The Husband filed this appeal when his divorce petition was dismissed. Division bench of Kerala High Court relying on landmark judgments, held that the baseless accusation of the wife regd the alleged erectile dysfunction of the husband caused mental cruelty and therefore, granted the Divorce on the ground of cruelty.
Citations:
Other Sources:
Relying on a previous single judge decision, Punjab High Court held as follows,
As per Section 468 Cr.P.C., the period of limitation shall be one year if the offence is punishable with punishment for a term not exceeding one year. The punishment for an offence under Section 182 IPC is an imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to 1,000/- rupees or with both. Thus, the calendra could have been presented within one year from the date when the investigating agency had concluded that the averments in the complaint were false. However, in the present case the s has been presented after the period of limitation as envisaged under Section 468 Cr.P.C.
Citations:
Other Sources:
Justice J R Midha of Delhi High Court dustbinned the frivolous case of Juhi Chawla and her friends alleging that 5G technology must not be allowed in India unless it is declared as “safe“; And levied a cost of Rs.20,00,000/- to be paid along with the Court fee that did not file at the Registry!!!
Single judge bench of Delhi High Court held that without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner, the Passport Office cannot suspend, impound a passport.
From Paras 11, 12 and 13,
11. In the opinion of this court, the shocking part of the present case is that, despite long drawn correspondence the Respondents have not served the passport suspension order or the denial order to the Petitioner. He was shuttled between the RPO-Kozhikode who informed him that it was the Indian Mission in Houston which revoked his passport. It is not even the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner was heard. The passport of the petitioner has been suspended on the basis of a complaint by the wife due to matrimonial disputes for more than two and half years. The correspondence on record reveals that the Petitioner has repeatedly approached various authorities seeking revival of his passport as also for a copy of the denial order, but in vain. Even before this court the Respondents have not filed any affidavit or document on record till date, despite having more than five months to do so. The Indian Mission or the other authorities have not filed a single document to show whether it is a case of revocation of passport or suspension of passport and if so on what grounds was the action taken. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Petitioner has been unable to travel to India. It is the case of the Petitioner that his old mother, who is a widow, lives alone in Bangalore and that he wishes to travel both in the U.S.A. and in India, in relation to his job assignments. It is clear that the Petitioner is suffering immensely both personally and professionally due to the suspension/revocation of his passport. The Petitioner’s appeal has also now been dismissed, without the said orders being made available to him. The submission is that even if the suspension order is stayed, the passport does not come back into operation.
12. In the order in appeal dated 8th May, 2020, which is under challenge in the present petition, the Appellate Forum proceeds on the basis that since the email dated 5th November, 2018 was sent to the Petitioner, it is presumed that the Petitioner was aware of the suspension of his passport. Such a conclusion cannot be arrived at unless and until, the Respondent establishes on record that proper notice was issued and a reply was called for and the Petitioner did not respond to the same.
13. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents now submits that due to the pandemic, the file of this case is also not available and so he could not place any documents on record.
14. The Petitioner cannot be made to live without a passport indefinitely. This Court has given adequate time to the Respondents to file an affidavit/documents on record, however, not a single shred of paper has been placed on record. On merits, whether the suspension/revocation was justified or not would be the subject matter of final adjudication. However, the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer further especially due to the pandemic that is currently raging which may require him to travel to India to meet his mother who is in India, owing to her age etc.
A division bench of Madras High Court put the peacefools in their right place and allowed Hindu religious processions in all the streets of the village.
19.As stated earlier, before the year 2012, Temple’s processions were conducted through all the streets in the village and there was no problem. Even from the year 2012 to 2015, processions were conducted through all the streets and roads which have been approved by this Court in W.P.No.23487 of 2012 and W.P.No.33288 of 2015 filed by the private respondent herein. Therefore, it is evident that taking out Temple’s processions through all the streets and roads in V.Kalathur village have been the custom and practice of the Hindus for the past many decades. It seems from the year 2012 onwards, when the Muslims started objecting, the problem seems to have started.
From Para 20,
As per Section 180-A of the District Municipalities Act 1920, roads or streets should be used as access to the people irrespective of their religion, caste or creed. Merely because one religious group is dominating in a particular locality, it cannot be a ground to prohibit from celebrating religious festivals or taking processions of other religious groups through those roads. If it is to be accepted, then a day will come when a particular religious group which is predominantly occupying the area, will not allow the people belonging to other religious groups even to use the roads even for movement, transportation or the normal access. Even the marriage processions and funeral processions would be prohibited/prevented which is not good for our society.
