This is another landmark judgment which held the right to travel.
The composition of Bench is
BENCH:
RAO, K. SUBBA (CJ)
HIDAYATULLAH, M.
BACHAWAT, R.S.
SHELAT, J.M.
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
Citation: AIR 1976 SC 1836, 1967 AIR 1836, 1967 SCR (2) 525
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1747577/
In this landmark judgment by the full bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that fundamental rights provided by Articles of Constitution are not silos in nature but are connected with one another.
The bench consisted of below judges, including the Hon’ble CJI.
As such it was held that it is declared that the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 22 of 1969 is invalid and the action taken or deemed to be taken in exercise of the powers under the Act is declared unauthorised.
Citation: 1970 AIR 564, 1970 SCR (3) 530
Indiakanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/513801/
[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”]
Improperly framed affidavits are held to be not acceptable by Supreme court per CPC and relevant Supreme Court Rules.
From Para 51, 52 and 53,
Apart from the aforesaid, in the writ petition which was filed on 21st January, 2006, there is no mention of the fact that the petitioner gave a statement under section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the investigation arising out of FIR lodged on 30th December, 2005. From the records of the case it appears the petitioner gave 161 statement on 13th January, 2006. In the writ petition there is a complete suppression of the aforesaid fact. A statement under Section 161 is certainly a material fact in a police investigation in connection with an FIR. The investigation is to find out the genuineness of those very documents on the basis of which the writ petition was moved. In that factual context, total suppression in the writ petition of the fact that the petitioner gave a 161 statement in that investigation is, in our judgment, suppression of a very material fact.
It is, therefore, clear that writ petition is frivolous and is speculative in character. This Court is of the opinion that the so called legal questions on tapping of telephone cannot be gone into on the basis of a petition which is so weak in its foundation.
Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts. Courts held that such litigants have come with “unclean hands” and are not entitled to be heard on the merits of their case.
From Para 58,
It is one of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence that litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings and especially when it contains a prayer for injunction. A prayer for injunction, which is an equitable remedy, must be governed by principles of ‘uberrima fide’.
From Para 62,
Following these principles, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the instant writ petition is an attempt by the petitioner to mislead the Court on the basis of frivolous allegations and by suppression of material facts as pointed out and discussed above.
From Para 65,
This court wants to make one thing clear i.e. perfunctory and slipshod affidavits which are not consistent either with Order XIX Rule 3 of the CPC or with Order XI Rules 5 and 13 of the Supreme Court Rules should not be entertained by this Court.
This is one of the foremost judgments on the interpretation of Article 21 of Constitution of India. It was delivered by a constitutional bench of 6 judges including Hon’ble CJI, Shri Kania, Hiralal J.
Case background:
Mr. A.K. Gopalan was a communist leader who was detained to the Madras Jail, under Preventive Detention Act, 1950 and he challenged his detention by stating that, his personal liberty was being hampered as he had the right to equality of law.
Hon’ble Court rules:
The court held that the word used in Article 21 just meant procedural due process and since the preventive detention law under which Gopalan was detained was a valid law, Gopalan’s detention was lawful even though that law may have violated some of his other Fundamental Rights such has his Right to Freedom of Movement under Article 19, or, the detention was arbitrary under Article 14.
This doctrine is commonly known as “procedural due process”.
Citation: AIR 1950 SC 27, 1950 SCR 88
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1857950/
The index page is here.
Another recent 2018 judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court in regards to granting on Anticipatory Bail to accused, who is/has been cooperating with investigation.
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122663958/
Citations: (2018) 3 SCC 22
Reproduced 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
In this judgment from Apex Court, it was held that, despite the wife was a working lady and had income from properties, “Since both the wife and husband are residing at Agra. In our view, it is not possible for the wife to maintain herself in the town of Agra with the income of less than Rupees nine thousand per month. The husband, who is earning at least Rupees Twenty thousand per month, as stated by the appellant in this appeal and not controverted, is liable to pay some amount of maintenance to the wife so that she may be able to maintain herself. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it would be just and expedient to direct the husband to pay Rupees five thousand per month to the wife by way of maintenance from the date of filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.”
