Sunil Kumar and Ors Vs Elizabeth on 07 Feb 2023

Posted on September 14, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

The Kalaburigi bench of Karnataka High Court held that instead of accommodation in the shared household, money towards rent can be given to the aggrieved person.

From Paras 3-6,

3. As per Section 19(1)(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [in short ‘DV Act’], wherever the Court feels to convenient to order for monetary expenses in lieu of the shared house and also taking note of the relationship existing among the parties, a suitable order can be passed in terms of money.
4. In the impugned order, the learned Trial Magistrate after exercising discretionary power granted a sum of Rs.6,000/- as monthly maintenance and a room to be given by the Revision Petitioner in the shared house.
5. Admittedly, the Revision Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the Respondent. However, the Revision Petitioner is living with first wife. Taking note of these aspects of the matter directing the respondent to stay in the same house in a separate room would not be feasible practically and it may give rise to further displeasure among the parties resulting in civil/criminal litigation.
6. Accordingly, this Court exercising its power as is contemplated under Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act, a sum of Rs.5,000/- be paid instead of the room be provided as the shared house. If a sum of Rs.5,000/- is being ordered, the respondent can find out a suitable alternate premises more than the room that would be provided in the shared house hold as ordered by the Trial Court, it would meet the ends of justice.

Sunil Kumar and Ors Vs Elizabeth on 07 Feb 2023

Index of DV cases here.

Shilpashree J.M. Vs Gurumanjunatha .A.S. on 19 Jun 2023

Posted on August 14, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru bench held as follows,

From Para 8,

Admittedly, the petitioner No.1 was working prior to her marriage and it is asserted that after marriage she resigned the said job. But, there is no explanation as to why she is incapable of working now. She is not supposed to sit idle and seek entire maintenance from her husband and she is also legally bound to make some efforts to meet her livelihood and she can seek only supportive maintenance from her husband.

Shilpashree J.M. Vs Gurumanjunatha .A.S. on 19 Jun 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Domestic Violence Judgements is here.

N Rajeev Vs C Deepa on 26 July 2023

Posted on July 30, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge from Bengaluru bench of Karnataka High Court held as follows,

From Paras 2 and 3,

2. Notice to respondent spouse is dispensed with since no order adverse to her interest is being made and further she will have full opportunity of participation in the trial of the subject case at the hands of the court below. Added, she too will have the advantage of early disposal.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the proposition that the matrimonial causes should be tried & disposed off on a war footing, at least as a concession to the shortness of human life. It was Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881), a British historian of great repute who had said: “Life is too short to be little”. When a matrimonial case involves the prayer for the dissolution/nullity of marriage, courts should make all efforts to try & dispose off the same within an outer limit of one year, so that in the event of granting such a decree, the parties may restructure their lives. It hardly needs to be stated ‘life is lost in living’. Delay in disposal of such cases very badly affects the parties thereto, needs no deliberation.
In the above circumstances, learned Family Court Judge is requested to accomplish the trial & disposal of the subject seven year old case preferably within an outer limit of three months, all contentions having been kept open.
The Registrar General of this court is instructed to circulate this judgment in all the concerned circles so that other similarly circumstanced litigants may not unnecessarily knock at the doors of this court seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of their cases.
Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the respondent-wife by Speed Post, immediately.

N Rajeev Vs C Deepa on 26 July 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102000202/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/64c14eeb843b5e67363850e6

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/karnataka-hc-courts-should-make-all-efforts-to-try-dispose-of-cases-involving-dissolution-of-marriage-within-one-year-1486930

Sharnavva @Kasturi Vs Shivappa on 18 Apr 2023

Posted on July 24, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge at Kalaburagi bench of Karnataka High Court held as follows,

From Para 10,

10. The Appellate Court ought not to have gone into the validity of the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, unless and until the validity of the marriage has been challenged by the respondent before the appropriate Court and it is nullified by the competent Court having jurisdiction to pass such order. The Courts while dealing with the maintenance matters, either under Section 12 of the Act or under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. should not go into the validity of the marriage. However, the Court may peruse the evidence of the wife as to whether she is able to maintain herself or not. Once the trial Court appreciated the evidence and passed an order of maintenance, the appellant Court may either modify it or set aside the same in case it is found that the wife is able to maintain herself. If any order passed by the appellant Court regarding the validity of the marriage or otherwise, it dehors its jurisdiction. In the present case, the Appellant Court gone into the validity of the marriage and set aside the order of maintenance passed under section 12 of the Act, which is beyond its jurisdiction and hence, it is liable to be set aside.

Sharnavva @Kasturi Vs Shivappa on 18 Apr 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index is here.

Kantharaju Vs State of Karnataka on 17 Jul 2023

Posted on July 22, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of Karnataka High Court, after relying on Shivcharan and Sivakumar, held as follows,

From Para 14 and 15,

14. The ratio of these two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly indicates that, if the marriage between the husband and wife ended as null and void, the offence under Section 498-A of IPC cannot be sustained.
15. Admittedly, in the present case, the complainant in her evidence, PW.2 being the mother of PW.1 both have consistently deposed and admitted that, PW.1 is the second wife of the petitioner. Accordingly, the concurrent findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction requires to be set aside.

