Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that needs and aspirations of Children are to be taken into consideration while deciding custody of the child. Custody given to father as the child wants to stay in India and live with her father.
Preetam A Eklaspur Vs Vanishree on 08 January, 2019[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”]
Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that the Dowry proceedings (u/s 498A IPC) against Mother-in-law are false and motivated, hence quashed same. God know if any sou moto perjury proceedings initiated or not on the false-case filing daughter-in-law!!
Smt.Puttalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 09 November, 2018[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”]
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that not every cruelty attracts IPC 498A especially in the absence of a harassment/demand for same.
From Para 14,
Assuming for the purpose of argument that the evidence on record as referred to by the learned Sessions Judge indicated that the appellant was beating the deceased under intoxication of liquor, there is no indication that such beating was with a view to force the deceased either to commit suicide or to cause grievous injury to her life, limb or health. It is not the say of any of the witnesses that the deceased at any point of time attempted to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to herself. Therefore, the torture of physical beating by the appellant as spoken to by the witnesses cannot be treated as ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of Clause (a) of Explanation to Section 498-A to find him guilty for the said charge.
Read the Para 16 too. It nails the prosecution case.
Appanna @ Laxmaiah Vs The State of Karnataka on 12 September, 2012The landmark judgment of High Court of Bombay is available here.
Another beautiful judgment from High Court of Karnataka in this revision petition on Discharge dismissal.
From Para 10,
Savitri WO Maruti Nayak Vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 April, 2017I have perused the said statements dated 10.07.2011, namely Sangondeppa Siddappa Hulagabal, the statement Sangondeppa Ningondeppa Lesappagol, Shrishail Basappa Gundagi, Kallappa Beerappa Dafedar, Mallappa Mahadev Baligar, Tammanna Beerappa Jakkannavar and Ningappa Siddappa Layannavar. Looking to all these statement of said witnesses, they are all dated 10.07.2011. Looking to the statement of these witnesses wherein they have stated that it is alleged before them by the complainant and her father that accused Nos.1 to 3 i.e. the husband of the complainant, her father-in-law and her mother-in-law were giving ill-treatment and harassment to her. So in the statement of all these witnesses absolutely there is no reference so far as the present petitioners- accused Nos.4 and 5 stating that they also giving such ill- treatment. The statement of these witnesses completely silent about the involvement of petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5. Therefore, looking to the statement of these witnesses it clearly goes to show that absolutely there is no allegation and even there is no statement of such witnesses that they were informed by either complainant or her father about the ill-treatment given by the present petitioners herein. When i.e. so it assumes importance whether really the prosecution placed prima facie material so far as the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5. Looking to the decisions relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners which are referred above at Sl.Nos.1 to 4 principles laid down in the said decisions also goes to show that the proceedings against the accused person should not be as an abuse of process of the Court or by making false allegations. But here, it is do doubt true as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant that in the beginning of the complaint there are some allegation even against petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5, but the same is not corroborated by the statement of independent witnesses about whose statements I have made the reference. Therefore, reading the entire charge sheet material and the principles in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it goes to show that there is no prima facie material so far as the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are concerned. The trial court while considering the application seeking discharge from the proceedings ought to have considered these aspects, which is not done by the trial court. The trial court wrongly comes to the conclusion that even there is prima facie case as against petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5. Therefore, the order passed by the court below suffers from legal infirmity. Therefore, it will not sustain in law.
This is the quash judgment from hon’ble high court of Karnataka, relying on Y Abhraham Ajith case, wherein it was held that when all allegations are stated to have happened at Vellore, Tamilnadu, Indiranagar police doesn’t have jurisdiction to file the FIR in Bengaluru, Karnataka.
G. Ramamoorthy Vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2017
The judiciary is placing peculiar conditions to grant bail, obviously due to the peculiar circumstances that are presented by accused these days.
One such condition is
Syed Ajaz Pasha Vs State Of Karnataka on 8 August, 20184) He shall not apply for return of his passport till conclusion of trial.
In this case, hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, has not done quash but ordered the case to be transferred to a different police station, as the original PS has no jurisdiction to investigate the case.
City Union Bank Vs Venugopal on 19 March, 2013Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has held in this revision order, that when the impugned order was not an order passed, as ex parte, the learned magistrate was required to hold as inquiry in a DV Case and then should have recorded his finding (to grant interim relief or not).
Sri Monojit Banerjee Vs Smt Shalini Banerjee on 3 October, 2016
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka while rejecting this criminal petition, has held in this judgment that,
From Para 3,
Having regard to the object and scope of the legislation, the prescription of such enabling provision is obviously not to cramp the style of the court which requires to address the issues with some expedition. Therefore, the section providing that the court can form its own procedure, would also over-ride sub-section (1) of Section 28 to rule 6(5) of the Rules as well
This is from final Para,
Manjunath Reddy Vs Latha on 1 August, 2016Therefore, the present petition is misconceived and is rejected. The view taken by this court would also be relevant having regard to the circumstances of this case which has been hanging fire for the past two years in a matter which should have been summarily disposed of. Therefore, the court below is directed to expedite the proceedings and to deal mercilessly with any such applications filed by the petitioner.
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that even though the marriage if deceased and the accused is registered, it is null and void, as the accused is already married to another woman and that marriage was subsiding.
K R Nandakumar Vs State Of Karnataka on 16 March, 2018If first wife is alive a second marriage is not permissible in the eye of law
