N.Santhosh Kumar Vs S.Priyadarshini on 25 Oct 2025

A single judge of Madras High Court held as follows,

From Paras 9 and 10,

9.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent has suppressed her true income in her affidavit. It is clear from the pay slip for December 2022 that the respondent is gainfully employed and earning a gross salary of more than Rs.1 lakh per month. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for interim maintenance, the averments are vague and do not even indicate whether the respondent wants maintenance for herself also or only for her minor child.
10.Be that as it may, considering the fact that the respondent, even on the date of filing of the application for interim maintenance, was employed with Cognizant and earning a gross income of more than Rs.1 lakh, I am inclined to dispose of the revision in the manner following:
(i) The order of the Sub-Court, Alandur is modified and the interim maintenance is fixed at Rs.10,000/-. However, the respondent is entitled to seek adjustment of Rs.5,000/- per month, subject to proof of payment of Rs.5,000/- for the relevant period, that is, from 14.03.2022, till disposal of the HMOP.298 of 2021.

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/68fcfd509a22022a0496b67d

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

Devendra Vs Trupti Devendra on 27 Sep 2022

Posted on January 11 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Bombay High Court at Aurangabad bench held as follows,

From Paras 22 and 23,

22 On having microscopic examination of paragraph No.4, one would find that the respondent / wife has pleaded in her application for maintenance for her daughter that the petitioner / husband has paid only Rs.1,00,000/- and though assured to pay remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, not stick up to his promise and refused to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is stated in the application that though it is mentioned that the fixed deposit would be made in the name of daughter, the petitioner has avoided the same though it was his liability. It is pertinent to note that in paragraph No.5, respondent / wife has nowhere stated about her affidavit filed in the proceedings for mutual consent divorce and acceptance of Rs.2,00,000/- towards permanent alimony and giving up right of maintenance. As pointed out earlier, her examination-in-chief on affidavit before the Civil Court makes it very clear that she has received Rs.2,00,000/- towards permanent alimony and she has given up right of maintenance for herself and her daughter.
23 In this background, it was very much incumbent on respondent / wife to produce the copy of affidavit, which is sworn and filed by her in the Civil Court in the proceedings for mutual consent divorce. By suppressing the said document, she has made averments that she has received only Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent alimony and petitioner / husband is liable to pay remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and since he has not paid that amount, she constrained to file maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C for her daughter. It is nothing but playing fraud on the Court while filing proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. According to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra), respondent / wife ought to have produced all the relevant documents in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. including her affidavit as well as the affidavit of her husband filed in a proceedings of mutual consent divorce. She has withheld those vital documents only with a view to obtain the order of maintenance and this inference can be drawn easily in the above factual scenario.

Devendra Vs Trupti Devendra on 27 Sep 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/63432328feb20c33dafe2fdd

Index of divorce Judgments is here. Index of Maintenance Judgments is here.

CPC Order 6 Rule 14A – Address for service of notice

Posted on January 11 by ShadesOfKnife

14A. Address for service of notice.—
(1) Every pleading, when filed by a party, shall be accompanied by a statement in the prescribed form, signed as provided in rule 14, regarding the address of the party.
(2) Such address may, from time to time, be changed by lodging in Court a form duly filled up and stating the new address of the party and accompanied by a verified petition.
(3) The address furnished in the statement made under sub-rule (1) shall be called the “registered address” of the party, and shall, until duly changed as aforesaid, be deemed to be the address of the party for the purpose of service of all processes in the suit or in any appeal from any decree or order therein made and for the purpose of execution, and shall hold good, subject as aforesaid, for a period of two years after the final determination of the cause or matter.
(4) Service of any process may be effected upon a party at his registered address in all respects as though such party resided thereat.
(5) Where the registered address of a party is discovered by the Court to be incomplete. false or fictitious, the Court may, either on its own motion, or on the application of any party, order—
(a) in the case where such registered address was furnished by a plaintiff, stay of the suit, or
(b) in the case where such registered address was furnished by a defendant, his defence be struck out and he be placed in the same position as if he had not put up any defence.
(6) Where a suit is stayed or a defence is struck out under sub-rule (5), the plaintiff or, as the case may be, the defendant may, after furnishing his true address, apply to the Court for an order to set aside the order of stay or, as the case may be, the order striking out the defence.
(7) The Court, if satisfied that the party was prevented by any sufficient cause from filing the true address at the proper time, shall set aside the order of stay or order striking out the defence, on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit or defence, as the case may be.
(8) Nothing in this rule shall prevent the Court from directing the service of a process at any other address, if, for any reason, it thinks fit to do so.

