Geetababi Khambra Vs State of MP and Anr on 9 Jan 2024

Posted on December 15, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench of MP High Court at Jabalpur, held that absence of specific date and time when the complainant-wife was subjected to the demand of dowry is sufficient to quash Dowry demand allegation.

From Para 6,

6. In the present case, this Court issued notices to the respondent No. 2. The report of the office reflects that the notices were served upon the respondent No. 2 yet respondent No. 2 has not appeared before this Court nor any one has filed any Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 2. It is also undisputed that prosecution was initially launched against the husband of petitioner No. 2 Rahul Gaur who has also expired after lodging of F.I.R. A perusal of F.I.R discloses the allegation against the present petitioners that they used to visit the complainant who was residing at Rachna Nagar and used to demand Rs.5 lakhs in order to buy a bigger house. F.I.R. discloses that complainant was not residing with the present petitioners and was residing at Rachna Nagar with her husband. According to complainant petitioner No. 3 also used to record conversation and used to humiliate her. It is further mentioned in the F.I.R that the petitioner No. 2 was acting on the instructions of petitioner No. 1. After registration of F.I.R the statement of the complainant and her parents were also recorded. The statement are there on record. Perusal of all the statement reflects that identical allegations have been levelled by all the witnesses. The allegations are not specific. There are no particulars like specific date and time when the complaint was subjected to the demand of dowry. As per complainant own showing the present petitioners were not residing with the present complainant but the complainant made an effort to demonstrate that the present petitioners used to visit her at place. The said particulars have not been disclosed by the complainant in the F.I.R. or there is any disclosure of such particulars in the entire statement of the witnesses.

Geetababi Khambra Vs State of MP and Anr on 9 Jan 2024

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Aarti Vs Kishan Meena on 22 Aug 2024

Posted on September 16, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore held as follows,

From Para 16,

16. It has also been held in Samar Ghosh (supra) where on facts there has been irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the party opposing the divorce and not letting go the other party free of the matrimonial bond, would be causing mental cruelty to the other party. This makes considerable sense in the Indian context where to reach finality by exhausting the remedy of appeals may take several years. In such situation the party opposing the grant of divorce may, in some cases, be doing so only out of spite, either to harass the other party or prevent it from remarrying or out of sheer cussedness. That may indeed also confirm the allegation that such party had been causing mental cruelty, and was now intent on causing further mental cruelty by opposing the divorce.

From Para 19,

19. Respondent by filing certified copy of impugned judgment and decree in Criminal Case No.2015/2017 under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has proved that criminal case was lodged at the behest of appellant / wife in which ultimately appellant, his sister and parents were acquitted by the parties. Learned Court below relying upon the judgment in the case of Vandana Gupta Vs. Ramesh Gupta reported in 2009 (2) MPLJ 214, Madhuri Aaswani Vs. Arjundas Aaswani reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 550 and Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Agrawal reported in AIR 2012 SC 2586 concluded that prosecution of husband and her relatives on the false allegation of demand of dowry comesunder mental cruelty. The findings recorded by the learned Court below are impregnable and infallible.

From Para 21,

21. Learned Court below has recorded the finding that termination of pregnancy without consent of husband also comes under the purview of cruelty. With regard to the aforesaid finding, this Court is of the view that termination of pregnancy may come under the term ‘cruelty’ depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

Aarti Vs Kishan Meena on 22 Aug 2024

Index of Divorce Judgments is here.

Shikha Vs Avaneesh Mahodaya on 10 Sep 2024

Posted on September 13, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of MP High Court held as follows,

15. In view of aforesaid analysis in entirety and the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, looking to the income of the husband so also his liabilities and the fact that wife is a well educated lady, she also has her own source of income, this Court is of the considered opinion that the maintenance amount of Rs.60,000/- per month is on the higher side and the same is required to be reduced to Rs.40,000/- per month.

Shikha Vs Avaneesh Mahodaya on 10 Sep 2024

Index of Sec 125 CrPC [Section 144 BNSS] judgements is here.

