Bhanu Kiran Vs Rahul Khosla and Ors on 28 Feb 2023

A single judge passed this Restricted Order (only downloadable for litigants/advocates on the case),

From Paras 20 and 21,

Under DV Act, Magistrate is competent to pass final as well as interim orders. Sessions Court is appointed as appellate authority to entertain appeal against order passed by Magistrate. As per petitioner, appellate Court is not specifically vested with power to grant interim relief, thus, appellate court cannot pass interim order staying operation of impugned order. If it is held that under Section 29 appellate court is not bestowed with power to pass interim order against interim order because there is no specific power under Section 29, the appellate court would be denuded from power to pass interim order even against final order because there is no such specific power qua final order. Existence of power and use of power are two different dimensions of legal jurisprudence.
Matter needs to be examined from one more angle. The appellate court may or may not exercise power to pass interim order, however, if it is held that appellate court in terms of Section 29 has no power to pass interim order, it would amount to curtailing the powers of appellate court. It seems to be contrary to settled canons of law that appellate authority or court unless specifically barred can exercise all those powers which are vested in subordinate authority. It cannot be approved that Magistrate has power to pass interim order, however, appellate court has no power to pass interim order. Due to overburden, more often than not, appellate courts are unable to finally adjudicate appeal against interim order and if it is held that appellate court has no power to pass interim order, Magistrate may finally decide the issue and appeal would become infructuous.
In view of above-cited judgments and settled principles of law, this court is of the considered opinion that appellate court while exercising powers under Section 29 of DV Act has power to pass interim order.
21. In view of above facts and findings, it is hereby held:
i) Appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act is maintainable against interim order passed under Section 23 of the DV Act.
ii) Appellate Court while exercising power under Section 29 of DV Act has power to pass interim order.

Index of DV cases is here.

Ritu @ Ridhima and Another Vs Sandeep Singh Sangwan on 15 Mar 2022

Posted on January 15 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held that there is nothing wrong in initiating the Perjury proceedings against the Assistant Professor when she was caught lying about her job and income, just before filing the maintenance case.

From Para 10 and 11,

10. Admittedly, the petitioner joined as an Assistant Professor in Chitkara University, Rajpura on a monthly salary of Rs.28,000/- on 3.7.2017. Her petition under Section 125 Cr.PC was filed on 26.07.2017. During the entire litigation including when her application for interim maintenance was decided she did not disclose information about her job and her earnings and infact deliberately and intentionally to grab maintenance, submitted wrong information to the Court that she was unemployed. The only explanation offered by the petitioner is that she had given the documents to her counsel in the month of May 2017 to file the petition under Section 125 Cr.PC which was filed on 26.07.2017 because of which her joining on 3.7.2017 is not disclosed.
11. In my opinion, this explanation is completely falacious. The petitioner is an Assistant Professor and a highly educated person. At no stage of proceedings uptill her cross examination did she disclose that she was employed including when her application for interim maintenance was decided and Rs.5000/- was awarded to her. Assuming that the said fact was missing in her petition under Section 125 Cr.PC, the Court could have been informed during the course of proceedings that there had been change of circumstances regarding her obtaining employment. However, as has already been mentioned above, no such information was furnished and only the cross examination revealed her job and consequent salary. Thus it can safely be said that the possibility of her conviction was high and her actions were certainly deliberate and conscious to obtain maintenance.

Ritu @ Ridhima and Another Vs Sandeep Singh Sangwan on 15 Mar 2022

Index of Perjury decisions is here.

Joginder Singh Vs Rajwinder Kaur on 29 Oct 2022

Posted on November 2, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Similar to this Order here, same (judge!) division bench of High Court of Punjab & Haryana passed this Order too. Again, abuser gets divorce and 10 lakhs!!!

