Discharge Dismissal was challenged at Kerala High Court in Revision but got rejection.
Bishop Franco Mulakkal Vs State of Kerala on 07 July 2020Here is the Session Court’s Dismissal Order of Discharge Petition:
Bishop Franco Mulakkal Vs State of Kerala on 16 March 2020Citations: [
Other Source links:
Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is here.
For the act of asking to do household chores by her Mother-in-law, this women forced husband to setup a separate family ditching the elderly mother-in-law. Family Court fell for it but Kerala High Court (Justice Many Joseph) granted divorce in favor of husband on the ground of cruelty (Mental cruelty).
Funny facts
Married on 17.04.2003
Left the matrimonial home on 10.02.2011
Case no: OP 805/2011
Decision of Family Court, THALASSERY on 21-01-2014
Mat.Appeal.No.137 OF 2014
Decision of Kerala High Court on 20-05-2020
From Para 19,
19. From the above discussion of the pleadings and evidence, it cannot be said that the oral evidence tendered is totally devoid of support of necessary pleadings. Moreover, the respondent has no case that the petitioner was a drunkard at the time when he married her. On the contrary her specific case was that he was lovable and affectionate and their life was smooth, happy and comfortable. Evidence indicates that the respondent and the petitioner’s mother were not cordial and clashes were frequent. Therefore, it is natural for the petitioner to be a scapegoat of the in-differences. It is also natural for a wife in that scenario to make persistent effort to constrain her husband to be separated from the family life and that would undoubtedly be tortuous for him. In the case on hand the petitioner’s turning to be a drunkard can only be taken as the natural outcome of the pressure exerted on him by the respondent to have a separate residence to the exclusion of petitioner’s mother. The persistence of the respondent was
unbearable for the petitioner, could be seen from his conduct of avoidance of the company of the respondent after leaving her at the parental home on 10.02.2011.
From Para 22,
22. No family is totally devoid of clashes among members constituting it. It is common for elders to scold and sometimes abuse youngsters. Making a daughter in law to do the house hold/domestic work is also not something unusual. From the evidence tendered by the respondent, it is all the more clear that the aforestated factors formed the basis for her ill-will to petitioner’s mother.
Hehe Para 24,
24. We have no hesitation to hold that the Family Court was highly unjustified in making the above observations. The Family Court has taken the role of a councilor rather than an adjudicator while doing so. It is after much efforts and counseling that a case comes up before the court for adjudication. Then the role of the court is to adjudicate the issue involved in the case based on the evidence after duly appreciating it. The Family Court is not supposed to advice the remedies to the parties and issuing directions. We are not satisfied with the way in which the Family Court had dealt with the case on hand.
Ranjith.P.C. Vs Asha Nair.P on 20 May 2020
Kerala High Court hass held that,
M.K.Prabhakaran and Anr Vs T.E.Gangadharan and Anr on 7 March, 2006Once a statement has been filed in a court of law, that statement can be taken as published and if such a statement amounts to per se defamatory, it is the duty of the accused to establish that they are justified in making such a statement under any of the exceptions to Section 499 I.P.C.
Citations: [2011 KCCR 1 230], [2008 SCC ONLINE KAR 758], [2006 (2) KLT 122]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1547517/
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Based on landmark judgments given in the Index below, Kerala High Court held that, complaint of defamation against him cannot be quashed u/s 482 CrPC.
M.K.Varghese Cor Episcopa Vs State of Kerala on 08 January, 2020Citations:
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149840024/
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Kerala High Court has dismissed this revision petition as PWDV Act provides for Appeal under Sec 29.
Chithrangathan Vs Seema on 4 September, 2007Reproduced 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 High Court of Kerala has held that “there is no legal evidence on record to show that it was his house, which was searched. The trial Court failed to appreciate that legal position, while convicting the appellants, which needs interference.”
Mathai Vs State of Kerala on 25 May, 2015[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”]
In this case, the Kerala High Court dismissed husband’s claim for maintenance from his wife holding that maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is to be paid to the husband only when he is able to prove any incapability or handicap.
The Court also observed that in absence of such circumstances as enumerated above, endowing maintenance on the husband would only promote idleness.
The Court also remarked that a husband seeking maintenance from the wife can be treated only as exceptional case as normally he has got the liability or obligation to maintain the wife and vice versa is only exceptional.
Nivya V.M Vs Shivaprasad N.K on 14 February, 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”]
High Court of Kerala has delivered this order wherein it held that, “these provisions do not prohibit the spouse, who has obtained an ex parte decree of divorce, to marry again before the expiry of the time for filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree or during the pendency of such an application filed by the opposite spouse.”
From Para 25,
Taking cue from the decision of the Supreme Court in Parimal (supra), we are of the firm view that remarriage of the spouse who obtained the ex parte decree of divorce will notrender the application for setting aside the ex parte decree filedby the opposite spouse infructuous. Remarriage of the spouse is not a relevant factor to be taken into account in deciding the merits of an application filed for setting aside an ex parte decree of divorce. The application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure has to be considered on its own merits within the four corners of that provision.
From Para 27,
The lower court has observed that remarriage of the appellant would amount to bigamy. Learned counsel for theappellant submitted that this observation made by the lower court is wrong and unwarranted. We find force in this submission.
From Para 28,
Denny Pazhoor Vs Greeta Sunitha Vincent on 17 October, 2018The following ingredients are necessary to constitute bigamy:
(1) the accused must have contracted first marriage;
(2) he must have married again;
(3) the first marriage is subsisting at the time of the second marriage and
(4) the spouse must be living.
[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 of Kerala has held that when the P.W.1 admitted that the accused have not harassed her mentally or physically. Even though she was cross examined after declaring her as hostile, even in the cross examination she deposed that she has no complaint against the accused and the matter has been settled out of court, Court will be justified in exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (2) KLT 1098 – SC)
Muhammadkunhi Vs State of Kerala on 23 January, 2013
In this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held that,
Legal Point:
Section 198(1) of the Cr.P.C provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the IPC except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Section 493 comes under Chapter XX of the IPC. Therefore cognizance could be taken only upon a complaint. Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C which defines ‘complaint’ specifically excludes a police report.
Finally,
Rejilal Vs State Of Kerala on 10 Frebruary, 2017if a complaint contains allegations about commission of offence under section 498A of the IPC which is a cognizable offence, apart from allegations about the commission of offence under section 494 of the IPC, the court can take cognizance thereof even on a police report. That is not the case in the present case. Here section 420 IPC, a cognizable offence, was shown in the FIR and the charge-sheet without any basis whatsoever. You cannot bypass section 198 of the Cr.P.C by simply adding a cognizable offence in the FIR and the charge-sheet without any basis as was done in the present case. Section 420 IPC was shown in the present case only to get over the bar under section 198 (1) of the Cr.P.C. That ‘smartness’ cannot be permitted. Magistrates shall be very careful and cautious when they are called upon to take cognizance of an offence falling under Chapter XX of the IPC upon a police report. The Magistrate shall ascertain whether the investigating officer included a cognizable offence in the FIR, charge-sheet et cetera only to get over the bar under section 198 (1) of the Cr.P.C. It is crystal clear in the present case that section 420 of the IPC is shown only to bypass the bar under section 198 (1) of the Cr.P.C.
