A wonderful judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court which held that to make compensation paid to a complainant under 357(3) of CrPC, it is imperative that a Sentence In Default Of Payment Of Compensation is also applied in the order.
Vinay And Others Vs State Of Karnataka And Another
Apex Court has levied fine on assaulters and granted compensation to the Appellants.
K. Karunakaran Vs T. V. Eachara Warrier on 16 November, 1977
In this landmark case that got national coverage, it is held by Hon’ble Apex Court that
The fact that a prima facie case has been made out for laying a complaint does not mean that the charge has been established against a person beyond reasonable doubt. That will be thrashed out in the trial itself where the parties will have opportunity to produce evidence and controvert each other’s case exhaustively without any reservation. There may be often a constraint on the part of a person sought to be proceeded against under section 340 Cr.P.C. to come out with all materials in the preliminary enquiry. That constraint will not be there in a regular trial where he will have ample opportunity to defend himself and produce all materials to show that an offence under section 193 IPC has not been made out. That section contemplates that making of a false statement is not enough. It has to be made intentionally. The accused in a trial under section 193 will be able to place all circumstances bearing upon the ingredient of the intention attributed to him.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Poonam Tanwar Vs Sube Singh Tanwar on 20 December, 2016
In another judgment, Delhi High Court has turned down the overt act of the Knife to grab hold of the property belonging to her father-in-law via permanent injunction.
Shaik Noorjahan Vs Shaik Dilshad Begam on 28 April, 2015
Classic case of Knife falsifying in court to grab monies from her mother-in-law. Hon’ble court held that no Shared household proved so no DV and hence dismissed the false petition.
From Para 11,
Now the point that is to be determined, whether the petitioner being daughter-in-law of respondent suffered violence as mentioned under the act by the respondent. On this aspect, the petitioner though stated rivalry stating that the respondent and her daughter harassed her physically and mentally for want of additional dowry, coming to her chief examination itself it is admitted by her that on 30.03.2010 her husband died due to ill-health, after the death of her husband when she went to her in-law’s house along with her children, the respondent did not allow her into the house, which means, it is clear that she has been residing separately along with her husband away from the house of respondent. Moreover coming to the cross-examination of P.w.2, it is admitted by him that his daughter and son-in-law used to reside separately in a separate house on rent basis and the intimation about the death of his son-in-law was informed to his mother by the owner of the house in which his daughter and her husband resided. So, from the above admissions itself it is clear that the petitioner and her husband resided separately from the respondent. So, the concept of shared house hold does not arise as it is admitted by petitioner that the petitioner resided separately from the respondent. Moreover on this aspect this Court inclined to rely upon the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.R.Batra and Another V. Smt. Taruna Batra (AIR 2007 S.C. 1118 and 1119), in Neetu Mittal V. Kanta Mittal and Others (AIR 2009 DELHI 72 and 72) and in Umesh Sharma V. State (AIR 2010 (NOC) 515 (DEL.).
Shumita Didi Sandhu Vs Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Others on 26 October, 2010
The Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has produced this judgment which held that the right of residence of a woman in the property on which her husband has right, title or interest that the wife can claim residence and that, too, if no commensurate alternative is provided by the husband.
Ravuri Venkata Lakshmi Mahathi Vs Ravuri Venkata Durga Butchi Rajeswararao on 22 April, 2016
Read this judgment to understand how the biased judges give liberal reliefs using gender-biased laws such as PWDV Act. In the process wrongly interpret the Delhi High Court judgment, wherein in reality High Court has declined giving maintenance to unscrupulous knife, our judge in this present case understood and interpreted it totally wrongly and to suit the Knife.
The judgment cited in this order and wrongly interpreted is available here.
Madhala Sujatha Vs Madhala Srinivasulu on 8 June, 2015
Interesting points in this case of DV.
PW1 has deposed in her chief examination that at the time of her marriage her parents have given cash of Rs.1,81,000/- and gold ornaments weighing 20 sovereigns to the respondent no.1. PW1 has stated during the course of her cross-examination that the said cash and gold ornaments were handed over to the respondents at their(petitioner) house about 10 days prior to her marriage. PW2 has stated during the course of his cross-examination that the parents of PW1 have given cash of Rs.1,81,000/-, gold ornaments weighing 21 sovereigns to RW1 and his parents at the time performing marriage of PW1 and RW1. Therefore, there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW1 itself and also in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding the time and occasion of presentation of alleged dowry to RW1 and his parents by her parents.
There is no evidence of PW1 before this Court that any cash of Rs.20,000/- was given to the respondents for purchasing cloths.
PW1 has also stated during the course of her cross-examination that there are bills to show that the gold ornaments weighing 21 sovereigns that were presented to the respondents were purchased by her parents. The alleged bills are not produced before this Court to show that that the alleged gold ornaments were purchased by the parents of PW1 immediately, prior to or at the time of marriage of PW1 with RW1. The parents of PW1 are not even examined on the side of the petitioner to prove the alleged presentation of dowry of cash and gold ornaments to RW1 and
his parents. The evidence of PW2 also do not reveal that the alleged dowry was presented by the parents of PW1 to RW1 and his parents in his presence. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner has failed to substantiate her contention that the alleged dowry was presented by her parents to RW1 and his parents in her marriage.
Chavala Kalpana Vs Chavala Audilakshmi on 5 May, 2015
In this case, Knife obtained reliefs of Protection order, Residence order and return of cash and gold ornaments from the mother-in-law.
From Para 13,
However, in the instant case it has been brought on the record of the case during the course of cross-examination of the respondent that the said two portioned house was constructed with the earnings of the husband of the respondent. PW2 is the only son of her parents. When the said two portioned house has been constructed out of the earnings of the husband of the respondent and father of PW2 then certainly the said house cannot be said to a self acquired property of the respondent, and that the said house acquires the status of the joint family property in which PW2 is a member. The said admission by the respondent regarding the nature of the said house is the best evidence to conclude that the said house is a joint family property and it a shared house holds. The readiness expressed by RW1 during the course of her cross-examination to give one of the portions of the house to PW1 and PW2 for their residence implies that the respondent is also acknowledgment the right of residence of PW1 in the said house.
Shaik Shakheela Vs Shaik Mahamad Rafi on 22 September, 2017
This is another ex parte order in the DV Case. Since there is no challenge to the averments of the Knife in the petition, Judge liberally allows reliefs.
