In this Delhi High Court Judgment, it was held that both orders under 125 CrPC and PWDV Act are to be paid by husband Vikas. Woww
Hope he will get relief in Supreme Court.
Vikas Bhutani Vs State & Anr on 17 May, 2019Reproduced 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
Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that Second revision is barred under 397(3) CrPC.
From Para 16,
Anil Kumar and Ors. Vs Moti Ram and Ors. on 20 November, 1992The bare reading of Sub-Section 3 would how that it does not curtail the remedy but only bars or abrogate the remedy. It curtails the remedy second time. The power of the High Court and the Court of Sessions, so far as revision is concerned, are concurrent. The revisionist has choice to File revision directly in the High Court or in the Sessions Court. Having availed the remedy by filing revision before the Sessions Judge he cannot be permitted to avail second chance, the bar of Sub Section (3) will come in his way. V.R. Krishna lyer, J. in the case of Raj Kapoor Vs. State (Delhi Administration) observed that “In our constitutional order, fragrant with social,justice broader consideration of final relief must govern the juridical process save where legislature interdict plainly forbids that, course”. (underlining is mine). In Raj Kapoor’s case though Supreme Court was not cat tea upon to deal with Sub-Section (3), it was only dealing with the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482, particularly where the petitioner instead of invoking the revisional power under Section 39 invoked the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482, particularly where the petitioner instead of invoking the revisional power under Section 39 invoked the inherent power of the High Court. It was in this background the above observations were made which will show that the Court was not unmindful of the fact that whenever legislature interdict plainly or statute bar the availing of remedy in that case, the High Court cannot resort to its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to circumvent the prohibition laid down in the Code.
The cunning knife tried to extort money from husband saying he earns in dollars and hence he should pay her interim maintenance under HMA 24 as she just earns in rupees. Hon’ble Delhi High Court has shown the door to the knife.
PS: The husband is working as Vice President in Infineon Technologies at Singapore.
Kirti Nagpal Vs Rohit Girdhar on 12 February, 2019This is a facepalm experience for the ADJ who said that,
“Mere recording of a finding to the effect that an offence punishable under section 193 of the Penal Code was committed would not answer requirement of section 340 of the Code. When primary question was answered in affirmative then secondary and most effective proposition was to be answered to the effect whether it was expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an action in the matter. No such step was taken by the Trial Court to see that it was expedient in the interest of justice to take such action. In such a situation, order impugned is shrouded with illegality. In cannot be allowed to stand.”
For which, the High Court of Delhi gave a befitting answer, such as from Para 18,
Jagdish Prasad Vs State and Others on 23 March, 2009In the considered view of this Court, when the learned MM in the order dated 9th September 2005 observed “I am, therefore, of the opinion that Smt. Veena has committed an offence under Section 193 IPC and she ought to be prosecuted for the same”, the requirement of Section 340 CrPC as explained by the Supreme Court stood satisfied. In other words, the opinion formed by learned MM was obviously only a tentative or a prima facie one. This is plain from the expression “ought to be prosecuted”. Further, the same expression “ought to be prosecuted” also indicates the formation of an opinion that it was expedient in the interest of justice that Respondent No.2 should be prosecuted. Therefore, both the requirements of law as explained by the Supreme Court in relation to Section 340 CrPC stood completely satisfied by the order dated 9th September 2005 passed by the learned MM. This Court is, therefore, unable to agree with the conclusion reached by learned ASJ to the contrary.
In this judgment from Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it was held that, not every allegation made justify initiation of proceedings under 340 CrPC. There should be another criteria met, which is, that the initiation of 340 CrPC proceedings should be expedient in the interests of justice.
Rajkumar Indoria Vs NCT Of Delhi, New Delhi on 18 August, 2010Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55726215/
UPDATES:
More updates can be found here: http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhc_case_status_oj_list.asp?pno=253297
Last adjournment date: 18 January, 2019, Next Date: 29 March, 2019
Kusum Sharma Vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma on 18 January, 2019On 6 December, 2017, based on inputs and suggestions from some Family courts, further modifications are made to the prescribed format of the affidavit that all parties of matrimonial cases should file.
Kusum Sharma Vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma on 6 December, 2017On 29 May, 2017, based on inputs and suggestions from some Family courts, further modifications are made to the prescribed format of the affidavit that all parties of matrimonial cases should file.
Kusum Sharma Vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma on 29 May, 2017Hon’ble Delhi High Court has prescribed the format for the affidavit that all parties of matrimonial cases have to file, so that the disposal can happen in 60 days as mandated by the Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
From Para 24,
Kusum Sharma Vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma on 14 January, 2015This Court is of the view that filing of affidavit of assets, income, expenditure and liabilities by both the parties in the prescribed format at the very threshold of matrimonial litigation as in developed countries would enable the Courts to pass maintenance order within 60 days in terms of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and therefore should be incorporated in all the matrimonial statutes.
A cunning advocate obtained blank cheques from his client as surety for this professional fees and misappropriate them. Law caught upto him and shown his place.
Deepa Bhure and Otrs Vs Jai Kishan and Anr on 15 February, 2019Delhi High Court held that Domestic Incident Report (DIR) in a case under PWDV Act is a mandatory element before proceeding to issue any order.
Ravi Dutta Vs Kiran Dutta and Others on 14 February, 2014Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has laid down the procedure to be follow in Delhi by Police in regards to the CrPC Section 41A.
Amandeep Singh Johar Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 7 February, 2018
Mahadevi I Todale Vs Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd & Ors on 10 July, 2017
[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”]