Lakshmayya Vs M.Shivalingamma and Anr on 04 Mar 2024

Posted on January 11 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court at Kalaburagi bench held as follows,

From Para 7,

7. On examination of the materials placed by the petitioner i.e., the health card issued by the concerned authority, reveals that the name of the wife of the petitioner is shown as Adilakshmi and name of this petitioner’s son as D. Vamshi Krishna and they are residing in Pesalabanda, D.No.1/207/1, Pesalbanda (VS), Pesalabanda (V), Adoni (M), Kurnool district. This document is not disputed by the other side as the respondent No.1 has remained absent as per the order dated 14.09.2023. The impugned order passed by the Family Court does not reveal that whether the respondent No.1 has complied mandatory provisions under Order VI Rule 14A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or not. Keeping in mind the non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Order VI Rule 14A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and also the address shown in the health card issued by the concerned authorities to the present petitioner, it is just and proper to set aside the exparte order passed by the Family Court and remand the matter to the Family Court by providing an opportunity to the petitioner to file his statement of objection. Accordingly, the petitioner has made out a ground to set aside the exparte order passed by the Family Court and remand the matter to the Family Court. Accordingly, I answer point No.(i) in the affirmative.

Lakshmayya Vs M.Shivalingamma and Anr on 04 Mar 2024

Citations: [2024:KHC-K:1930]

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/67c61f046d1ac4155ace7a2a

Index of maintenance judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here.

Mohammad Rizwan Khan Vs State of UP and Anr on 08 Sep 2025

Posted on January 9 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Allahabad High Court held that, perjury applications must be disposed first before deciding maintenance petitions when allegations of adultery are alleged.

From Paras 9 to 11,

9. In the application filed by the revisionist under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C., it has been alleged that since the marriage, the behaviour of the opposite party no.2 towards the revisionist and his family members was very bad. She used to abuse the revisionist and always ready to fight and quarrel. It is also alleged that she used to receive dirty and obscene messages and videos through her mobile phone and she also exchanged obscene conversations and messages with so many persons like Shakeel Ahmed, Nikhil Varshney, Haider, Ashwin etc. In support of said allegations, the revisionist has enclosed the list of names along with mobile numbers along with the said application. The daughters of the revisionist also disclosed to the revisionist that in his absence, some persons come to his house to meet opposite party no.2 and she used to get them locked in another room along with herself and used to spend one or two hours with that person in that room. At that time, the daughters used to hear dirty words and sounds from inside the locked room. It is then alleged that seeing obscene acts of opposite party no.2 and thinking about the future of his children, the revisionist was forced to take both his daughters to his ancestral home at Lucknow and got them admitted in a good school there and both the daughters of the revisionist are getting their education there.
10. It is further alleged in the said application that opposite party no.2 makes nude videos of her body and sends them to other persons. A person made a C.D. of nude videos of the opposite party no.2 and gave it to the revisionist. Opposite party no.2 watches donkey sex videos. The nude videos and voice recordings of the opposite party’s conversations are captured in the said C.D., which has also been enclosed along with the said application. It is pertinent to mention here that daughter of opposite party no.2, namely, Nadiya Khan as D.W.-1 in her affidavit i.e. examination-in-chief filed before the trial court in the instant proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as also in the cross-examination, who is living with the revisionist along with her younger sister has supported the aforesaid allegations as made by the revisionist in his application under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. against opposite party no.2.
11. It is also alleged that the opposite party no.2 is an educated woman, having degrees of B.Tech and M.B.A. She has also worked in Dubai and there too the opposite party no.2 had illicit relations with other men. Despite being married and mother of two daughters, she used to talk vulgarly with other men, which is clearly proved by the audio recording.

Mohammad Rizwan Khan Vs State of UP and Anr on 08 Sep 2025

Index to Perjury Judgments is here.

Atul Kumar Bajpai Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Sep 2025

Posted on January 9 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Allahabad High Court held that, perjury applications must be disposed first before deciding maintenance petitions, when false affidavit of Income, Assets and Liabilities is filed.

