I won’t comment about this Judgment. Posting here, with a hope that it may be set aside at a higher court.
State of AP Vs Basa Nalini Manohar and Ors on 23 Dec 2024Category: Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications
Maintenance Judgments under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956
Supreme Court:
Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel Vs Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel And others on 14 March, 2008 [In Para 24, held that mother-in-law cannot be fastened with any liability of maintenance towards widowed daughter-in-law]
Delhi High Court:
- Laxmi and Anr Vs Shyam Pratap and Anr on 28 Apr 2022 [failed to disclose any estate of her husband having devolved upon the respondents; Father-in-law expired and the appellants cannot as a matter of right, claim any maintenance from mother-in-law]
- Suresh Tiwari and Anr Vs Madhu Tiwari on 31 Jul 2023 [No averment of the father-in-law holding any coparcenary property against which the daughter-in-law can maintain her claim under Section 19 of the Act and furthermore Impugned Order also does not give any such finding]
Patna High Court:
- Ram Prasad Sahni Vs Punita Devi and Ors on 22 Jun 2017 [Trail Court failed to adjudicate whether the husband has left any estate for the applicant or whether her father-in-law has sufficient income or not]
Punjab and Haryana High Court:
- Sunita and Anr Vs Pyare Lal and Ors on 08 Nov 2010 [Under Section 18 of the Act, a Hindu wife can claim maintenance from her husband but not from her in-laws. Under Section 19 of the Act, a Hindu wife can claim maintenance from her father-in-law after the death of her husband, provided and to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself and this right shall not be enforceable if father-in-law has no means to do so from coparcenary property. Under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act, grandchild is not entitled to claim maintenance from grandparents because they have not inherited any estate from their deceased son]
- Satpal Vs Suman and Ors on 31 May 2019 [Mother-in-law cannot be made liable to maintenance to windowed daughter-in-law; grandchildren are entitled for maintenance]
Index of all Maintenance judgments is here.
Judgments on Transfer Petitions
List of judgments pertaining to Transfer of matrimonial cases.
Supreme Court of India:
- Nahar Singh Yadav and Anr Vs Union of India and Ors on 19 Nov 2010 [broad factors to consider while disposing transfer petitions u/s 406 Cr.P.C.]
- NCV Aishwarya Vs AS Saravana Karthik Sha on 18 Jul 2022 [Supreme Court listed some principles to be considered while deciding transfer petitions]
Andhra Pradesh High Court:
Bombay High Court:
- Sarita Rahul Sharma Vs Rahul Udayraj Sharma on 03 Oct 2024 [Due a minor child, wife’s prayer to transfer a Divorce petition from Vasai to Mahim (about 60 KMs) was allowed]
The MASTER INDEX is here.
Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur Cases
Here are the cases between this Ex-Couple…
- Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022 [PHHC: A division bench terminated the marital tie due to the cruelty and desertion of the wife]
- Harpreet Kaur Vs Ratandeep Singh Ahuja [Appeal filed before the SC]
Condone Delay Judgments
For various reasons, delay gets injected into Court proceedings especially when challenging a lower Court order/judgment before an appellate Court.
Supreme Court:
Dr.XXXXX Vs Dr.XXXXX Cases
Here are the list of cases filed by these people…
- Dr.XXXXX Vs Dr.XXXXX on 24 Mar 2016 – In a ‘Annulment of marriage due to consummation of marriage by wife’ case, High Court granted opportunity to file the Written Statement/Counter.
-
Dr.XXXXX Vs Dr.XXXXX on 16 Jun 2020 – DVC was part allowed due to bad cross-examination.
- Dr.XXXXX Vs Dr.XXXXX on 31 Aug 2021 – Perjury allowed.
- (Master Page for Perjury Judgments here)
- Dr.XXXXX Vs Dr.XXXXX on 03 Mar 2022 – Compromised and settled. All cases withdrawn.
Agreements against Public Policy are Void
A small collections of Judgments which state that, All/any agreements against Public Policy are Void.
Maintenance after Mutual Consent Divorce
A (legal) cancer that is (Multiple) Maintenance after Mutual Consent Divorce dealt by various Courts.
- Ruchi Agarwal Vs Amit Kumar Agrawal and Ors on 5 Nov 2004 [SC: Once MCD done with agreement on no future claims, maintenance cannot be claimed later]
- Ganesh Vs Sudhirkumar Shrivastava and Ors on 22 Apr 2019 [SC: A Mother getting MCD could not have waived off the right to maintenance of her daughter from her father]
- Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr on 04 Nov 2020 [SC: Lots of guidelines for the menace of maintenance litigation in India]
- Prasenjit Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors on 02 Sep 2021 [Calcutta HC: Referred to Larger (Division Bench)]
Index of Maintenance judgments under Hindu Marriage Act is here.
