This is a correction order (to remove a typo) in the judgment of perjury case available here.
Category: High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification
Dimple Jatin Khanna Vs Anita Advani And Anr on 9 April, 2015
In this judgment of High Court of Bombay, the DVC is quashed under Section 482 CrPC, as the petitioner was not having any domestic relationship with the deceased Rajesh Khanna, in the nature of marriage.
Om Prakash Puri Vs Nandita Puri on 14 October, 2014
This judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Bombay is part of Celebrity Cases Series and pertaining to a wonderful actor we all know in India as Om Puri.
The dole out made by the Family Court at Bandra, awarding the following ‘interim maintenance’ to the respondent and her minor child:
(a) Rs.1,25,000/- per month to the respondent;
(b) Rs.50,000/- per month towards the minor child.
The aforesaid amount of interim maintenance is over and above the sum of Rs.1,15,000/- towards the actual education and medical expenses of the minor child, which the petitioner has been paying and continues to pay to the respondent and the minor child.
The above even after Om Puri has already been doing the following:
- allowing the knife to enjoy 6 properties of his including 3 flats in Versova, ANdheri (W)
- made payments towards club fees, electricity charges, gas bills, motor car insurance, salary towards cook, driver, taxes, society charges, travelling expenses, telephone charges, licence fees towards occupation of certain apartments, apart from actual money, the total of which would aggregate to approximately Rs.70,00,000/- for the period between November 2012 to September 2013.
- The circumstance that there are several bank accounts and fixed deposits in the name of both the petitioner and the respondent, which have virtually been frozen by the respondent. Therefore, a situation has arisen, whereby the petitioner is disabled from utilising the amounts in such fixed deposits and bank accounts on one hand, and at the same time the petitioner is required to make payments towards maintenance to the respondent and the minor child
- The circumstance that the petitioner on his own has been paying an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- to the respondent and the minor child, apart from bearing significant financial burden towards their maintenance and upkeep, as aforesaid;
- The circumstance that the petitioner bearing the expenditure with regard to educational and medical needs of not just the minor child but also the respondent’s ailing mother
This resembles the death grip of a python, isn’t it? I will let you read the remaining part of the colorful judgment.
Sachin Vs Sau. Sushma on 6 May, 2014
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in this judgment for recovering maintenance amount, has held that
From Para 5,
Therefore, it is abundantly clear that basically the learned Magistrate has to follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure for recovery of maintenance either final or interim. Subsection (2) of Section 28 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be pressed into service when there is no provision available for implementing a particular order passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. If the procedure is available in Code of Criminal Procedure, that is necessarily to be followed.
From Para 9,
As such the first option available to the Magistrate was to issue a warrant for levying fine. If whole of the amount was recovered by adopting the procedure under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the question of putting the defaulter in prison did not arise. In case amount was not recovered or part of it was recovered and part of it was not recovered, then the question would have arisen as to how much sentence should be imposed on the defaulter as per the provision laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The stage of issuing warrant comes only after sentencing and not before that.
Aniket Subhash Tupe Vs Piyusha Aniket Tupe And Anr on 22 March, 2018
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay while dismissing this writ petition, has held in this judgment that,
The opening words of Sub Section (2) of Section 28 viz.”Nothing in Sub Section (1) shall prevent the Court” clearly indicate that notwithstanding the procedure prescribed in 28(1) r/w. Rule 6(5) the Court is empowered to lay down its own procedure in deciding the application under Section 12 or 23(2) of the D.V.Act.
Anil Ambashankar Joshi Vs Reena Anil Joshi And Anr on 5 December, 2016
In this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, it is held that in a case of CrPC 125, whereby a knife comes begging for maintenance, she has to step into the witness box and depose her evidence. Affidavit of Evidence is not permitted per CrPC 126(2).
The affidavit of evidence filed by the Petitioner vide Exh.17 would have to be discarded. The Respondent however would be entitled to lead her evidence by stepping into the witness box.
Nandkishor Pralhad Vyawahare Vs Mangal on 3 May, 2018
Two questions of interpretation of law in regards to the DV Act are explained in this landmark Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.
Q1. Whether or not the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2008 are in the nature of criminal proceedings ?
Proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are predominantly of civil nature and it is only when there is a breach of the protection order as is contemplated under Section 31 and failure or refusal to discharge duty without any sufficient cause by the protection officer as contemplated under Section 33, the proceedings assume the character of criminality. The first question is answered accordingly.
Q2. Whether or not the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ?
the second question is answered in the affirmative.
Now, one incidental question would arise as to from what stage the provisions of the Cr.P.C. would become applicable and in our view, the answer could be found out from the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the D.V. Act.
A combined reading of these provisions shows that the commencement of the proceedings would take place the moment, the Magistrate applies his mind to the contents of the application and passes any judicial order including that of issuance of notice. Once, the proceeding commences, the procedure under Section 28 of the D.V. Act, subject to the exceptions provided in the Act and the rules framed thereunder, would apply. In other words, save as otherwise provided in the D.V. Act and the rules framed thereunder and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 28, the provisions of the Cr.P.C. shall govern the proceedings under Sections 12 to 23 and also those relating to an offence under Section 31 of the D.V. Act on their commencement.
The State of Maharashtra Vs Abdul Karim Abdul Kadar on 12 December, 2015
This Criminal Appeal is dismissed by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay as the that allegations levelled by the complainant are not contemplated in the definition of section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code.
The allegation made by the knife?
that the husband did not give funds to meet the daily expenses.
Fareed Ahmed Qureshi Vs State of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2018
An order for inquiry for perjury was passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court under section 340 of Cr.P.C against offences under sections 193, 196, 199, 200 and 209 of IPC.
This Order was set aside by Apex Court here.
