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.

Sagari Hembram Vs State of WB and Anr on 19 Nov 2024

Posted on November 21, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench at Calcutta High Court held that Second Wife Not Liable for Cruelty Simply Due to Husband’s Bigamous Marriage.

From Paras 8-10,

8. The said conduct of second marriage is prima facie applicable in respect of the husband of the complainant and the ingredients of the offences alleged are prima facie not applicable in respect of the petitioner herein.
9. The rest of the offences being under Section 498A/406/506 IPC also are thus prima facie not applicable in respect of the petitioner herein. The ingredients required to constitute the offence under Section 506 IPC are also not present in respect of the petitioner herein.
10. As such the proceedings against the present petitioner is bad in law and permitting such a proceeding to continue would be a clear abuse of process of law and in the interest of justice is liable to be quashed.

Sagari Hembram Vs State of WB and Anr on 19 Nov 2024

K.L Rangaswamy Vs Sharadha. D on 20 Mar 2024

Posted on November 8, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge (Lalitha Kanneganti) of Karnataka High Court bench at Bengaluru found out the suppression of material facts (about employment) done by wife and denied Interim Maintenance allowed by Family Court below.

From Para 5,

5. Heard the learned counsel on either sides, perused the entire material on record. This court has perused the affidavit, the affidavit do not disclose any of the reasons that are submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent. This court has perused the material placed before this court and the statement of assets and liabilities that were filed on 15.11.2022. As per the letter dated 02.03.2023 given by the Integrated Project for Development of People (R ) the respondent/wife had come to them with a problem and requested them to provide an opportunity to work in a residential shelter with safety and security with survival purpose and at the same time they were opening Ashakirana Girls Hostel, for the post of Hostel Warden temporary appointment was given on 01.08.2022 with a nominal honorarium to lead her personal life and after 11th April they are closing the residential hostel due to new norms at CCI Government Rules. Even the 2nd affidavit which is filed before the court below, with suppression of material facts and looking at both the affidavits filed by respondent/wife this is a fit case where proceedings have to be initiated for perjury against her. The husbands salary is Rs.90,000/-. Both the children are grown up and pursuing their graduation are living with the father. He has lost his brother and he has to take care of education of the niece and also has to take care of mother. The respondent/wife has come to the courts with unclean hands by suppressing all the material facts. Considering all these facts, this court is of the view that the respondent/wife is not entitled for any interim maintenance and the other allegations that is levelled by the husband which are serious in nature are pending consideration before the court below. At this stage in the considered opinion of this court, the respondent/wife is not entitled for any relief.

K.L Rangaswamy Vs Sharadha. D on 20 Mar 2024

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

Dr. Virender Kumar Vs State of UP and Anr on 16 Oct 2024

Posted on October 31, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Allahabad High Court held as follows,

From Paras 4-5,

4. From a bare perusal of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., it is patently manifest that once there is categorical allegation of adultery against the wife, then the court concerned dealing with the matter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has to decide the issue of adultery and even interim maintenance can be awarded only after recording a finding on that issue.
5. This Court prima facie finds that the exercise as required under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. is completely missing in the matter and without recording any finding on the issue of adultery, the impugned order dated 13.4.2023 has been passed whereby interim maintenance amounting Rs.7,000/- has been awarded in favour of Opposite Party No.2.

Dr. Virender Kumar Vs State of UP and Anr on 16 Oct 2024

If this case status is not available from eCourts app/website, then access it from Allahabad HC’s inhouse application here.

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

Vijayashree Ganesh Ingle Vs Dr Nishant Arvind Kale on 08 Jan 2021

Posted on October 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Bombay HC at Nagpur bench held that a Permanent Alimony application can be either oral or written.

From Para 9,

9. The Madras High Court in the case of Umarani Vs. D. Vivekannandan reported in 2000 SCC Online Mad 50 held that there is no need of written application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and permanent alimony and maintenance can be granted on the basis of oral application.

From Para 11,

11. This Court in the case of Sadanand Sahadev Rawool Vs. Sulochana Sadanand Rawool reported in 1989 SCC Online Bom 5 held that Section 25 of the Act when it speaks of an application does not specify that the same has to be in writing. An application can be in writing as also by word of mouth. Although this judgment is overruled by the Apex Court on the point of entitlement of the spouse to claim permanent alimony and maintenance even if the the court dismisses the petition and does not pass any decree as contemplated in Section 25 of the Act.