IPC 494 and 495 Judgments
A short collection of Bigamy Judgments u/s 494 IPC/495 IPC.
- Priya Bala Ghosh Vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 Mar 1971 [SC: Acceptable proof necessary that the (alleged second) marriage of the accused was celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies as prescribed u/s 7 of HMA, such as Saptapadi and Homam]
- Santi Deb Berma Vs Kanchan Prava Devi on 10 Oct 1990 [SC: Acceptable proof necessary that the (alleged second) marriage of the accused was celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies as prescribed u/s 7 of HMA, such as Saptapadi and Homam]
- Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs Bidyut Prava Dixit and Anr on 14 Oct 1999 [SC: The standard of proof of marriage in such proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under section 494 of the I.P.C.]
- S Nagalingam Vs Sivagami on 31 August 2001 [SC: Unless a valid marriage is proved, a second marriage stands invalid and no offence under section 494 IPC attracts]
- K Neelaveni Vs State Rep By Inspector of Police and Ors on 22 Mar 2010 [SC: Clear ingredients of IPC 406 and 494; HC should NOT have quashed the FIR]
- A.Subash Babu Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 21 July, 2011 [SC: Due to State amendment, IPC 494 and IPC 495 are Cognizable and Non-bailable Offences in AP (and Telangana)]
- Kannan Vs Selvamuthukani on 30 Jan 2012 [SC: It has to be clearly established that the family members of Accused-husband knew that his divorce with his first wife was set aside before participating in the second marriage]
- Ushaben Vs Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada & Ors on 23 March, 2012 [SC: If a complaint contains allegations about commission of offence under Section 498A of the IPC which is a cognizable offence, apart from allegations about the commission of a non-cognizable offence under Section 494 of the IPC, the court can take cognizance thereof even on a police report.]
- Miriyala Divya and 5 Others Vs Govt of AP on 19 September, 2014 [APHC: Magistrate can take cognizance of Sec 494 IPC complaint despite it having a rider u/s 198 CrPC. Explained]
- Saraswathi Vs Thirupathi and Anr on 24 Sep 2014 [MHC: Due to State amendment, as per Section 7A of HMA, tying thali, exchanging garlands are sufficient enough proof to attract IPC 494 and IPC 495 in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry]
- Asha Devi and Anr Vs State of UP and 2 Ors on 1 Dec 2020 [AHC: No protection for Bigamers]
- Harpreet Kaur and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 01 Nov 2021 [PHHC: No protection for Bigamers]
- Baba Natarajan Prasad Vs M. Revathi on 15 Jul 2024 [SC: 6 months punishment for Bigamers]
CrPC 156(3) Judgments
Here is a collection of judgments pertaining to utilization of CrPC 156(3).
- Suresh Chand Jain Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr on 10 Jan 2001 [SCI: The Complainant need not be examined on Oath by the Magistrate in an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.]
- Sakiri Vasu Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 7 Dec 2007 [SC: Magistrate has power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police; Sequence is 154(1), then 154(3) and then 156(3)]
- Jagannath Verma and Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 23 Sep 2014 [All HC: An order of the magistrate rejecting an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code for the registration of a case by the police and for investigation is not an interlocutory order. Such an order is amenable to the remedy of a criminal revision under Section 397]
- Priyanka Srivastava and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 19 March, 2015 [SCI: Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate; affidavit was mandatory in order to attach propriety and genuineness to the application preferred under Section 156 (3) of CrPC, it was ought to be supported with an affidavit so as to justify the set of allegations]
- Sabiya Begum Malka Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 18 May 2016 [All HC: Costs imposed on police for not filing FIR despite Orders u/s 156(3)]
- Commercial Toyota Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr on 31 Jul 2019 [Uttarakhand HC: Non-filing of affidavit along with the application under S. 156(3) of CrPC held to be a curable defect]
- Om Prakash Sharma Vs State of MP on 25 Mar 2021 [MP HC: Follow Sakiri Vasu, 154(1), 154(3) and 156(3) Cr.P.C.]
- MS Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra on 26 Jul 2021 [SCI: There is no scope for examining the complainant (or any witnesses) in a 156(3) CrPC proceeding, since that stage is pre-cognizance of any cognizable offence]