Lakshmayya Vs M.Shivalingamma and Anr on 04 Mar 2024

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.

Citations: [2024:KHC-K:1930]

Other Sources:

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

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

Post Views: 70

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.

Post Views: 377

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.

Post Views: 422

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.

Post Views: 107

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.

Post Views: 95

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.

Post Views: 126

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.

Post Views: 282

BSA Sec 38 – Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment or incompetency of Court may be proved

Posted on January 8 by ShadesOfKnife

Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under section 34, 35 or 36, and which has been proved by the adverse party, was delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion.

Post Views: 225

Alagarsamy Vs Mangalasundari and Anr on 20 Nov 2025

Posted on January 3 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madras High Court at Madurai Bench held as follows,

From Para 16,

16. However, the learned Magistrate’s order is devoid of any specific reference to the section under which the warrant was issued. The expression “distress warrant” under Section 125(3) and “distraint warrant” under Section 128 have distinct connotations. The former is punitive, providing for imprisonment up to one month, per month of default, while the latter is civil-enforcement-oriented, meant to attach property to recover arrears. The confusion between the two renders the order susceptible to ambiguity.

From Para 20,

20. In the instant case, though the petitioner’s persistent default is established, the record does not show that the learned Magistrate considered or issued a bailable warrant before resorting to NBW. The impugned order also lacks any recorded satisfaction as to why the petitioner’s appearance could not be secured otherwise. That apart, the respondent wife herein had made the application for arrears of maintenance for a period of 22 months, which obviously would throw light on the fact that, the application has not been filed within a period of one year and hence, in an application filed beyond a period of one year, the learned Judicial Magistrate ought to have dealt with as mandated under Section 128 of Cr.P.C., 1973, and should have issued a distraint warrant and not a distress warrant.

From Para 22,

22. Hence, while the issuance of NBW without recording reasons is procedurally defective, the learned Magistrate’s power to enforce maintenance cannot be doubted. The proper course would have been to issue a bailable warrant first, or to issue a distraint warrant under Section 128 Cr.P.C., 1973, for attachment of property, before considering arrest.

From Para 28,

28. This case underscores the need for the learned Trial Courts to distinctly record under which provision warrants are issued, whether punitive under Section 125(3) or coercive under Section 128, and to follow the statutory sequence under Section 87 Cr.P.C., 1973, before resorting to non-bailable warrants.

Alagarsamy Vs Mangalasundari and Anr on 20 Nov 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance judgments u/s 144 Cr.P.C. is here.

Post Views: 169

Jinesh CR Vs Aswathy PR on 19 Nov 2025

Posted on December 8, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Kerala High Court held that the level or standard of prove for adultery is just preponderance of probability under Sec 144 BNSS case (being a civil proceeding) but not that of Proof beyond reasonable doubt which may be applicable in a criminal case.

From Para 5,

5. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of BNSS) states that a husband with sufficient means is liable to provide maintenance to his wife who cannot support herself. However, the wife’s right to claim maintenance is not absolute. Sub-Section (4) of Section 125 (Section 144(4) of BNSS) clearly specifies that a wife living in adultery is not entitled to claim maintenance. The dictum laid down in all the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and referenced earlier is that a single instance of adulterous conduct is not enough to disqualify a wife from claiming maintenance; rather, there must be evidence of continuous adulterous behaviour. In brief, there should be proof that the wife is habitually engaging in an adulterous life with the partner to invoke the provisions of subsection (4) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. This legal principle is well settled. The key issue, however, is that when a husband defends proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of BNSS) by claiming that the wife is living in adultery, what level of proof is required to establish that the wife is indeed living in adultery?

From Para 6,

6. The right claimed by the wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a civil right. Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are also civil proceedings, although breach may lead to penal consequences. In criminal cases, the standard of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas in civil cases, the standard is based on the preponderance of probabilities. The concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies only to criminal trials and cannot be used in civil disputes, including matrimonial and maintenance cases. When the husband alleges that the wife is living in adultery and thereby disqualified from claiming maintenance, he is not required to prove the adulterous act beyond a reasonable doubt, as in criminal prosecution under the now-repealed Section 497 of IPC. Instead, proof by preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. Adultery typically occurs in secrecy, making direct proof rare. Consequently, adultery can often be established through circumstantial evidence, provided the circumstances lead logically to that conclusion.

Jinesh CR Vs Aswathy PR on 19 Nov 2025

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Sec 144 BNSS is here.

Post Views: 660

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

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

BSA Sec 38 – Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment or incompetency of Court may be proved

Alagarsamy Vs Mangalasundari and Anr on 20 Nov 2025

Jinesh CR Vs Aswathy PR on 19 Nov 2025