Kantharaju Vs State of Karnataka on 17 Jul 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

Sharanappa S. Kallur Vs State of Karnataka on 07 Jun 2011

Posted on June 18, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka HC, relying on case law here, held as follows,

From Para 10,

10. Unless it is shown from reliable evidence that there was demand made directly or indirectly from the parents of the complainant, Section 4 of the D.P. Act does not get attracted. In the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in the case of Sankar Prosad Shaw v. The State, reported in 1991 Cri.L.J. 639, it has been held that, even mere demand is not sufficient but, it should be given or agreed to be given and at the most, mere demand may come under section 498a of the i.p.c. but not under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. For the above reason, conviction under Section 4 of the D.P. Act cannot be sustained in law.

Sharanappa S. Kallur Vs State of Karnataka on 07 Jun 2011

Citations: [2012 DMC 1 22]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1430200/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e0ee77607dba38965ed263

Divya Ganesh Nallur Vs Ganesh Nallur Shivu on 08 Jun 2023

Posted on June 15, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Karnataka High Court held as follows,

From Para 2,

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners finds fault with the impugned order contending that in matters like this, the fact that the parties are residing under the same roof, pales into insignificance except for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction. The fact that the spouses are residing in the same premises could not have been a ground for making the order of the kind. Such a flawed reasoning bewilders the Court, to say the least. Such a fact arguably may show the good culture of the spouses who are otherwise at loggerheads. The reason assigned by the Court below for denying relief to the parties constitutes as error of great magnitude apparent on the face of the record.

In view of the above, this Petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issued quashing the impugned Order; matter is remitted to the portals of the learned Judge of the Court below, requesting him to pass a judgment and decree in terms of the Compromise Petition and the report of the Mediator. This is to be done at the earliest.

Divya Ganesh Nallur Vs Ganesh Nallur Shivu on 08 Jun 2023

Praveen Surendiran Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 21 Mar 2022

Posted on October 18, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Karnataka High Court held as follows:

From Para 4,

4. The present case concerns an application made by the petitioner before the trial Court seeking release of his passport on the ground that the son of the petitioner studies in a school at Paris – Sports Etudes Concept and was attending classes virtually. Since classes have now started physically, the
petitioner wanted to accompany his son for getting him admitted in the school. This application is rejected by the trial Court. It is the rejection of the application that is called in question in the present proceedings. Therefore, these proceedings concern with the rejection of release of passport of the petitioner and not any other issue that is pending in plethora of cases between the parties.
6. Learned senior counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli would submit that several proceedings between the parties are pending consideration. The Apex Court has stayed all further proceedings in other cases. The case at hand is not an offshoot of those cases, but an independent case of an application, where the passport of the petitioner is seized, not impounded by the police and there is grave urgency for the petitioner to leave the country and get his son admitted to the school at France.

And then

17. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is facing criminal proceedings before the competent criminal Court and the Police after investigation have also filed charge sheet in the matter in which, the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.10. Therefore, it is not a case where the passport of the petitioner cannot even be seized or impounded, but, by whom is the question.
18. The Passport Act is a special enactment and is trite that it being a special enactment would prevail over Section 102 or Section 104 of the Cr.P.C., which empower the Police to seize and the Court to impound any document. Impounding of any document produced before the Court cannot stretch to an extent that it can impound the passport. Therefore, the deposit of passport before the Court or passport being held before the Police, both will become without authority of law. The further observation of the Court that it would be in its custody till conclusion of trial is, clearly on the face of it, without authority of law, as it would amount to impounding the passport. This very issue fell for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of SURESH NANDA v. CBI

The Apex Court dealt with the very issue as to who would be the Authority to impound the passport. The Apex Court holds that neither the Police nor the Court invoking powers under Section 102 or Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. can seize or impound a passport. Impounding of a passport is by the Authority vested under the Act as depicted therein. It is not in dispute that the Authority under the Act is not even made aware of seizure or retention of the passport by the Police or before the Court.

From Para 24,

21. The power of impounding a document under Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. is available to a Court. This cannot stretch to an extent of impounding the passport. The passport coming within the purview of the Act and it being a special law would prevail over the provisions of Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. The Court can impound any document, but not the passport as it is dealt with under a special enactment. The power of impounding is available only to the Competent Authority under the Act, in terms of Section 10 of the Act. Wherefore, the order rejecting the release of passport by the Court observing that it is held in safe custody till the conclusion of the trial is unsustainable. Therefore, the petitioner becomes entitled for release of passport in his favour, as right to hold a passport and travel is, without doubt, held to be a fundamental right in plethora of judgments.

Praveen Surendiran Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 21 Mar 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

Hrishikesh Sahoo Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 23 Mar 2022

Posted on July 20, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Hrishikesh Sahoo Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 23 Mar 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

Dr.XXXXX Vs Dr.XXXXX on 03 Mar 2022

Posted on July 4, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

After filing divorce petition in 2013 by husband, it took 9 years for the both parties to bury the issues and come for compromise. So, Who won? The ecosystem, which looted lakhs of rupees.

Dr.XXXXX Vs Dr.XXXXX on 03 Mar 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66228067/

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification

Sunil Kumar and Ors Vs Elizabeth on 07 Feb 2023

Shilpashree J.M. Vs Gurumanjunatha .A.S. on 19 Jun 2023

N Rajeev Vs C Deepa on 26 July 2023

Sharnavva @Kasturi Vs Shivappa on 18 Apr 2023

Kantharaju Vs State of Karnataka on 17 Jul 2023

Sharanappa S. Kallur Vs State of Karnataka on 07 Jun 2011

Divya Ganesh Nallur Vs Ganesh Nallur Shivu on 08 Jun 2023

Praveen Surendiran Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 21 Mar 2022

Hrishikesh Sahoo Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 23 Mar 2022

Dr.XXXXX Vs Dr.XXXXX on 03 Mar 2022