Shrikrishna Vs Sunita Bai on 02 May 2024

Posted on May 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of MP High Court at Indore bench held as follows,

From Para 13,

13. From the record, it is evident that learned JMFC has passed the order by dismissing the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that
since the respondent did not get divorce from her earlier husband and without getting divorce she entered into second marriage. Hence, she cannot be
ascertained as a legally wedded wife of the petitioner and she is not entitled for the claim of maintenance.

From Paras 15-18,

15. It is unearthed from the aforesaid provision that an illegitimate child is entitled to get maintenance but an illegitimate wife is not entitled to get maintenance. The intention of legislature is obvious that maintenance can only be granted in favour of legally wedded wife. On this issue the law laid down by the full Bench in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatia vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported as 2005 Lawsuit (SC) 466, is also poignant to be pointed out here:
“There may be substance in the plea of learned counsel for the appellant that law operates harshly against the woman who unwittingly gets into relationship with a married man and Section 125 of the Code does not give protection to such woman. This may be an inadequacy in law, which only the legislature can undo. But as the position in law stands presently there is no escape from the conclusion that the expression ‘wife’ as per Section 125 of the Code refers to only legally married wife.“
16. In view of aforesaid settled propositions and provisions of law, it is crystal clear that the wife should be a “legally wedded wife” for claiming maintenance from her husband. A woman, having solemnized second marriage to another person is only entitled to get maintenance from that person, when the first marriage has been declared either null and void or she has obtained a divorce decree from her first husband. The aforesaid view has recently been endorsed by this Court in the cases of Sangeeta Rathore W/o Naresh Rathore Vs. Naresh Rathore, 2023 LawSuit (MP) 470 and Kewal Singh Vs. Durgabai, 2024 LawSuit (MP) 179.
17. In conspectus of the aforesaid settled proposition, in this petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the term “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. envisages a situation wherein she, having a living spouse, cannot seek maintenance from her second husband without getting divorce from her earlier husband. Nevertheless, this Court finds it unfortunate that many women, specially those belonging to the poorer strata of society, are routinely exploited in this manner, and that legal loopholes allow the offending parties to slip away unscathed and unquestioned. In spite of the social justice factor embedded in Section 125 Cr.P.C., the objective of the provision is frustrated as it fails to arrest the exploitation which it seeks to curb. In the instant case, while the Court sympathizes with the position of the Respondent, it is constrained to deny her maintenance as per the law of the land which stands as of today. However, the Respondent has the liberty to avail other remedies that may be better suited to the facts and circumstances of this case, such as seeking of compensation under Section 22 of the D.V. Act.
18. In the result thereof, the order of the learned Revisional Court awarding the maintenance to the respondent is found against the law and is also suffering from infirmity and illegality. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Revisional Court is set aside and the order of learned trial Court dated 06.09.2021 is hereby affirmed.

Shrikrishna Vs Sunita Bai on 02 May 2024

Index of Maintenance cases u/s 125 CrPC is here.

Nirman Sagar Vs Monika Sagar Chaudhari and Anr on 01 Apr 2022

Posted on March 12, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior bench held as follows,

From Para 9,

9. Thus, the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. may be taken against any person in any district where he or his wife resides or where he last resided with her wife or as the case may be with the mother of the illegitimate child. It is not the case of the respondent no.1 that she resided with the applicant for the last time in Gwalior.Her contention is that Gwalior is her permanent address as her parents are residing there and she occasionally visits her parents and,therefore, the Family Court, Gwalior has a jurisdiction to entertain the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The stand taken bythe respondent no.1 cannot be appreciated as the word “resides” cannot be equated with places where flying visits are made. It is not the case of respondent no.1 that at the time of filing of the applicationunder Section 125 of Cr.P.C. she was posted in Gwalior and the Family Court, Gwalior would not lose jurisdiction merely on the ground that subsequently she was transferred, but the case of respondent no.1 is that from the year 2011 onwards she is posted inDelhi. Flying visits to a particular place with a solitary intention to confer jurisdiction would not satisfy the provisions of Section 126 (1)of Cr.P.C.
10. Thus, it is clear that a casual stay or a flying visit to a particular place cannot be treated as a part of the word “reside”.

