Another judgments from Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, where in DVC on brother-in-law and sister-in-law were quashed due to lack of specific allegations.
Kuppilli Sridhar Kumar Vs Kuppili Siva Santoshi Ramani Swathi on 28 June, 2013
Category: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Notification
Guntamukkala Naga Venkata Kanaka Durga Nagamani Vs Guntamukkala Eswar Sudhakar on 19 October, 2012
Cunning knife did drama in court seeking huge alimony but learned Judges of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh showed here the door and levied costs for lying to court and filing false affidavits.
From Para 30,
Guntamukkala Naga Venkata Kanaka Durga Nagamani Vs Guntamukkala Eswar Sudhakar on 19 October, 2012On necessary analysis we find it difficult to accept these observations as it appears that the legislative intendment in framing Section 18 of HAM Act and Section 25 of HM Act are quite different. This is born out from the fact that Section 18 of HAM Act is intended for granting divorce to a wife when her marriage with her husband has been subsisting against her husband subject to the limitations provided therein, whereas Section 25 of HM Act is intended for granting maintenance to a divorced wife or husband subject to their conduct. No doubt, “wife” includes a divorced wife under normal parlance, but the question of awarding maintenance to her either as a wife or divorced wife should be within the legislative intendment or spirit. In other words, when the legislature framed Section 18 of HAM Act in the context of providing maintenance to a wife against her husband while their marriage has been subsisting, that is quite different from its intention in framing Section 25 of HM Act, the provisions of which are made applicable only to a divorced wife or husband subject to the conduct of himself or herself. The interpretation made in the decision cited to treat a wife who is not a divorcee and the wife who is a divorcee on equal footing for the purpose of awarding maintenance under Section 18 of HAM Act does not appear to be logical.
Yalala Swapna Vs The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mumbai and anr on 09 June, 2009
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has penalized the Writ petitioner as she has lied that she has submitted notarized affidavits but in fact she could not prove that she did. Hence the said affidavits introduced into the Court are termed as false affidavits which contained the false averment/pleading.
Yalala Swapna Vs The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mumbai and anr on 09 June, 2009
Ghousia Sultana Alias Ghousia Begum And Etc. Etc. Vs Mohd. Ghouse Baig And Ors Etc. Etc. on 12 February, 1996
This is the full bench decision of AP High Court, over-ruling the decision of this Court in Smt. Daggupati Jayalakshmi v. State, 1993 APLJ (Crl) 269 : (1993 Cri LJ 3162), confirming the Single bench judgment here by endorsing as below.
Ghousia Sultana Alias Ghousia Begum And Etc. Etc. Vs Mohd. Ghouse Baig And Ors Etc. Etc. on 12 February, 1996No non-compoundable offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be allowed, or directed to be compounded by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
Citation : 1996 (1) ALD Cri 534, 1996 (1) ALT 940, 1996 (1) ALT Cri 608, 1996 CriLJ 2973, II (1996) DMC 115
Indiankanoon.org link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/293319/
Annamdevula Srinivasa Rao and Anr Vs The State Of A.P. and Etc on 11 August, 1995
In this order from AP High Court, it was held that, a High Court cannot compound a non-compoundable case under section 482 CrPC.
Annamdevula Srinivasa Rao and Anr Vs The State Of A.P. and Etc on 11 August, 1995Citation : 1995 (2) ALT Cri 447, 1995 CriLJ 3964, I (1996) DMC 239
Indiankanoon.org link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/228972/
Afzalunnisa Begum Vs The State of A.P. on 10 December, 2009
Afzalunnisa Begum Vs The State of A.P. on 10 December, 2009
[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”]
Chinta Lakshmikanth Vs Chintha Jayashree on 18 July, 2014
Interim Stay is granted on DVC Proceedings in this case by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Highlight of the case: 19 Respondents are arrayed as accused!!!
Chinta Lakshmikanth Vs Chintha Jayashree on 18 July, 2014Here is the status of this case, as on the date of this posting.
Chinta Lakshmikanth Vs Chintha Jayashree - Case Status[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”]
M.P. Tej Babu Vs The State Of Telangana and 2 others on 4 March, 2016
This is a writ petition filed with Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in which this judgment is issued under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The self-acquired property of son was ordered to be transferred to his mother by Tribunal. But then in this judgment, Hon’ble High Court held that the fact remains that no transfer of property in favour of the petitioner by respondent No.3, and that too after commencement of the Act, has taken place. As such, no return of transfer of property is made out.
M.P. Tej Babu vs The State Of Telangana and 2 others on 4 March, 2016