From Para 25,
25.The abovesaid facts of the case would reveal that all along there had been religious tolerance and the religious festivals were conducted very smoothly and religious procession were conducted without any problem through all the streets and roads of the village. If religious intolerance is going to be allowed, it is not good for a secular country. Intolerance in any form by any religious group has to be curtailed and prohibited. In this case,
intolerance of a particular religious group is exhibited by objecting for the festivals which have been conducted for decades together and the procession through the streets and roads of the village are sought to be prohibited stating that the area is dominated by Muslims and therefore, there cannot be any Hindu festival or procession through the locality. India is a secular country and merely because one religious group is living in majority in a particular area, it cannot be a reason for not allowing other religious festivals or processions through that area. If the contention of the private
respondent is to be accepted then it would create a situation in which minority people cannot conduct any festival or procession in most of the areas in India. If resistance is being exhibited by one religious group and it is reciprocated by the other religious groups, there would be chaos, riots, religious fights causing loss of lives and destruction of properties. Consequently, the secular character of our country will be destroyed or damaged.
Relying on landmark decision of a Division bench of the Apex Court here, High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the accused must be provided with a certified copy of the FIR in which the accused was accused.
Citations: [2016 SCC ONLINE CHH 1623]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149118573/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58a563b84a93266eac2e0258
Police authorities cannot deny certified copy of FIR, except in some sensitive cases
Another slipper shot given to the State Elections Commissioner, who had been a stooge of the Chief Minister of AP.
The language of the judgment is clear that respondent No.1 herein was directed to re-impose MCC for four weeks before the notified date of polling. Instead of following the direction, respondent No.1 who took charge of the office on 01.04.2021, took decision to resume election process of MPTC/ZPTC in utmost haste even without looking into the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P. (Civil) No.437 of 2020. The main grievance of the petitioners is that on account of issue of such election notification impugned in the writ petition without providing appropriate opportunity to make preparation campaigning in the elections by the contesting candidates, more particularly candidates of the petitioner in W.P.No.7847 of 2021, thereby the procedure adopted by respondent No.1 did not provide fair opportunity to contest in the election process to the candidates of the petitioner in W.P.No.7847 of 2021 and it is in violation of constitutional right, as held in Rajabala case (referred supra).
Indisputably, a direction was issued by the Supreme Court for re-imposing MCC for four weeks before the notified polling date. In fact, MCC is the Code for holding free and fair elections, which is the basic foundation for democracy. On account of hasty decision taken by respondent No.1, dishonouring the direction with scant respect, the petitioners candidates were disabled to take part in the elections effectively with readiness and the impugned notification scuttled the level play field to the contesting candidates of petitioners in W.P.No.7847 of 2021. The sudden narcissistic decision taken by respondent No.1, without looking into the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, would cause irreversible consequences and irreparable injury to the candidates of petitioner in W.P.No.7847 of 2021 to participate in the election process. The explanation offered in the counter filed by the Secretary of respondent No.1 is that the four weeks time is maximum time for re-imposing MCC and the State Election Commission can reduce the period of MCC. Therefore, based on the understanding of respondent No.1, notification impugned in the writ petitions was issued.
Secretary of respondent No.1 filed the counter. State Election Commissioner, who is the Constitutional authority, did not file verified counter for the reasons best known to her, who took a decision in utmost haste to resume the election process for MPTC and ZPTC on the day when she took charge of her office after retirement having enjoyed the extension of service for six months in the same Government as Chief Secretary. The State Election Commission did not explain as to how she could understand the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
In the present case, instead of reading the judgment of the Supreme Court in W.P. (Civil) No.437 of 2020, learned State Election Commissioner interpreted the judgment on her own and concluded that the four weeks time prescribed in the order is outer limit i.e. maximum period of MCC, thereby the State Election Commissioner can reduce it. Such interpretation by misreading or misunderstanding of order is totally misplaced and it is nothing but purposive interpretation, such interpretation cannot be accepted by any stretch of imagination in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the judgments (referred supra). Therefore, explanation offered by the Secretary to respondent No.1 in his counter is unacceptable.
