Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr on 18 October 2013

Posted on April 9 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice A.K.Sikri in a 2-judge bench had held that, for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., such a woman (who is not a legally wedded wife), is to be treated as the legally wedded wife.

From Para 25,

25. Thus, while interpreting a statute the court may not only take into consideration the purpose for which the statute was enacted, but also the mischief it seeks to suppress. It is this mischief rule, first propounded in Heydon’s Case[11] which became the historical source of purposive interpretation. The court would also invoke the legal maxim construction ut res magis valeat guam pereat, in such cases i.e. where alternative constructions are possible the Court must give effect to that which will be responsible for the smooth working of the system for which the statute has been enacted rather than one which will put a road block in its way. If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation should be avoided. We should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should accept the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. If this interpretation is not accepted, it would amount to giving a premium to the husband for defrauding the wife. Therefore, at least for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., such a woman is to be treated as the legally wedded wife.

Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr on 18 October 2013

Citations: [2014 SCJ 2 779], [2014 CRILJ 1076], [2014 SCC 1 188], [2013 SCALE 12 681], [2014 CRLJ SC 1076], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 764], [2013 CTC 6 86], [2014 AIR SC 256], [2014 NCC 1 238], [2013 RLW SC 4 3670], [2013 AIOL 3407], [2013 AD SC 11 9], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 4 830], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 946], [2014 JLJR SC 1 78], [2014 LW CRL 1 646], [2014 SCC CIV 1 51], [2013 JCC SC 4 2765], [2014 LW 2 936], [2013 ACR 3 3010], [2014 MPHT 2 499], [2014 GLH 1 273], [2013 KERLT 4 367], [2013 ALR 101 704], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 616], [2013 SLT 9 543], [2013 DMC 3 518], [2014 ECRN 1 241], [2014 AIR SC 869], [2013 JT 13 570], [2013 AIC 132 108]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15901386/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af37e4b0149711415daf

Earlier Chanmuniya judgment is here.

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Challa Sivakumar and Two Ors Vs Challa Anita and Two Ors on 24 October 2018

Posted on April 8 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, it was held that, DVC is maintainble even after Divorce.

Challa Sivakumar and Two Ors Vs Challa Anita and Two Ors on 24 October 2018

Citations: [

M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs CBI Bengaluru on 7 January 2020

Posted on April 7 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice K.M.Joesph from a 2-judge bench, held the following principles while deciding a discharge petition file u/s 227 CrPC. Also Governing principles regarding permissibility of defence of accused or documents produced by him, summarized.

i. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused.
ii. The Trial Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution.
iii. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the Police or the documents produced before the Court.
iv. If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, “cannot show that the accused committed offence, then, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial”.
v. It is open to the accused to explain away the materials giving rise to the grave suspicion.
vi. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons.
vii. At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true.
viii. There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to discharge the accused.

M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs CBI Bengaluru on 7 January 2020

Citations: [(2020) 2 SCC 768]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151468802/ or

Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is here.

IN RE Guidelines for Court Functioning through Video Conferencing during nCOVID-19 Pandemic on 06 April 2020

Posted on April 6 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the Order of Supreme Court where in it has frame some guidelines for it to function through Video Conferencing during nCovid-19 pandemic and even after the lockdown which ends of 14 April 2020.

IN RE Guidelines for Court Functioning through Video Conferencing during nCOVID 19 Pandemic-Order 06 April 2020

Here is the Record of Proceedings (ROP) for 06 April 2020

IN RE Guidelines for Court Functioning through Video Conferencing during nCOVID 19 Pandemic-ROP 06 April 2020

Union of India Vs R Thiyagarajan on 3 April 2020

Posted on April 6 by ShadesOfKnife

This Judgment by Justice Deepak Gupta from a 2-judge bench held in Para 18 that,

18. We also are of the view that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in matters like this. The High Court exercise its jurisdiction only over State(s) of which it is the High Court. It has no jurisdiction for the rest of the country. Matters like the present may be pending in various parts of the country. In the present case, matter had been decided by the Delhi High Court but some other High Court may or may not have taken different view. The High Court of Madras could not have passed such order. It has virtually usurped the jurisdiction of other High Courts in the country. It is true that sometimes this Court has ordered that all similarly situated employees may be granted similar relief but the High Court does not have the benefit of exercising the power under Article 142 of the Constitution. In any event, this Court exercises jurisdiction over the entire country whereas the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the State(s) of which it is the High Court. The High Court may be justified in passing such an order when it only affects the employees of the State falling within its jurisdiction but, in our opinion, it could not have passed such an order in the case of employees where pan India repercussions would be involved.

This effectively means that, to challenge a Central Act such as Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 which has ramifications to entire country, one can not invoke the Writ jurisdiction of a High Court. This implies that, one has to go to Supreme Court only. This is quite contrary to the obiter dicta from Kusum Ingots judgement here given by a 3-judge bench.

