A division bench of Gauhati HC passed practice directions, relying of a decision passed by Delhi HC.
A notification was also issued
Category: High Court of Gauhati Judgment or Order or Notification
Hazi Abdul Khaleque Vs Mustt Samsun Nehar on 20 Aug 1990
A single judge from Gauhati High Court held as follows,
From Paras 11, 12 and 13,
11. Under Chapter XXXII, Section 401 of the Code provides that. “Any money (other than a fine) payable by virtue of any order made under this Code, and the method of recovery of which is not otherwise expressly provided for, shall be recoverable as if it were a fine.” The proviso to section 431 is not relevant here. The order for payment of maintenance was an order under the code for payment of money, for the recovery of which no method had been expressly provided. Accordingly, under section 431 of the code, I think the maintenance; money could be recovered, as if it were fine.
12. Section 421 of the Code provides for recovery of fine and the procedure laid down for the purpose was by issue of warrant for attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to offender in this case the present petitioner (opposite party in the maintenance proceeding) or issue of warrant to the Collector of the District, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter: The provision to Section 421 clearly stipulates that “no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender.”
13. On consideration of the above provisions, there should be no doubt that for recovery of money as maintenance which has to be in accordance with the procedure for recovery of fine no warrant of arrest or detention of the petitioner could have been ordered. I, therefore think that the impugned order dated 1.9.89 was clearly erroneous and has to be set aside.
Citations: [1990 GAULR 2 328], [1991 CRLJ 1843], [1990 SCC ONLINE GAU 36], [1990 GAU LR 2 328], [1991 CRI LJ 1843]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1507653/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56eaaa49607dba3c8ce3ef96
https://legaldata.in/court/read/2541018
Bulbuli Saikia Vs Jadav Saikia on 17 May 2022
Single Judge bench of Gauhati High Court held, any agreement which is against public policy is void.
From Para 18,
18. In Ranjit Kaur (Supra), the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held that maintenance is a statutory right, which the legislature has framed irrespective of nationality, cast or creed of the parties. The statutory liability under Section 125 is, therefore, distinct from the liability under any other law. Therefore, the statutory right of a wife of a maintenance cannot be bartered, done away with or negatived by the husband by setting up an agreement to the contrary. Such an agreement in addition to it being against public policy would also be against the clear intendment of this provision. Therefore, giving effect to an agreement, which overrides this provision of law, that is, Section 125 of Cr.P.C. would tantamount to not only giving recognition to something, which is opposed to public policy, but would also amount to negation of it. The law makes a clear distinction between a void and illegal agreement and void but legal agreement. It has also been held that an agreement by which the wife waived her right to claim maintenance would be a void agreement as against public policy.
Index is here.
Navendra Kumar Vs Union of India on 06 Nov 2013
A division bench of Gauhati High Court held in this Writ Appeal that, CBI to be an unconstitutional body.
Citations : [2013 SCC ONLINE GAU 305], [2014 GAU LR 1 529], [2014 AIC 133 743], [2013 CRI LJ 5009]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/133280611/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56eaac16607dba3c8ce40e16
The above Judgment and Order was stayed in 3 days time by a Division bench of Supreme Court.
Last update from Supreme Court website is this…
Bhaskar Das Vs Renu Das on 19 Jun 2020
Based on Supreme Court decision here, Gauhati High Court held that, filing false criminal cases against husband with a malafide intension is one form of Cruelty and is a solid ground for Divorce.
The cunning knife filed a Review against the above Judgment and even that got tossed into Dustbin.
Satish Deka and Ors Vs Jagya Ram Mazumdar on 31 July, 2017
Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati has held that “209 IPC should be complaint from magistrate and not private complaint“.
[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”]
High Court at Gauhati Notification-06-02-2015
In this notification, Gauhati High Court notified that going forward A4 size white papers to be used in all judicial as well as official works in the High Court and Subordinate Courts under its jurisdiction from 1-March-2015 onwards.
Few guidelines are also issue:
- Maximum 26/27 lines be typed out in each sheet in 1.5 space in between the lines,
- Words in size 11 of Tahoma font,
- Margins 4 cm at top, 1cm below, 5 cm left and 2 cm right.