From Paras 14-15,

14. Thus, it is clear that it is the contention of the respondent no.1 that her daughter is residing with her. Admittedly, respondent no.2, daughter of respondent no.1, is prosecuting her studies in Delhi. Thus, it is clear that both the respondents no.1 and 2 are residing in Delhi where respondent no.1 is serving in Airport Authority of India and is posted as ATC. The respondent no.1 is serving in Delhi from the year 2011. The address which has been shown by them in the cause-title has been given with a solitary intention to give territorial jurisdiction to the Family Court, Gwalior and in fact the Family Court, Gwalior has no territorial jurisdiction to try the application in the light of Section 126 of Cr.P.C.
15. Accordingly, order dated 25/10/2021 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in case No.234/2019 (new no.367/2021) is hereby set aside. The application filed by the respondents under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Gwalior is held to be without jurisdiction. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they so desire, they can file an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Courts having jurisdiction in the light of Section 126 of Cr.P.C.

Nirman Sagar Vs Monika Sagar Chaudhari and Anr on 01 Apr 2022

Index of Maintenance cases u/s 125 Cr.P.C. is here.

Ashwini Pradhan Vs UOI and Anr on 08 Aug 2023

Posted on February 12, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, held as follows,

From Para 19, (Presumption of Legislature is correct)

19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P., reported in 1960 SCC OnLine SC 16 has held that in the interpretation of the statutes the Court always presumes that the legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have effect. Therefore, a provision of a statute cannot be used to defeat another unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation between them. Hence, the interpretation which involves conflict, must be avoided.

From Para 20,

20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (1989) 4 SCC 378 has explained the principles of interpretation of statutes. It has been held as follows:
“39. …….The best interpretation is made from the context, ‘Injustum est nisi tota lege inspecta, de una aliqua ejus particula proposita judicare vel respondere’. It is unjust to decide or respond as to any particular part of a law without examining the whole of the law. ‘Interpretare et concordare leges legibus est optimus interpretandi modus’. To interpret and in such a way as to harmonise laws with laws, is the best mode of interpretation…….”

From Para 21,

21. In the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 297, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“10. ………Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the court to take upon itself the task of amending or alternating (sic altering) the statutory provisions……”

Note: My intention of adding this case on the website is to make use of the Supreme Court judgments cited in this case, specifically the Grasim Industries Ltd one.

Ashwini Pradhan Vs UOI and Anr on 08 Aug 2023

Index of DV cases is here.

Balram Dixit Vs Kiran Dixit and Anr on 17 Jan 2024

Posted on January 31, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior bench held as follow:

The Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 considering the issues relating to grant of interim-maintenance, observed that the maintenance is decided on the basis of pleadings of the parties and some amount of guess work. Both the parties submit scanty material and do not disclose correct details. Keeping that in view, the Supreme Court laid down the procedure to streamline grant of maintenance. These guidelines were laid down in exercise of power under Article 136 read with Article 142 of Constitution of India prescribing a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in every proceeding relating to maintenance.
The Supreme Court in case of Aditi alias Mithi versus Jitesh Sharma 2023 SCC Online SC 1451 expressing anguish over noncompliance/ improper compliance of the directions laid down in case of Rajnesh (supra) and directed re-circulation of the judgment for compliance thereof.
The copy of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities submitted by Balram Dixit and Kiran Dixit show that most of the entries are filled cursorily without providing requisite particulars. Consequently, learned Principal Judge could not consider availability of source of income with the parties and their standard of living before the matrimonial discord. Non-compliance with the guidelines in its true spirit and substance is not acceptable.
In view of the above, the impugned order dated 08.02.2023 is set aside with the direction that both the parties shall submit fresh Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities with complete particulars in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court laid down in case of Rajnesh (supra). Learned Additional Judge to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior shall ensure strict compliance with the guidelines. If any of the affidavit is lacking in requisite particulars, learned Judge shall demand relevant particulars from concerned party. This exercise shall be completed within 15 days. If any of the parties fails to comply with the directions, appropriate action with regard to non-compliance may be taken against such party. Learned Principal Judge on consideration of the affidavits and material on record, pass an order afresh on application for interim-maintenance.