Finally from Para 22,

22. For the reasons aforestated, in the opinion of this Court, the ‘application’ as referred to in Section 25 of the Act implies any application either in writing or oral for the prayer of permanent alimony and maintenance. The mode and form of the application u/s 25 of the Act for claiming permanent alimony is immaterial. What is essential is the material before the court to decide the same. The court cannot pass any order of permanent alimony and maintenance in vacuum. The court has to consider the parameters as guided in the provision itself. The relief is incidental in nature and it is not the substantive relief.

Vijayashree Ganesh Ingle Vs Dr Nishant Arvind Kale on 08 Jan 2021

Index is here.

Nripendra Chandra Mahanta Vs Pramila Mahanta on 08 Feb 2023

Posted on October 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Calcutta High Court at Jalpaiguri remanded the maintenance case back to Trial Court since husband failed to file Income affidavit.

Although learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in arguing that the proposition laid down in Rajnesh vs. Neha has not been observed at all in the present case, on humanitarian consideration and considering that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party is still subsisting, it cannot be gainsaid that the petitioner is entitled to get at least some amount of ad hoc alimony from the petitioner-husband.
Keeping in view the above considerations, CO 138 of 2022 is allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned order and directing the District Judge, Cooch Behar to re-decide the application for alimony filed by the petitioner subject to directing the filing of affidavits in compliance with the proposition laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court as indicated above and to decide the same afresh within a reasonable period, preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order to the said court. The above order will subsist on condition that the petitioner-husband goes on paying to the opposite party-wife an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month on an ad hoc basis for maintaining the opposite party-wife, apart from the medical expenses incurred by the wife upon the opposite party-wife handing over copies of the necessary documents indicating the costs incurred on her medical expenses account to the petitioner-husband.

Nripendra Chandra Mahanta Vs Pramila Mahanta on 08 Feb 2023

Index of Maintenance Judgments is here.

Meegada Venu Gopala Rao Vs Meegada Usha Rani and Ors on 10 Jul 2024

Posted on October 10, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of APHC relying on judgment passed in my earlier client case here, set aside the Trial Court Order and remanded the case back.

From Paras 5-7,

5. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, the learned counsel for petitioner, submits that in similar facts and circumstances, this Court by common order dated 25.04.2024 disposed of Criminal Revision Case Nos.533 and 1098 of 2023 setting aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the learned trial Court for fresh consideration by following the procedures which were laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and requests for passing the same order. He fairly submits that the revision petitioner would pay maintenance to the minor children, who are respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, till they attain majority as ordered by the trial Court.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the revision may be allowed and the matter may be remanded to the learned trial Court.
7. In view of the same, and following the order passed in Criminal Revision Case Nos.533 and 1098 of 2023, dated 25.04.2024, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of in the following terms:
(i) The impugned order passed in M.C.No.62 of 2018 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru for fresh consideration and by following the procedures which were laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(ii) This Court further directs both the parties to submit affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities, giving complete particulars, in accordance with the directives of the Hon’ble Apex Court as laid down in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha^ before the trial Court. The learned trial Court must ensure strict adherence to these guidelines. If any of the affidavits is found to be lacking in necessary particulars, the learned trial Court shall direct to produce the relevant information from the respective party.
(iii) The learned trial Court shall dispose of M.C.No.62 of 2018 afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties to let in further evidence, if any. It is made clear that the revision petitioner herein, as has been undertaken now shall continue to pay the monthly maintenance to the minor children at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month till they attain majority.

Meegada Venu Gopala Rao Vs Meegada Usha Rani and Ors on 10 Jul 2024

Index is here.

Ekula Sujatha Vs Ekula Rajender and Anr on 1 Jul 2024

Posted on October 10, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Telangana High Court held that a deserter wife is not eligible for maintenance.

From Para 5-7,

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner voluntarily left the society of her husband and the trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record in proper perspective rightly passed the impugned order. Hence, the interference of this Court is unwarranted and he seeks to dismiss the Revision.
6. On behalf of the petitioner, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 and P2. On behalf of respondent No.1, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court observed that the petitioner voluntarily left the society of her husband and respondent No.1, never neglected or refused to maintain her. Except making averments in the petition, there is no proof filed by the petitioner, to show that her parents gave cash and other articles as dowry to respondent No.1. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 discloses that the petitioner put conditions on respondent No.1 stating that she would join his society only if he would put up a basket shop by investing an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, to give her seven (7) tulas of gold articles and to put up a separate family with her abandoning his parents. The trial Court further observed that respondent No.1 filed an application seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner and his consistent efforts to cohabit with her have gone in vain. Therefore, the learned Judge of the trial Court opined that the petitioner failed to aver and prove that respondent No.1 neglected or refused to maintain her and that she is unable to maintain herself and thus, rendered the impugned judgment.
7. This Court vide order dated 02.07.2019, stated that no order directing respondent No.1, to pay interim maintenance can be granted, as the trial Court found that the petitioner herself left the company of her husband. Later, the matter underwent several adjournments.

