In this judgment, Apex Court clarified that once a Magistrate orders police investigation under section 156(3), police are bound to
- Register a case
- Investigate the case
- Present a report or charge sheet
Kenneth Desa and another Vs Gopal on 11 July 2007
Wonderful judgment from Bombay High Court setting aside judgments of 2 lower courts in regards to the maintainability of application under Section 340 of CrPC.
From Para 7,
Whenever an application under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure is filed, the Civil Manual Chapter XIX para 337 requires that it should be registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case i.e. a case where a Judicial Enquiry is contemplated. The learned Civil Judge should have, therefore, directed the application to be registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case.
Prakash Kumar Singhee Vs Amrapali Singhee on 4 May 2018
Good order from Hon’ble Bombay High Court in regards to granting maintenance to a knife under section 20 of PWDV Act, who did not even aver in the compliant that there was any domestic violence at all which would not make her a ‘Aggrieved Person’.
The maintenance of Rs.2 lakhs per month granted by Family court is set aside by the high court and an interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- was issued from date of order till the Family Court decides the matter.
Few highlights from Judgment given below.
She would submit that the application is devoid of such pleadings attributing domestic violence and thus in absence of domestic violence being attributed and demonstrated, an application under Section 12 cannot be entertained and no relief can be granted under Section 20 of the said Act in the nature of the monetary relief.
The Family Court has also perused the bank statement of the wife and has recorded that there are various deposits to her account and the Court has found the explanation offered by the wife that her mother is carrying out the business of stock broking from her account to be evasive.
During the pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court on its remand, the petitioner-husband would pay an amount of Rs.25,000/-per month to the wife towards her maintenance, till the Family Court decides the mater.
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
Jallarapu Laxman Rao Vs Jallarapu Pedda Venkateswarlu on 1 November, 2017
Justice M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY in this Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment clarifies the non-maintainability of revision under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPC, in a Domestic Violence Case, when the Act itself has a section 29 for the purpose of revision (as well as Appeal).
Citations : [2017 SCC ONLINE HYD 381], [2018 ALT CRI 2 70]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150555325/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a28d6c54a9326135bfa09ab
Index of all Domestic Violence Cases is here.
Chiranjeev Kumar Arya Vs State Of U.P. & Another on 29 June, 2016
This is a wonderful and interesting judgment from Hon’ble Allahabad High Court involving advocate fraud.
Salient Point of interest:
- Interim granted under Section 12 of PWDVA at Rs.1000/-
- On Appeal under Section 29 of PWDVA, this is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-, yes thirty thousand Indian rupees
- Proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Act are also governed by the Cr.P.C.
- No finality has been attached to the order passed under Section 29.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Ismile @ Shama Vs State Of U.P. & Others on 22 September, 2016
In this judgment from Allahabad High court, maintenance for knife is denied on the ground that she is able to maintain herself as she is earning more than 2200/-per month but allowed for the minor child, even when the husband and knife are divorced.
Murali Mohan Krishna Vs Lavanya on 8 August, 2017
Good judgment again from Hon’ble Karnataka High Court which held that Magistrate must conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before Interim Maintenance.
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
Krishnamurthy Nookula Vs Savitha Y on 9 December, 2009
Good judgment from Co-ordinate bench of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court which held that Magistrate must conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before Interim Maintenance.
Citations: [(2009) 12 KAR CK 0083], [ ],
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1502986/
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/598623-krishna-murthy-nookula-appellant-hash
Krishnamurthy Nookula vs Savitha Y on 9 December, 2009 HC of Karnataka
This judgment is over ruled in here.
Index of Domestic Violence judgments is here.
Ramesh Chand Vs State of Himachal Pradesh on 11 April, 2017
Wonderful judgment from High Court of Himachal Pradesh where the Husband was acquitted from IPC 498A for following reasons
- 9 months of delay in filing complaint
- No specific allegation attracting IPC 498A
- Co-accused were acquitted on same set of evidence by lower courts
S.Hanumantha Rao Vs S.Ramani on 31 March, 1999
This judgment from Apex court defines what is mental cruelty as envisaged under section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act.
Mental cruelty broadly means, when either party causes mental pain, agony or suffering of such a magnitude that it severs the bond between the wife and husband and as a result of which it becomes impossible for the party who has suffered to live with the other party. In other words, the party who has committed wrong is not expected to live with the other party.