Balram Dixit Vs Kiran Dixit and Anr on 17 Jan 2024

Index of Maintenance cases here.

Rajan and Anr Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr on 17 Aug 2023

Posted on August 20, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge at Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court highlighted the Legal terrorism aspect of 498A IPC cases.

From Paras 10 to 12,

10. Nowadays the very purpose of the insertion of Section 498-A in the Penal Code, 1860 with the object to punish the husband or his relatives, has been defined. In most of the cases, this section is beingmisused as observed by several High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar: [(2014) 8 SCC 273] has observed that the relatives are unnecessarily being made accused under section 498-A of the I.P.C.
11. The cases are lodged under Section 498-A of the Penal Code,1860 only to settle the matrimonial dispute. some times the FIR wife lodges the FIR immediately after receipt of the summons from theFamily courts. Nowadays there is a package of 5 cases against the husband and family members in family court and the criminal courtunder I.P.C., the Hindu Marriage Act and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
12. The Courts have experienced that on the general and omnibusallegations the family members and distant relatives are being roped in a case arising out of Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860, which wasconsidered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of UP : [(2012) 10 SCC 741]. The cases related to distant relativeswere further considered and deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana : [(2018) 14 SCC 452]

Finally from Para 17,

17. At present, the husband and wife both have settled in Australia. The parents of the husband are being harassed by way of the criminal case in India. Applicant No.1 Rajan Mathur is aged about 67 years and his wife is also a senior citizen. General allegations have been levelled against ‘Jethani’ hence she has unnecessarily been dragged in the FIR. As per the contents of the FIR, the husband of respondent No.2 was not even in India at the time of so-called omission of crime. Respondent No.2 has given the Power of Attorney to her father to contest the case against these applicants. This is now a case of reverse cruelty upon them. There is no specific allegation that when her husband left India for Australia there was any demand for dowry, etc. Now a day it is very common for the husband and wife to reside or do jobs outside of India and their parents are made to suffer in India by way of criminal or matrimonial litigation.

Rajan and Anr Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr on 17 Aug 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

The Index of Quash judgement is here.

Om Prakash Sharma Vs State of MP on 25 Mar 2021

Posted on August 9, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench at Gwalior of Madhra Pradesh High Court held as follows,

From Para 5,

5. The aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court in Suresh Chand Jain & Sakiri Vasu (supra) have held the field till date which is evident from perusal of following subsequent verdict of Apex Court rendered after relying upon Sakiri Vasu with approval.

6. In the instant case, as informed by learned counsel for petitioner, no offence has yet been registered by the police. It is also informed that the concerned police station has not yet given any report to the learned Magistrate despite repeated reminders. It is also not denied that the learned Magistrate has not proceeded to record statement of the complainant u/S.200 Cr.P.C. Therefore, in sum and substance, the entire matter hangs fire and is in a state of suspended animation leaving the petitioner-complainant high and dry with no hope of justice coming his way.

From Para 9.1

9.1 Thus, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate u/S.156(3) Cr.P.C. to not only direct for registration of cognizable offence wherever it is found to be not registered by the Police but also to ensure that theinvestigation conducted by the police is fair, expeditious and without any element of prejudice towards anyone, with the sole object ofreaching the truth. The role of the Magistrate u/S.156(3) Cr.P.C. is thus of great significance. Prompt and appropriate exercise of poweru/S.156(3) Cr.P.C. can, not only bring succor to the victim but also to the society at large by bringing the delinquent to the book and in theprocess instilling enough fear in the mind of the miscreant so as to dissuade him from indulging in delinquency again.