From Paras 8 onwards,

8. For considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist, it would be worthwhile to reproduce relevant portion of the allegations made by the revisionist against opposite party no.2 in his application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
It is alleged in the said application that correct facts have not been mentioned by opposite party no.2 in column-C of the affidavit filed before the trial court in which details of her income have been sought at serial no.6. When as a matter of fact opposite party no.2 has received Rs. 84,000/- from Life Insurance Corporation, Kanpur Nagar through NIFT on 04.08.2023, which is clearly visible in the bank statement of account of opposite party no.2 bearing No. 40520100002777 maintained at Bank of Baroda.
It is further alleged that the opposite party no.2 operates a boutique on a large scale from which she earns Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- per month. Thousands of rupees have also been credited in the Saving Bank Account of opposite party no.2 from the year 2020 to 2024, which is indicative of its strong income.
On the above premise, the revisionist has stated that since opposite party no.2 has filed a false affidavit as evidence by not showing her income in the column of income statement of said affidavit and has committed forgery, punitive action should be taken against her in the interest of justice.
9. In the case of Amit Bajpai (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist, the Hon’ble Single of Lucknow Bench has opined that in my view, if any application is moved in the pending case bringing to the notice of the court that any false evidence knowing well has been filed or fabricated in such proceedings, the court should dispose of the said application first before proceeding any further or before recording of further evidence. At the case in hand such procedure has not been adopted by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment.
10. This Court, which sits in revisional jurisdiction, cannot examine the legality or otherwise of the allegations made by the revisionist in his application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The same may be examined only by the trial court.
11. In the opinion of the Court, in the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the revisionist, has levelled serious allegations against the opposite party no.2 and if the trial court decides these allegations on the basis of documentary and oral evidence then the outcome of the main case may change. However, the trial court has not decided the said applications before deciding the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. finally. In the interest of substantial justice, the trial court should have first decide the application filed by the revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before deciding the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. finally.

Finally from Para 13,

13. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 4, Kanpur Nagar is directed to decide the application of the revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. first after hearing opposite party no. 2 by means of a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. After disposal of the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the Additional Principal Judge shall decide the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties preferably within two months thereafter, without giving unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

Atul Kumar Bajpai Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Sep 2025

Index to Perjury Judgments is here.

Vijay Kumar and Ors Vs State of Rajasthan on 08 Jan 2026

Posted on January 9 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court was ‘surprised‘ for the delays in disposing petitions by High Courts, after granting relief of stay… hehe…

It is funny these Judges were earlier High Court judges and they know all to very well, why.

From Para 15,

15. The Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioners in the year 2003 came to be taken up for hearing by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 24-8-2023, i.e., after about 20 years.

From Paras 21-25,

“21. We would like to know first and the foremost why it took 23 years for the High Court to take up the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioners for hearing, more particularly when the subject matter of challenge in the Criminal Revision Petition was an order framing charge in a very sensitive and serious trial like one of dowry death.”
“22. We would like to examine the entire record of the proceedings. We are saying so because we are perturbed by the fact that despite an interim relief operating, why the matter was not taken up for hearing at the earliest.”
23. “We direct the Registrar General of the High Court of Rajasthan to forward the entire record with all the order sheets by a Special Messenger to this Court at the earliest.”
24. “We would also like to know from the Registrar General of the High Court as to how many Criminal Revision Petitions came to be heard and disposed of between 2001 and 2026. We want the High Court to provide us with a break up of how many criminal revision petitions were filed in the year 2001 and how many came to be disposed of. We want this break up right up to the year 2026.”
25. “We would also like to know how many times the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioners – herein in the High Court was notified for hearing from the date of its filing till the date it came to be dismissed.”

From Paras 26 and 27,

26. We would also like to know from the State as to what steps it took as the prosecuting agency to get the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioners heard at the earliest.
27. Why during this interregnum period of 23 years, the State of Rajasthan kept quiet and did not take any steps to get the Criminal Revision Petition heard and decided on merits.

From Paras 29 and 30,

29. If criminal trials in such serious offences remain pending for years together on the strength of interim orders passed by the High Courts, it would lead to nothing but mockery of justice. Justice has to be done with all the parties. Justice cannot be done only with the accused persons. Justice has to be done even with the victim and the family members of the victim. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
30. In this regard, we request the Chief Justices of all the High Courts to ensure that the petitions wherein interim orders are passed holding up the trials should be immediately taken up for hearing, more particularly in sensitive and serious matters like murder, dowry death, rape etc.

From Para 35,

35. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to Secretary Generals/Registrar Generals of all the High Courts so as to have the same placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justices.

Next hearing on 15-1-2026.

Vijay Kumar and Ors Vs State of Rajasthan on 08 Jan 2026

Index of Judgments pertaining to Right to Speedy Trial here.

Renuka Jain Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors on 06 Jan 2026

Posted on January 9 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Para 2 onwards,