Union of India Vs R Thiyagarajan on 3 April 2020

Citations: [

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/95720998/ or

Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs Hasan Raza Khan and Ors on 22 January 2016

Posted on April 3 by ShadesOfKnife

3-Judge Full Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud (as he was at Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court) declared the following reference in affirmative,

“Whether writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be filed by Power of Attorney holder?”

Safeguards

Having held so, we must, at the same time, emphasize the necessity of observing adequate safeguards where a writ petition is filed through the holder of a power of attorney. These safeguards should necessarily include the following:
(1) The power of attorney by which the donor authorises the donee, must be brought on the record and must be filed together with the petition/application;
(2) The affidavit which is executed by the holder of a power of attorney must contain a statement that the donor is alive and specify the reasons for the inability of the donor to remain present before the Court to swear the affidavit; and
(3) The donee must be confined to those acts which he is authorised by the power of attorney to discharge.

Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs Hasan Raza Khan and Ors on 22 January 2016

Earlier Reference Order

Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs Hasan Raza Khan and Ors on 02 December 2015

Citations: [2016 AWC 2 1525], [2016 LCD 34 373], [2016 AIR ALL 52]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114640689/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5811a4a5e691cb26fc4d9447

State of Maharashtra Vs Rahul Ramchandra Khedkar on 18 May 2018

Posted on April 2 by ShadesOfKnife

Smt. S.D. Javalgekar, Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.5) Sangli delivered this judgment.

Para 23,

23. From the above discussion, it becomes clear that, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Though in such offences special weightage should be given to the version of the complainant, it should also be corroborated by other supportive evidence. In absence of such evidence vague allegations of the complainant cannot be taken as true. There are many instances in society wherein females of mischievous nature spoil the family peace by making false allegations and by unnecessarily involving innocent persons in the offence. From the discussion above, I find no substance in the various allegations of the complainant. Hence, I hold that accused persons are innocent and not liable for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

State of Maharashtra Vs Rahul Ramchandra Khedkar on 18 May 2018

Citations:

Bhanu Prasad Variganji Vs State of Telangana on 16 March 2020

Posted on April 2 by ShadesOfKnife

Smt Justice Sri Devi had passed a Quash order on the false and malicious proceedings which were initiated u/s 498 IPC and others under the ground that there are no specific details in the Charge Sheet to bring home the allegations also because Assistant Government Pleader did not obtain sanction from Central Government to ask the Magistrate to take cognizance of this case.

Bhanu Prasad Variganji Vs State of Telangana on 16 March 2020

Citations:

Epidemic Diseases Act 1897

Posted on March 25 by ShadesOfKnife

A relic from bygone British-era, this Law was frequently invoked in India to contain pandemic outbreaks in India or any territory within India.

Epidemic Diseases Act 1897

Raj Talreja Vs Kavita Talreja on 24 April 2017

Posted on March 25 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court had that filing false complaints caused mental cruelty and thereby gives opportunity to seek divorce on the ground of Cruelty.

“11. Cruelty can never be defined with exactitude. What is cruelty will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, from the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the wife made reckless, defamatory and false accusations against her husband, his family members and
colleagues, which would definitely have the effect of lowering his reputation in the eyes of his peers. Mere filing of complaints is not cruelty, if there are justifiable reasons to file the complaints. Merely because no action is taken on the complaint or after trial the accused is acquitted may not be a ground to treat such accusations of the wife as cruelty within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”). However, if it is
found that the allegations are patently false, then there can be no manner of doubt that the said conduct of a spouse levelling false accusations against the other spouse would be an act of cruelty.”

Raj Talreja Vs Kavita Talreja on 24 April 2017

Citations: [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 462], [MANU/SC/0493/2017], [2017 AIR SC 2138], [2017 ALR 123 835], [2017 ALD 4 189], [2017 CHN SC 3 77], [2017 CTC 4 208], [2017 CLT 124 401], [2017 DMCSC 2 317], [2017 JLJ 3 367], [2017 JLJR 2 470], [2017 MLJ 4 190], [2017 PLJR 2 475], [2017 RCR CIVIL 2 1044], [2017 SCALE 5 413], [2017 SCJ 5 418]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139144445/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58fe28e753bee70a8573e00c

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr on 18 October 2013

Challa Sivakumar and Two Ors Vs Challa Anita and Two Ors on 24 October 2018

M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs CBI Bengaluru on 7 January 2020

IN RE Guidelines for Court Functioning through Video Conferencing during nCOVID-19 Pandemic on 06 April 2020

Union of India Vs R Thiyagarajan on 3 April 2020

Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs Hasan Raza Khan and Ors on 22 January 2016

State of Maharashtra Vs Rahul Ramchandra Khedkar on 18 May 2018

Bhanu Prasad Variganji Vs State of Telangana on 16 March 2020

Epidemic Diseases Act 1897

Raj Talreja Vs Kavita Talreja on 24 April 2017