I won’t comment about this Judgment. Posting here, with a hope that it may be set aside at a higher court.
State of AP Vs Basa Nalini Manohar and Ors on 23 Dec 2024Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) By Lrs. Vs V.Kumar Vamanrao and Ors on 04 Mar 2024
A division bench of the Apex Court reiterated that no evidence could be led beyond pleadings.
From Para 15,
Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) By Lrs. Vs V.Kumar Vamanrao and Ors on 04 Mar 202415. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that no evidence could be led beyond pleadings. It is not a case in which there was any error in the pleadings and the parties knowing their case fully well had led evidence to enable the Court to deal with that evidence. In the case in hand, specific amendment in the pleadings was sought by the plaintiffs with reference to 1965 partition but the same was rejected. In such a situation, the evidence with reference to 1965 partition cannot be considered.
Geetababi Khambra Vs State of MP and Anr on 9 Jan 2024
A single bench of MP High Court at Jabalpur, held that absence of specific date and time when the complainant-wife was subjected to the demand of dowry is sufficient to quash Dowry demand allegation.
From Para 6,
Geetababi Khambra Vs State of MP and Anr on 9 Jan 20246. In the present case, this Court issued notices to the respondent No. 2. The report of the office reflects that the notices were served upon the respondent No. 2 yet respondent No. 2 has not appeared before this Court nor any one has filed any Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 2. It is also undisputed that prosecution was initially launched against the husband of petitioner No. 2 Rahul Gaur who has also expired after lodging of F.I.R. A perusal of F.I.R discloses the allegation against the present petitioners that they used to visit the complainant who was residing at Rachna Nagar and used to demand Rs.5 lakhs in order to buy a bigger house. F.I.R. discloses that complainant was not residing with the present petitioners and was residing at Rachna Nagar with her husband. According to complainant petitioner No. 3 also used to record conversation and used to humiliate her. It is further mentioned in the F.I.R that the petitioner No. 2 was acting on the instructions of petitioner No. 1. After registration of F.I.R the statement of the complainant and her parents were also recorded. The statement are there on record. Perusal of all the statement reflects that identical allegations have been levelled by all the witnesses. The allegations are not specific. There are no particulars like specific date and time when the complaint was subjected to the demand of dowry. As per complainant own showing the present petitioners were not residing with the present complainant but the complainant made an effort to demonstrate that the present petitioners used to visit her at place. The said particulars have not been disclosed by the complainant in the F.I.R. or there is any disclosure of such particulars in the entire statement of the witnesses.
Index of Quash judgments is here.
Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati Vs State of AP on 13 Nov 2024
After waiting for 9 months, since 26-Feb-2024, decided to file a speedy trial petition before AP High Court u/s 529 BNSS, 2023.
Here is the Petition copy.
2024-11-05 Quash or Speedy Trail in DVC Appeal v0.1Here is the Order copy.
Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati Vs State of AP on 13 Nov 2024Back to Home page of my cases here.
Sagari Hembram Vs State of WB and Anr on 19 Nov 2024
A single judge bench at Calcutta High Court held that Second Wife Not Liable for Cruelty Simply Due to Husband’s Bigamous Marriage.
From Paras 8-10,
Sagari Hembram Vs State of WB and Anr on 19 Nov 20248. The said conduct of second marriage is prima facie applicable in respect of the husband of the complainant and the ingredients of the offences alleged are prima facie not applicable in respect of the petitioner herein.
9. The rest of the offences being under Section 498A/406/506 IPC also are thus prima facie not applicable in respect of the petitioner herein. The ingredients required to constitute the offence under Section 506 IPC are also not present in respect of the petitioner herein.
10. As such the proceedings against the present petitioner is bad in law and permitting such a proceeding to continue would be a clear abuse of process of law and in the interest of justice is liable to be quashed.
K.L Rangaswamy Vs Sharadha. D on 20 Mar 2024
A single Judge (Lalitha Kanneganti) of Karnataka HC denied Interim Maintenance to a wife.
