parties and that too in a collateral proceeding for maintenance. Consequently, we hold that in the present case until the invalidation of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is made by a competent court it would only be correct to proceed on the basis that the appellant continues to be the wife of the respondent so as to entitle her to claim all benefits and protection available under the DV Act, 2005.
Citations: [2013 ALLMR CRI SC 1099], [2013 AIR SC 168], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 2 400], [2013 AIR SC 346], [2013 SCC 2 137], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 338], [2012 SCALE 12 282], [2013 CRLJ SC 684], [2012 AIOL 584], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 1 333], [2012 SLT 9 266], [2013 SCC CIV 1 1019], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 1035], [2013 GUJ LH 1 208], [2013 CTC 2 232], [2013 ECRN 1 913], [2013 ACR 1 1089], [2013 AD SC 3 59], [2013 AJR 2 133], [2013 AKR 1 615], [2013 ALD CRI 1 469], [2013 ALT CRI 3 70], [2013 ALT CRI 1 472], [2013 DMC SC 1 18], [2013 JLJR 1 198], [2012 JCC 1 502], [2013 JCC 1 508], [2012 JT SC 12 575], [2013 LW 2 60], [2013 LW CRL 1 330], [2013 NCC 1 322], [2013 OLR 1 891], [2013 PLJR 1 172], [2013 MLJ CRL 1 137]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154350889/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af10e4b0149711415804
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/deoki-panjhiyara-vs-shashi-bhushan-narayan-azad-anr
Kantharaju Vs State of Karnataka on 17 Jul 2023
A single Judge of Karnataka High Court, after relying on Shivcharan and Sivakumar, held as follows,
From Para 14 and 15,
14. The ratio of these two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly indicates that, if the marriage between the husband and wife ended as null and void, the offence under Section 498-A of IPC cannot be sustained.
15. Admittedly, in the present case, the complainant in her evidence, PW.2 being the mother of PW.1 both have consistently deposed and admitted that, PW.1 is the second wife of the petitioner. Accordingly, the concurrent findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction requires to be set aside.
Citations:
Other Sources:
Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs Vs State of AP and Ors on 24 Feb 2011
A division bench of Supreme Court held as follows,
From Para 26,
26. We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, which could have impelled the High Court to condone the delay after holding the same to be unjustifiable. The concepts such as “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” can not be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. Especially, in cases where the Court concludes that there is no justification for the delay. In our opinion, the approach adopted by the High Court tends to show the absence of judicial balance and restraint, which a Judge is required to maintain whilst adjudicating any lis between the
parties. We are rather pained to notice that in this case, not being satisfied with the use of mere intemperate language, the High Court resorted to blatant sarcasms. The use of unduly strong intemperate or extravagant language in a judgment has been repeatedly disapproved by this Court in a number of cases. Whilst considering applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections can not and should not form the basis of exercising discretionary powers.
Citations: [2011 SCALE 2 703], [2011 AIR SC 1199], [2011 AIR SC 1459], [2011 SUPREME 2 174], [2011 AIOL 144], [2011 SLT 2 378], [2011 BOMCR SC 5 857], [2011 JT 2 540], [2011 SCC 4 363], [2011 MHLJ SC 4 104], [2011 RCR CIVIL SC 2 880], [2011 ALR 86 59], [2011 AWC SC 3 2295], [2011 SCSUPPL CHN 2 130], [2011 CLT SC 112 152], [2011 KCCR SN 2 124], [2011 LW 3 26], [2011 SCR 3 2172909 CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2913 2005], [2011 BOMCR 5 857], [2011 KCCRSN 2 124], [2011 RCR CIVIL 2 880], [2011 AIR SCW 1459]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/912526/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af08e4b0149711415652
https://vlex.in/vid/c-no-002909-002913-852352762
Condone Delay Judgments
For various reasons, delay gets injected into Court proceedings especially when challenging a lower Court order/judgment before an appellate Court.
Supreme Court:
Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh Vs Sheela Singh on 13 Jul 2022
A division bench of High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the wife committed mental cruelty upon husband and therefore granted divorce to husband. But Court also ordered payment Rs.15,000/- per month to wife as alimony.
From Para 24,
24. The appellant is a Doctor and as stated during the course of hearing, the respondent wife is a private teacher. Therefore, facing a criminal case would always castigate a stigma in the Society. The report u/s 498-A of the IPC cannot be used as a tool to teach a lesson to the family members of the husband as it may adversely affect the future prospects of a young professional and it may take long time to fill up the gap. Therefore, we are of the opinion that false accusations made by the wife against the entire family members under section 498-A would amount to mental cruelty and such conduct of respondent wife which inflicts upon the appellant husband such mental pain and suffering would make it not possible for her to live with the appellant husband.
Subramanian @ Ravi Subramanian Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 20 Nov 2007
A single judge bench of Madras High Court held as follows,
From Paras 4 and 5,
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying upon Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice submits that the petitioner being a party to S.C.No. 94/2005 is entitled to get certified copies of the documents which form part of the record of the criminal case. Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice reads as follows:
“339.Copies to be given to parties:- Copies of any portion of the record of a Criminal case must be furnished to the parties concerned on payment of the proper stamp and the authorized fee for copying…..”
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had been granted pardon and taken as approver nonetheless he remains a party to the proceedings and as such he is entitled to get certified copies of the documents as per the above said rules. In support of the above said
contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in CDJ 2006 MHC 1600 (K.Ramaiah Vs. R.Sudhakara Naidu). In that decision referring to Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and other decisions of this Court, the learned Judge has held that the Trial Court cannot refuse to receive the copy application and it is bound to follow Rule 339 in so far as copies are given to the parties are concerned.
The Index is here.
K.Ramaiah Vs R.Sudhakara Naidu on 04 Jul 2006
A single judge bench of Madras High Court held as follows,
From Para 4,
4. Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice provides for issuance of copies to parties and it stipulates that copies of any portion of the record of a criminal case must be furnished to the parties concerned on payment of the proper stamp and the authorised fee for copying.
The Index is here.