Ekula Sujatha Vs Ekula Rajender and Anr on 1 Jul 2024

Index is here.

Borugadda Rama Devi and Ors Vs Borugadda Ravi Kumar and Anr on 26 Dec 2018

Posted on October 10, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of composite APHC held that deserted wife will not get any maintenance.

From Para 5,

5) POINT: As per Section 125 Cr.P.C, any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself, or his legitimate or illegitimate children whether married or not, or his father or mother, unable to maintain themselves is liable to provide maintenance to them. So far as wife is concerned, she will be entitled to maintenance only when her case does not fall under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C, which reads thus:
“(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.”
The Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Bai Patel v. Shyam Kumar Patel1, has clarified this aspect stating that wife’s right to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C can be denied only in the circumstances provided under sub-Section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court refused to award maintenance to the 1st petitioner on the ground that the 1st petitioner has voluntarily come out of the matrimonial home but not due to the negligence or refusal of the respondent. Of course the Trial Court awarded maintenance @ Rs.1500/- per month to each of the two children of the 1st petitioner. Hence the instant Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking maintenance to 1st petitioner on one hand and enhancement of the maintenance awarded to the petitioners 2 and 3.

From Para 8,

8) So the facts and evidence would clearly depict that 1st petitioner’s residing away from her husband is not supported by any plausible ground. Her attitude gives an inference that without lawful excuse she remained with her parents. In this factual situation, the 1st petitioner is not entitled to maintenance as laid under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. The Trial Court has rightly refused to grant maintenance to her. The wife who lives separately from the society of her husband without any lawful excuse does not deserve maintenance. It was so held in the case of Anil v. Smt. Sunita4. The decisions in K.Anjaiah Goud’s case (2 supra) and Naredla Sirisha’s case (3 supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners will not help the cause of 1st petitioner.

Borugadda Rama Devi and Ors Vs Borugadda Ravi Kumar and Anr on 26 Dec 2018

The Index is here.

Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Feb 2020

Posted on October 10, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Bombay High Court held that when there is No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members.

From Para 7,

7 So far as original respondent nos.2 to 4 i.e. mother, sister and brother of the husband are concerned, it is averred in the application at paragraph 10 that mother and sister of the husband came to Pune for residing there for fifteen days. During that fifteen days, sister of the husband used to quarrel with the aggrieved person with a reason that the aggrieved person was not preparing chapatis in proper manner and chapatis prepared by her were not liked by mother of the husband. Some routine allegations are made in paragraph 10 and it is averred that on say of the mother and sister, the husband used to beat the aggrieved person. It is further averred that the husband, his mother and sister then took the Mangalsutra from the aggrieved person when she proceeded to her parental house on 25th January 2017. It is apparent from the pleadings in the application that subsequently, the aggrieved person returned to her matrimonial house and cohabited with her husband. It is not further pleaded that her Mangalsutra was not returned to her thereafter.
8 So far as petitioner no.4/original respondent no.4 – brother of the husband is concerned, it appears that he is suffering from some ailment and for his treatment, he had come to Pune and was admitted at the Jehangir Hospital. It is further averred that the aggrieved person was frightened of this brother of her husband. The learned counsel for petitioners/original respondents submitted that he is suffering from mental ailment and this fact is clear from pleadings made in the application that he was admitted in the Jehangir Hospital at Pune.
9 Definition of domestic violence found in Section 3 is an inclusive definition having wide scope. However, to constitute an act of domestic violence, the act must be having certain intensity as well as repetitions. Short visits of parental relatives of the husband are not sufficient to rope them in a proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act.

Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Feb 2020

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of DV Judgments is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: 1-Judge Bench Decision

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

Sagari Hembram Vs State of WB and Anr on 19 Nov 2024

K.L Rangaswamy Vs Sharadha. D on 20 Mar 2024

Dr. Virender Kumar Vs State of UP and Anr on 16 Oct 2024

Vijayashree Ganesh Ingle Vs Dr Nishant Arvind Kale on 08 Jan 2021

Nripendra Chandra Mahanta Vs Pramila Mahanta on 08 Feb 2023

Meegada Venu Gopala Rao Vs Meegada Usha Rani and Ors on 10 Jul 2024

Ekula Sujatha Vs Ekula Rajender and Anr on 1 Jul 2024

Borugadda Rama Devi and Ors Vs Borugadda Ravi Kumar and Anr on 26 Dec 2018

Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Feb 2020