2. Learned APP appearing on advance intimation submits that the petition is not even maintainable as the petitioner has no locus standi.
3. As regards locus standi, the only argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner is a victim and also the complainant de facto of the offence, so she has a right to file such petition. Learned counsel for petitioner also refers to order dated 07.02.2023 of a coordinate bench of this Court passed in W.P. (Crl.) 2090/2018 to show that on similar petition of the present petitioner, the learned Single Judge directed the trial court to conclude the trial within two years after framing of charges.
4. I find substance in the submission of the learned prosecutor that the subject case being a State case, role of the complainant de facto is limited to being a witness and therefore, it is only the State or the accused who can bring such petition. In this regard, it would be apposite to also note that the complainant de facto can sustain action independent of prosecution side only in certain situations explicitly laid down in law. The present petition does not fall under that category.
5. So far as the reliance on order passed by the coordinate bench, firstly, the said order was passed in a writ petition, which is not the present case. Secondly, the learned Single Judge had no occasion to examine the locus standi of the petitioner and it was practically a single sentence direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within two years after framing of charges. Admittedly, till date charges are yet to be framed and the record does not reflect any delay on the part of the trial court.
6. The petition is completely frivolous and drain on already overflowing dockets of the Court, so dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid online with www.bharatkeveer.gov.in by petitioner within one week. Accompanying application also stands disposed of.
7. Further, it appears that the counsel to file this petition has been provided to the petitioner by DHCLSC without examining the strength of the case. Copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, DHCLSC to make sure that in future, while providing legal aid, sustainability of the legal proceedings sought to be initiated through free legal aid must be tested so that public money is not wasted.

Renuka Jain Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors on 06 Jan 2026

Index of Judgements under Article 21 (Right to Speedy Trail) here.

CPC Sec 47 – Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree

Posted on January 8 by ShadesOfKnife

47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree.—
(1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.
(3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court.
Explanation I.—For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit.
Explanation II.—
(a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and
(b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section.

Kishan Lal Barwa Vs Sharda Saharan and Anr on 18 Feb 2015

Posted on January 8 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of Allahabad High Court held as follows,

From Para 14,

14.This Court finds that the basis of petitioner’s claim that the decree was obtained by fraud is a report submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate by the Directorate of Fingerprint Experts, according to which, the fingerprints of Ashok Kumar, as existing on the lease deed executed by Noida do not match with those upon the power of attorney claimed by Ripudman Kumar Saharan and rather matches with the agreement to sell executed in favour of the defendant-petitioner. This report has been prepared by the experts of Directorate of Fingerprint, who are public servants, and the report is in due discharge of their official duties, and by virtue of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, a presumption of correctness of the report would be available in law, subject to further evidence which may be brought on record by the other side. The question as to whether a plea of fraud could be entertained even in collateral proceedings, at the stage of execution, after passing of the decree, is no longer res integra. It is settled that fraud and justice do not dwell together. It is equally settled that a court of law would do its utmost to ensure that injustice is not meted out to a party. Such right in a court of law has been recognized under section 44 of Evidence Act.

From Para 19,

19. It is well settled that once the plea of fraud has been setup by the defendant-petitioner before the executing court, and credible evidence in support of such plea was also placed, it was incumbent upon the executing court to have examined the issue of fraud, on merits, and such plea ought not to have been rejected merely on the ground that a decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent had been passed, and the executing court, as such, had no occasion to examine the plea of fraud. It is also well settled that fraud vitiates all solemn acts. Though a plea of fraud was taken up before the civil court, but such plea was not adjudicated, which is clarified in the judgment of the civil court itself. However, if a credible material has come into existence, which if is found proved vitiates the decree itself, it is the duty of the executing court to consider such plea on merits. It was open for the executing court to have examined the report of the Directorate, Fingerprint Experts, in accordance with law, and for such purpose an opportunity was liable to have been allowed to the plaintiff-respondent. The executing court could have adjudicated as to whether the plea of fraud was made out on facts or not? but it was not open for the executing court to brush aside the objection itself and thereby refused to go into such issue itself.

From Para 22,

22. In view of the discussions made above, this Court finds that the orders impugned dated 26.2.2014 and 29.5.2014, passed by the courts below, cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. The executing court is directed to reconsider the objection under section 47 CPC, afresh, in light of the observations made above. For such purposes, the executing court will go into the allegations of fraud on merits, in accordance with law, and after affording opportunity to both the parties, the plea of fraud would be adjudicated on merits. Since the proceedings have dragged for the last 13 years, therefore, the objection on merits would be decided forthwith, by fixing short dates, in accordance with law, without granting any adjournment to either of the parties, except upon imposition of cost, which shall not be less than Rs.500/-.

Kishan Lal Barwa Vs Sharda Saharan and Anr on 18 Feb 2015

Index of Judgments against Orders obtained fraudulently here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

N.Santhosh Kumar Vs S.Priyadarshini on 25 Oct 2025

CPC Order 6 Rule 14A – Address for service of notice

Lakshmayya Vs M.Shivalingamma and Anr on 04 Mar 2024

Mohammad Rizwan Khan Vs State of UP and Anr on 08 Sep 2025

Atul Kumar Bajpai Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Sep 2025

Vijay Kumar and Ors Vs State of Rajasthan on 08 Jan 2026

Renuka Jain Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors on 06 Jan 2026

CPC Sec 47 – Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree

Kishan Lal Barwa Vs Sharda Saharan and Anr on 18 Feb 2015