From Para 5,
K.L Rangaswamy Vs Sharadha. D on 20 Mar 20245. Heard the learned counsel on either sides, perused the entire material on record. This court has perused the affidavit, the affidavit do not disclose any of the reasons that are submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent. This court has perused the material placed before this court and the statement of assets and liabilities that were filed on 15.11.2022. As per the letter dated 02.03.2023 given by the Integrated Project for Development of People (R ) the respondent/wife had come to them with a problem and requested them to provide an opportunity to work in a residential shelter with safety and security with survival purpose and at the same time they were opening Ashakirana Girls Hostel, for the post of Hostel Warden temporary appointment was given on 01.08.2022 with a nominal honorarium to lead her personal life and after 11th April they are closing the residential hostel due to new norms at CCI Government Rules. Even the 2nd affidavit which is filed before the court below, with suppression of material facts and looking at both the affidavits filed by respondent/wife this is a fit case where proceedings have to be initiated for perjury against her. The husbands salary is Rs.90,000/-. Both the children are grown up and pursuing their graduation are living with the father. He has lost his brother and he has to take care of education of the niece and also has to take care of mother. The respondent/wife has come to the courts with unclean hands by suppressing all the material facts. Considering all these facts, this court is of the view that the respondent/wife is not entitled for any interim maintenance and the other allegations that is levelled by the husband which are serious in nature are pending consideration before the court below. At this stage in the considered opinion of this court, the respondent/wife is not entitled for any relief.
Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 125 Cr.P.C. is here.
Publicly available Legal Research tools
This page contains some Publicly available Legal Research tools that can help to extract valuable information that can be presented in Courts as evidence and also during filling/filing of Income, Assets and Liabilities Affidavit as per Rajnesh Vs Neha judgement of the Apex Court.
- Tax Evasion Petition (TEP)
- What is a TEP? Learn basics here and find a format here.
- Income Tax Department issues New Benami Transactions Informants Reward Scheme, 2018. Link here. You never know what your in-laws deal in.
- Income Tax Department issues Revised Income Tax Informants Reward Scheme, 2018. Link here.
- CBDT launches e-portal for filing complaints regarding tax evasion/Benami Properties/Foreign Undisclosed Assets. Link here.
- Link to file a TEP here.
- Provident Fund Information
- Ask for a report of Form 26AS/Annual Tax Statement from TRACES
- Portal link here.
- Refunds generated, if any, on/after processing of Income Tax Returns by CPC-Bangalore
- Portal link here.
MASTER Index is here.
Dr. Virender Kumar Vs State of UP and Anr on 16 Oct 2024
A single judge of Allahabad High Court held as follows,
From Paras 4-5,
Dr. Virender Kumar Vs State of UP and Anr on 16 Oct 20244. From a bare perusal of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., it is patently manifest that once there is categorical allegation of adultery against the wife, then the court concerned dealing with the matter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has to decide the issue of adultery and even interim maintenance can be awarded only after recording a finding on that issue.
5. This Court prima facie finds that the exercise as required under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. is completely missing in the matter and without recording any finding on the issue of adultery, the impugned order dated 13.4.2023 has been passed whereby interim maintenance amounting Rs.7,000/- has been awarded in favour of Opposite Party No.2.
If this case status is not available from eCourts app/website, then access it from Allahabad HC’s inhouse application here.
Index of Maintenance Judgements u/s 125 CrPC is here.
Pallavi Mohan Vs Raghu Menon on 12 Sep 2023
A division bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,
From Paras 32-33,
Pallavi Mohan Vs Raghu Menon on 12 Sep 202332. Clearly Section 28 of the HMA and Section 19 of the Family Courts Act operate in different spheres and apply to orders passed by different forums i.e. District Court and the Family Court respectively.
33. Thus the period of limitation for filing an appeal from an appealable order and decree of the District Court would be ninety days under section 28 of HMA and the period of limitation for filing an appeal from an appealable order and judgment of the Family Court, wherever it has been set up, would be thirty days under section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
Citations:
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132852916/
https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/limitation-period-for-filing-an-appeal-against-family-courts-order-is-thirty-days-and-delay-in-filing-can-be-condoned-if-sufficient-cause-is-shown-delhi-hc-1494654
The wife went to Supreme Court (Diary No. – 40374/2023; SLP(C) No. 024347 – / 2023)
The husband chose not to file a counter as on 22-03-2024 .
Index of All Divorce Judgments here.
Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 21 Oct 2024
A division bench of Apex Court held that it is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large number of cases.
From Paras 11-13,
Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 21 Oct 202411. In the contextual situation, it is only appropriate to keep reminded of the observations of this Court in the decision in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand1. This Court observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large number of cases.
12. We are of the view that in view of such circumstances, the courts have to be careful to identify instances of over implication and to avert the suffering of ignominy and inexpiable consequences, by such persons.
13. The upshot of the discussion is that the finding of guilt against the appellant by the courts below for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC, with the aid of Section 34, IPC, is absolutely perverse in view of the absolute absence of any evidence against him to connect him with the said offence in any manner.
