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, 2015Category: High Court of Kerala Judgment or Notification
Nivya V.M Vs Shivaprasad N.K on 14 February, 2017
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, 20175 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post
Denny Pazhoor Vs Greeta Sunitha Vincent on 17 October, 2018
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.
5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post
Muhammadkunhi Vs State of Kerala on 23 January, 2013
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
Rejilal Vs State Of Kerala on 10 Frebruary, 2017
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.
Gayathri Kunjithaya Vs State Of Kerala On 19 January 2015
In this case, the knife alleged illicit relationship between the 1st accused and the petitioner herein, was the superior officer of the 1st accused working at Technicolor India Pvt. Ltd. at Bangalore wherein the 1st accused was also working.
Gayathri Kunjithaya Vs State Of Kerala On 19 January 2015
Shelbin Vs State of Kerala on 16 February, 2018
Anticipatory bail granted by Kerala High Court for offence under section 324 of IPC
Shelbin Vs State of Kerala on 16 February, 2018
Koshore Vs State of Kerala on 16 February, 2016
Anticipatory bail granted under section 438 of IPC against an offence under section 324 of IPC (voluntarily causing harm).
Bail conditions
1) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays in between 10 a.m and 12 noon for a period of two months.
2) The petitioner shall not commit similar offences during the bail period.
3) The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses.
4) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.
Koshore Vs State of Kerala on 16 February, 2016