This judgment from Allahabad High Court held that gifts given to the husband by the wife or some family member of wife is not Dowry.
Category: High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification
Garima Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and another on 19 January, 2010
In this order from Allahabad High Court, the knife challenges the order of levying a fine of Rs.10,000/- for perjury (Lying that she is not working in DPS). The orders of perjury are stayed until the objections are resolved.
It has been argued by Mr. Tripathi that under the provisions of Section 340, Cr.P.C. the court can make only preliminary inquiry and the final order which may be in the form of imposing fine can be passed by the court of competent jurisdiction and the court of competent jurisdiction would be that court in which the complaint would be filed by the court in which the perjury was committed. The court which made the preliminary inquiry had no jurisdiction to finally conclude the matter and impose the fine, therefore, the order dated 15.7.09 is bad and is liable to be quashed. Regarding the order dated 7.10.09 it was argued by Mr. Tripathi that once a wrong order was passed by the court on 15.7.09 it should have been reviewed and when it was not reviewed, hence, the order dated 7.10.09 is also bad and is liable to be quashed.
Archana Sharma Vs Mukesh Kumar Sharma on 22 September, 2014
Another thieving knife bites the dust. No alimony for the knife due to the conduct of the knife. Hon’ble Allahabad HC delivered this judgment.
From the perusal of the impugned judgment, we also find that after the examination-in-chief of the respondent, no cross-examination was done for a period of three years and as such having no other alternative, the Court closed the opportunity of cross-examination.
And then,
A perusal of the record further indicates that the appellant also moved an application for summoning the witnesses, which was rejected by the learned court below on 28.05.2004. This order was never challenged by the appellant and as such the same attained finality. An application for amendment of the written statement was also moved by the appellant, which was also rejected on 16.01.2004 and this order also became final as the same was not assailed before any Court. In view of above facts that the appellant did not cross-examine the respondent and also did not produce any evidence, the evidence adduced by the respondent stood un-rebutted. The learned court below has relied upon the evidence of the respondent on the ground that the appellant did not rebut the evidence of the respondent either by cross-examination or by adducing any other evidence. However, the law is that even if the evidence of the respondent remains un-rebutted and the appellant does not produce any evidence in defence, it is the duty of the Court to examine the evidence on record and come to a conclusion as to whether the cruelty as alleged by the respondent has been proved and such cruelty is to such an extent that the marriage between the parties should be dissolved by means of a decree of divorce.
Filing false FIR,
The appellant also lodged a false FIR against the respondent and other members of his family with false allegations of demand of dowry etc. upon which the police conducted the investigation and finally submitted final report. This fact is not disputed by the appellant. However, the appellant filed objection against the submission of the final report of the police upon which the Magistrate summoned the respondent and he had to seek bail from the Court of Judicial Magistrate. The Judicial Magistrate after the trial acquitted the respondent and other members of his family, who were falsely implicated in the said case but they had to undergo mental stress for several years before the court.
Alleged alimony demand for divorce,
The learned court below also tried to amicably settle the dispute by calling upon them before the court but the appellant did not agree without being paid a handsome amount by the respondent. The appellant also moved an application for payment of Rs.70,000/- as alimony and it was clearly mentioned in the said application that she would accept the divorce only in case the aforesaid amount is paid to her. This prima-facie indicates that the appellant instead of making any efforts towards amicable settlement always insisted for the alimony.
Here is another para,
Whenever an effort was made for reconciliation, the appellant demanded a handsome amount to settle the matter. Thus, the conduct of the appellant was such that the learned court below did not find it proper to award any permanent alimony. The learned court below on the basis of the evidence has come to the conclusion that the appellant was getting only Rs.3,875/- per month after deduction. The appellant on the other hand was getting salary of Rs.5,631/- per month from Sahara India Office. The learned court below has also found that as required by the Rules, the appellant did not submit any details of her income and keeping in view the income of the appellant as well as that of respondent and also taking into account the conduct of the appellant, she was not entitled for any permanent alimony.
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/9174631/
Citation:
Santosh Kumar Yadav And Others Vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 8 September, 2016
High Court of Allahabad has suggested to opt for CrPC 239 at Trial Court, instead of CrPC 482 at High Court.
Mohd. Farid Vs Union Of India And Another on 20 December, 2016
The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in this writ petition has held that,
the Passport Authority will have to take objective consideration while proceeding to exercise his discretion whether pendency of such criminal case warrants impounding of passport or not keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner. Apart from this in the present case what we find that the Passport Officer has proceeded to pass the order only on the premise that criminal case is pending before this Court and at no point of time reply that has been submitted by the petitioner that he was having matrimonial discord and the said criminal case have direct nexus with the same and in view of this, in the facts of the case, statutory obligation to record reasons under sub-section 5 of Section 10 also remains uncomplied with and as such, the order dated 26.10.2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Passport Officer is free to pass fresh order as already mentioned above.
If any idiotic officer at Passport officer impounds your passport without application of her/his mind, use this order to show their BS.
Dipanshi And Another Vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 November, 2016
Taking away the list of judgments cited in this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, here is the judgment.
The facts would reveal that the second petitioner is aged about 32 years and the first petitioner is merely 18 years, second petitioner despite fully being aware that he has a living spouse, he duped the first petitioner and convinced her to elope with him under a false assurance of second marriage. Thereafter, the second petitioner had audacity to swear a false affidavit before the Court stating that this is his first marriage, thus, indulging in fraud and misrepresentation, both with the first petitioner and with the Constitutional Court. Such conduct cannot be ignored, law has to take its own course.
In regard thereto, false affidavit on oath has been filed by the second petitioner to misrepresent before the Court, which is wilful and deliberate, thus, exposing himself for prosecution under Section 193 IPC. No further enquiry or explanation is required.
Registrar General is directed to lodge a complaint before the competent Magistrate at Allahabad against the second
petitioner for filing false affidavit to mislead the Court. Second petitioner shall be taken into custody forthwith. The first petitioner being adult is let free.
Index of all Perjury case laws is here.
Pooja Vs. Vijay Chaitanya on 6 April, 2018
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that “the appeal even against a consent decree under such facts and circumstances of the case, where the consent itself is disputed and no inquiry has been conducted by the court below is maintainable, subject to objection on appearance by the other side.”
Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003
Justice A.Mateen of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench directed the Additional Principal Judge Family Court to dispose of the application so moved by the petitioner under Section 340, 344 Cr.P.C. before proceeding further in accordance with law.
Case No: W.P No. 56 of 2002
Citations:
Other sources:
https://www.sifchandigarh.com/judgement/syed-nazim-husain-vs-the-additional-principal-judge
Index of Perjury judgment 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.