The order passed by the Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) No.437 of 2020 is clear and categorical. On reading the said order, even a common man who can read, write and understand the English language can easily find out the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the order. But, here the State Election Commissioner, who worked as Chief Secretary to the State being a senior most retired IAS Officer, could not understand the simple direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in right perspective, which creates doubt as to her suitability and fitness to the post of Election Commissioner.
The present State Election Commissioner issued notification impugned in the writ petition on the day when she took charge of the office even without looking into the purport of the order issued by the Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) No.437 of 2020. It is an undisputed fact, such understanding of the Election Commissioner of the State is contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court. Obviously, such notification was issued limiting the MCC for a minimum period from 01.04.2021 till declaration of results as per schedule i.e. 10.04.2021, even without looking into the direction issued by the Supreme Court and such notification would scuttle the level play field of political parties and their candidates in the proposed election to be held on 08.04.2021. Such act of respondent No.1 can be described as democratic backsliding, it is also known as autocratization and de-democratization. It is a gradual decline in the quality of democracy and the opposite of democratization, which may result in the State losing its democratic qualities, becoming an autocracy or authoritarian regime. Democratic decline is caused by the state-led weakening of political institutions that sustain the democratic system, such as the peaceful transition of power or electoral systems. Although these political elements are assumed to lead to the onset of backsliding, other essential components of democracy such as infringement of individual rights and the freedom of expression question the health, efficiency and sustainability of democratic systems over time. One of the reason for such democratic backsliding is executive aggrandizement. The most important feature of executive aggrandizement is that the institutional changes are made through legal channels, making it seem as if the elected official has a democratic mandate. Some examples of executive aggrandizement are the decline of media freedom and the weakening of the rule of law (i.e., judicial and bureaucratic restraints on the government), such as when judicial autonomy is threatened.
Another reason for democratic backsliding is strategic harassment and manipulation during elections. This form of democratic backsliding entails the impairment of free and fair elections through tactics such as blocking media access, disqualifying opposition leaders, or harassing opponents. This form of backsliding is done in such a way that the elections do not appear to be rigged and rarely involves any apparent violations of the law, making it difficult for the Election observer to observe these misconducts. As such, the act of the respondents is nothing but democratic backsliding.
Normally, the IAS officers, who are working and achieved excellence in the career with their brilliance, were posted in the rank of Principal Secretary and above to look after the entire administration in the State and expected to act fairly and freely without any fear or favour; though worked in particular Government, they are being appointed in key posts such as State Election Commissioner since they possessed knowledge vested with power. Based on such brilliance and knowledge, the State Election Commissioner could not understand the purport of the order passed by the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, obviously for the reasons best known to the State Election Commissioner. The present situation is fine example of democratic backsliding. The understanding of the order of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by respondent No.1 or by Secretary to respondent No.1 is not based on any reasoning, except non-application of mind by the concerned authority. The State Election Commissioner did not care even the direction issued by the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by over-reaching the order, made the direction lifeless and the direction became redundant. Hence, the contention of the learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 is hereby rejected. Accordingly, I hold that the impugned notification was issued in deliberate and intentional violation of the direction dated 18.03.2020 issued by the Supreme Court in W.P. (Civil) No.437 of 2020, which is in the nature of direction issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and the same is binding on the State. The first respondent being constitutional authority is expected to maintain rule of law and act within the sphere of constitutional authority, but acted in clear defiance of the directions with almost disrespect to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the notification impugned in the writ petitions is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
An unscrupulous woman who was living in adultery, tried to get the divorce granted by a Family court but her earlier complaints came back to bite her.
From Para 29,
29. The contents of this complaint clearly indicate that the appellant had illegal connection with the 2nd respondent and had expressed her intention that she was not willing to lead marital life with the 1st respondent who is her lawfully wedded husband.
Citations:
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51469712/
https://www.scconline.com/blog/?p=248403
(1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report,—
(a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of India to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such; or
(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility; or
(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.—Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Offence under sub-section (2) committed in place of worship, etc.—Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (2) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the
performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
Exception.—It does not amount to an offence, within the meaning of this section, when the person making, publishing or circulating any such statement, rumour or report, has reasonable grounds for believing that such statement, rumour or report is true and makes, publishes or circulates it 2[in good faith and] without any such intent as aforesaid.
Bad Behavior has blocked 296 access attempts in the last 7 days.