From Paras 15-20

Law laid down:
(1) The guidelines laid down for the Magistrates for adjudication of application u/S.156(3) Cr.P.C. complaining about delayed/improper investigation filed along with complaint u/S.200 Cr.P.C.
(2) The complaint u/S.200 Cr.P.C. filed along with 156(3) application need not be kept pending owing to bar contained in Sec.210 Cr.P.C. for more than 60/90 days or any other longer period statutorily provided on expiry of which the police fails to file the final report u/S.173(1) Cr.P.C.
(3) On failure of police to file final report u/S.173(1) Cr.P.C. within 60/90 days or any other longer period statutorily provided, the Magistrate to prevent the complaint u/S.200 Cr.P.C. from suffering a state of stalemate, should proceed by invoking powers contained in Chapter XV and XVI Cr.P.C.
If during pendency of proceedings under Chapter XV and XVI Cr.P.C., invoked as above, Police files the final report then the final report and the complaint case both should proceed as if both have arisen out of police report.

Om Prakash Sharma Vs State of MP on 25 Mar 2021

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55499395/

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/om-prakash-sharma-vs-state-of-m-p-and-another

Rajendra Kumar Vs Rukhmani Bisen on 02 Feb 2023

Posted on May 16, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench judge of MP High Court at Jabalpur held as follows,

From Paras 5 and 6, (What is an interlocutory order?)

5. Now question remains for consideration is whether the order of interim maintenance passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is an interlocutory order? Consequently, whether criminal revision petition is lie against that order?
6. Term ‘Interlocutory Order’ has not been defined in the Cr.P.C. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V.C. Shukla vs State, reported in AIR 1980 (SC) 962, has given following observation in para No.23 regarding the nature of interlocutory order:-
“Thus, summing up the natural and logical meaning of an interlocutory order, the conclusion is inescapable that an order which does not terminate the proceedings or finally decides the rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order. In other words, in the ordinary sense of the term, an interlocutory order is one which only decides a particular aspect or a particular issue or a particular matter in a proceeding, suit or trial but which does not however conclude the trial at all. This would be the result if the term interlocutory order is interpreted in its natural and logical sense without having to resort to Criminal Procedure Code or any other statute. ‘That is to say, if we construe interlocutory order in ordinary parlance it would indicate the attributes, mentioned above, and this is what the term interlocutory order means when used in s. 11(1) of the Act.”

From Para 9,

9. In the case of Sumerchand vs Sandhuran Rani and Others, reported in 1987 Cr.L.J. 1396, Sunil Kumar Sabharwal vs Neelam Sabharwal, reported in 1991 Cr.L.J. 2056 High Court of Haryana and a order dated 15.11.18 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Ashu Dhiman vs Smt Jyoti Dhiman, Cr. Misc. Application (C-482) No.434/2018, it has been held that an order passed for interim maintenance under provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C is not an interlocutory order, hence, criminal revision petition is maintainable against such order.

Citations:

Other Sources:

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification

Geetababi Khambra Vs State of MP and Anr on 9 Jan 2024

Aarti Vs Kishan Meena on 22 Aug 2024

Shikha Vs Avaneesh Mahodaya on 10 Sep 2024

Shrikrishna Vs Sunita Bai on 02 May 2024

Nirman Sagar Vs Monika Sagar Chaudhari and Anr on 01 Apr 2022

Ashwini Pradhan Vs UOI and Anr on 08 Aug 2023

Balram Dixit Vs Kiran Dixit and Anr on 17 Jan 2024

Rajan and Anr Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr on 17 Aug 2023

Om Prakash Sharma Vs State of MP on 25 Mar 2021

Rajendra Kumar Vs Rukhmani Bisen on 02 Feb 2023