In our view, once criminal litigation is initiated between the parties it leads to a point of no return. And if it is a false case filed by the wife merely to harass and humiliate the husband and his family, then the resultant bitterness rarely leaves any room or reason for reconciliation. A perusal of the judgment at Annexure A-1 whereby the appellant and his family members have been acquitted of the charges under Section 406, 498-A 120-B IPC shows that ld. Trial Court has returned very categoric findings holding that the prosecution entirely failed to prove its case. DW-1 Baljinder Singh has stated on oath that he had participated in the marriage between the parties as mediator and nothing was demanded by the appellant or his family from the respondent or her parents. The learned SDJM, Patti in his judgment of acquittal has returned the finding that no medico-legal examination was led by the respondent wife to prove the alleged beatings that she had received at the hands of the appellant and his father.

Joginder Singh Vs Rajwinder Kaur on 29 Oct 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022

Posted on October 21, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court gave alimony to abuser, without any basis!!!

From last page of judgment, (total absence of any basis/reason)

Before parting, even though the parties have lived together in matrimonial home only for nine months, and even though there is no child from their wedlock, and even though during this litigation admittedly the appellant has already paid Rs. 23 lacs to the respondent as maintenance yet, we deem it fit to grant her permanent alimony of a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lacs only) as full and final settlement.

Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index is here. The wife knocked on the doors of the Apex Court here.

Nachhattar Singh Vs Rai Singh and Anr on 28 Jul 2022

Posted on October 6, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of PHHC held as follows:

From Paras 11-14,

11. As per the settled proposition of law as enumerated hereinabove, proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are not to be initiated in every case where offences are purportedly made out. In fact, the said proceedings are to be initiated only in a situation, where the Court considers it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. This shows that such a course of filing a complaint will only be adopted, if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. In the present case, no such finding has been recorded, as has already been mentioned above and even otherwise, the dispute is between the parties, who are closely related being brothers.
12. In fact, one of the criteria for proceeding under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. would be where due to the false statement, one party has succeeded in getting a favourable order, which otherwise, he would not have got. Therefore, if the false statement affects the very nature of the order passed by the Court, then, that itself can be one of the circumstances, where proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. ought to be initiated. In the present case, assuming that a false statement had been made either in the written statement or by virtue of filing of affidavits, those pleadings/averments did not affect the fate of the case. In fact the petitioner did obtain a decree in his favour. Therefore, there is no apparent illegality in the orders dated 09.10.2015 (Annexure P-1) and 08.02.2017 (Annexure P-2).
13. Having examined the matter in its entirety, I also find that the dispute in question is between close relatives. Certain pleadings are filed in civil/criminal proceedings and the defendants in a civil proceeding take their defence, which in the present case was denying the right of ownership of the petitioner-complainant. Every person has a right to defend his case and he can take many defence pleas. Taking up a plea by itself would not amount to giving false evidence. Further, in the present case, in view of the discussion above, it would certainly not be expedient in the interest of justice to proceed against the respondents.
14. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove as also the relationship between the parties and the civil proceedings having culminated in favour of the petitioner, as such no advantage has been taken by the respondents by virtue of their allegedly false pleadings/affidavits. Therefore, it would certainly not be expedient in the interest of justice to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

Nachhattar Singh Vs Rai Singh and Anr on 28 Jul 2022

Index of Perjury cases here.

Sangeeta Sekhri Vs Sharat Sekhri and Anr on 27 Sep 2022

Posted on October 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of PHHC held as follows, when a knife was in bed with non-husband but wants alimony from husband,

Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to lead any evidence which could reverse the finding of extra-marital affairs of appellant-wife and respondent No.2. The enquiry report (Ex.P1) coupled with the evidence given by PW4-Rajbir Singh, PW5- Balwinder Singh and PW7-Mohammad Gulab, servant of the respondent-husband’s house consistently proved that appellant-wife was living in adultery.
The only question for consideration now is whether the appellant-wife is entitled for permanent alimony.

Sangeeta Sekhri Vs Sharat Sekhri and Anr on 27 Sep 2022

Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 April 2013

Posted on September 12, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Single judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows,

The petitioners are permitted to be represented through a counsel and are not required to be personally present on each and every date of hearing unless until a special order is passed, warranting the appearance of the petitioners ( respondents in the complaint before the Magistrate). Relegating the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy, this petition is held to be not maintainable.
Disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the pleas before the court of competent jurisdiction. It is expected that the said court will expeditiously dispose of the matter taking into consideration the provisions of Section 12(5) of the Act.

Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 Apr 2013

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197445836/

Connects to a PIL here.

Noor Paul Vs Union of India and Ors on 05 Apr 2022

Posted on May 31, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows,

(57) In our opinion, non-supply of a copy of the LOC to the subject of the LOC at the time the subject is stopped at the airport for travel abroad, non-supply of reasons for issuing LOC , and absence of a post decisional hearing to the subject of the LOC, is not just, fair and reasonable procedure. It is violative of Art.21 of the Constitution of India.

Noor Paul Vs Union of India and Ors on 05 Apr 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://legiteye.com/in-cwp-5492-2022-om-punj-hc-non-supply-of-copy-of-look-out-circular-to-person-travelling-abroad-is-not-fair-and-reasonable-procedure-holds-ph-hc-justices-ramachandra-rao-harminder-singh-madaa/

Harpreet Kaur and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 01 Nov 2021

Posted on April 4, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A short judgment from a single judge says as follows (Picking exact same works from here):

Prayer in this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents as the petitioners are in live-in-relationship against the wishes of the private respondents.
Perusal of file shows that petitioner No.1 Harpreet Kaur aged about 23 years is legally wedded wife of respondent No.4 Gurjant Singh, and without seeking divorce from her spouse she is living a lustful and adulterous life with petitioner No.2. Once petitioner No.1 is a married woman being wife of respondent No.4-Gurjant Singh, the act of petitioners particularly petitioner No.2 may constitute an offence under Sections 494/495 IPC. Such a relationship does not fall within the phrase “live-in-relationship” or “relationship” in the nature of marriage.
Petitioners have no legal right for protection on the facts of the present case inasmuch as the protection as being asked may amount to protection against commission of offence under Section 494/495 IPC. This petition has been filed just to obtain a seal of this Court on their so called live-in-relationship. On the face of it, the representation (Annexure P-3) appears to be a fake document as no receipt or diary number of the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala is given or attached.
In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.

Harpreet Kaur and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 01 Nov 2021

Neha Vs Vibhor Garg on 12 Nov 2021

Posted on December 13, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that,

At the same time, it cannot be ignored that acceptance of the CD in question shall amount to a clear breach of fundamental right of the petitioner-wife i.e., her right to privacy, as has been upheld in various judicial pronouncements. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India, (1997)1 SCC 301, has observed as under:-

“18. The right to privacy- by itself- has not been identified under the Constitution. As a concept it may be too broad and moralistic to define it judicially. Whether right to privacy can be claimed or has been infringed in a given case would depend on the facts of the said case. But the right to hold a telephone conversation in the privacy of one’s home or office without interference can certainly be claimed as “right to privacy”. Conversations on the telephone are often of an intimate and confidential character. Telephone-conversation is a part of modern man’s life. It is considered so important that more and more people are carrying mobile telephone instruments in their pockets. Telephone conversation is an important facet of a man’s private life. Right to privacy would certainly include telephone-conversation in the privacy of one’s home or office. Telephone-tapping would, thus, infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law.”

Thus, recording of telephonic conversation of the wife without her knowledge, is a clear cut infringement of her privacy.

Neha Vs Vibhor Garg on 12 Nov 2021

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/195720592/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/635a65aef364724175a72b6e

This decision is appealed at Apex Court here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification

Bhanu Kiran Vs Rahul Khosla and Ors on 28 Feb 2023

Ritu @ Ridhima and Another Vs Sandeep Singh Sangwan on 15 Mar 2022

Joginder Singh Vs Rajwinder Kaur on 29 Oct 2022

Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022

Nachhattar Singh Vs Rai Singh and Anr on 28 Jul 2022

Sangeeta Sekhri Vs Sharat Sekhri and Anr on 27 Sep 2022

Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 April 2013

Noor Paul Vs Union of India and Ors on 05 Apr 2022

Harpreet Kaur and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 01 Nov 2021

Neha Vs Vibhor Garg on 12 Nov 2021