This is the installment scheme devised by Apex Court, which goes into future installments too.
“Respondent No.1 is directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rupees five thousand per month from 1st November, 1998 till 31st July, 2008 in the following manner:
By 31st August, 2008, Rupees fifty thousand;
By 30th September, 2008, Rupees fifty thousand;
By 31st October, 2008, Rupees fifty thousand;
By 31st November, 2008, Rupees One lakh fifty thousand;
By 31st December, 2008, Rupees One lakh fifty thousand;
By 31st January, 2009, the balance amount.”
Then, in just over 6 months, a settlement is arrived at by the parties and per the settlement terms, all cases between them are quashed in one fell swoop. Read Pages 2 and 3.
In this landmark judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court, it was held that a daughter (not just a son) is also liable to pay maintenance to her parents under 125 CrPC read with Sec 8 of IPC.
The lower court which is Bombay High Court has given this order here, was later on confirmed by the Apex Court.
This has a precedence from a Kerala high Court judgment available here and one subsequent judgment of High Court of AP here.
Citation: [1987 SCR (2) 331], [1987 SCC (2) 278], [JT 1987 (3) 46], [1987 SCALE (1) 379], [1987 BOMCR SC 1 629], [1987 AIR SC 1100], [1987 SCC CRI 354], [1987 CRIMES SC 1 713], [1987 CRIMES SC 3 348], [1987 CRLJ SC 977], [1987 ECC 11 416], [1987 ACR SC 11 334], [1987 APLJ SC 1 35], [1987 AWC SC 676], [1987 BOMLR 89 130], [1987 KLT SC 1 674], [1987 MHLJ 395], [1987 MPLJ 218], [1988 SHIMLC 1 133]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/780813/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac39e4b014971140e515
This is the landmark ruling from Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that
“We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term “wife” to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125. We also believe that such an interpretation would be a just application of the principles enshrined in the Preamble to our Constitution, namely, social justice and upholding the dignity of the individual.”
But in a para prior to this para, this case was referred to a larger bench (this was a 3-judge bench). But this case was but after two years dismissed as the advocate for appellant dies and the appellant did not pursue the case. Here is the Dismissal Order:
Here is the Para 45,
45.We, therefore, request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to refer the following, amongst other, questions to be decided by a larger Bench. According to us, the questions are:
1. Whether the living together of a man and woman as husband and wife for a considerable period of time would raise the presumption of a valid marriage between them and whether such a presumption would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C?
2. Whether strict proof of marriage is essential for a claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. having regard to the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
3. Whether a marriage performed according to customary rites and ceremonies, without strictly fulfilling the requisites of Section 7(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or any other personal law would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?
So, this judgment is NOT a landmark judgment as the question of law was NOT decided either by this Court nor by a larger bench of this Court.
Citation: [2011 ANJ SC 1 26], [2010 AIOL 681], [2011 SCC 1 141], [2011 ALLMR CRI SC 346], [2010 SCALE 10 602], [2011 BOMCR SC 2 787], [2011 SCC CRI 2 666], [2011 CRLJ SC 96], [2010 RCR CIVIL SC 4 801], [2010 JT 11 132], [2010 AIR SC 6497], [2011 SCC CIV 1 53]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1949767/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aedbe4b0149711414ea0
But this judgment declared it so 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
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in this judgment that, as 125 CrPC proceedings are Summary in nature, no need of strict proof required for marriage between parties. It reiterated the law laid down in the judgment of Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha here.
This time it is a practicing advocate who came begging for alms from her husband, not even caring to prove that she is destitute and unable to maintain herself.
See the timelines for disposal of a 125 CrPC case.
The application for maintenance, filed in 2003, was finally disposed of on 28th January, 2015 by Family Court. Then it moved onto Supreme Court and got disposed off on 25th September, 2018.
[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”]
Bad Behavior has blocked 2575 access attempts in the last 7 days.
