H P Komala Vs N Ravikumar on 29 Jul 2024

Posted on October 6, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Karnataka High Court held as follows, when a husband filed for divorce and did not pay the interim maintenance.

From Para 10,

10. This court is coming across several cases where the husband will not pay the maintenance as ordered by the court and which attains finality but he insists for proceeding with the main case. The CPC provides for execution of the orders passed by the court. No doubt there is mechanism provided for execution of the orders. In these pending matrimonial matters, when the order is passed for maintenance pendent-lite, the party who is contesting the matter cannot tell the opposite party that I will proceed with the case and you can go before the executing court for recovery of money. In matrimonial cases thousands of execution petitions are pending. In some cases the parties are not in a position to meet their basic necessities and the opposite parties inspite of not obeying the orders of the court are enjoying the further orders passed by the court. In these matrimonial proceedings, the court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 151 of CPC and under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC should either stay the proceedings or strike off the pleadings. This to some extent will subserve the ends of justice. It will also send a message to the concerned that they cannot get away with non-compliance of the orders of the court and deprive other party from the fruits of the order.

Tip: Pay the money and get the divorce (your freedom!)

H P Komala Vs N Ravikumar on 29 Jul 2024

Index of Divorce Judgments is here and Maintenance Judgments is here.

Kavitha M Vs Raghu on 16 Mar 2023

Posted on October 4, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka HC held that there is no need to conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before passing Interim reliefs, relying on the Magistrate’s inherent power u/s 28(2) of the PWDV Act, while overruling earlier 2009 judgment here. (Comment to myself: someone has to challenge the Sec 28(2) of the DV Act as unconstitutional and get rid of it!)

From Para 14,

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, reference being made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KUNAPAREDDY v. KUNAPAREDDY SWARNA KUMARI1 is apposite.
The Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment, while considering the purport of promulgation of the Act and its provisions clearly holds that sub-section (2) of Section 28 is significant. The concerned Court is well within its powers to lay down its procedure for disposal of the application under Section 12 or Section 23(2) of the Act. The Apex Court also recognizes that this provision is incorporated by the Legislature keeping a definite purpose for which it is enacted. This Court also recognizes the power of the Magistrate under Section 23 to grant an interim order ex-parte owing to the specific power under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act which is carved out in that behalf. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, any other law that is laid down by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court will have to be placed into the oblivion on two counts, as the heart and soul of the Act is found in Section 12 and its beat in Section 23.The reliance placed by the respondent/State upon the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of KRISHNA MURTHYNOOKULA v. Y SAVITHA2 is in clear contradiction with what the Apex Court has held. The said judgment has also been distinguished in the case of one K.MANJUNATH REDDY v. SMT.A.C. LATHA3.
The co-ordinate Bench recognizes that the section itself provided that the Court can form its own procedure and it would override sub-section (1) of Section 28 and any Rules framed thereunder. The co-ordinate Bench then holds that there was no illegality committed by the Court in exercise of its inherent power for disposal of the application without an inquiry and by way of an affidavit filed by the parties before the concerned Court.

From Para 15-18, [Happy that Section 12(5) is emphasized and directions issued]

15. On a coalesce of the aforesaid analysis of the provisions of the Act and the law laid down by the Apex Court and that of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, what would unmistakably emerge is that applications concerning protection orders under Section 18, residence orders under Section 19 and monetary relief under Section 20, all of which direct that if the learned Magistrate is prima facie finds justification he could grant those reliefs. Section 23 of the Act empowers the learned Magistrate to grant of interim and ex-parte orders in any application under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 21
or even 22 against the respondent, granting interim relief in terms of the application/s so filed cannot be after an eon, it has to be granted anon. Therefore, there is no warrant for any Magistrate to await for the procedure as stipulated under the CrPC to get concluded, and then grant the relief that is sought in the application. It defeats the very life blood of the Act. If Section 12 is the one under which applications are filed before the concerned Court, sub-section (5) of Section 12 mandates disposal within 60 days.
16. It is quite appalling that an application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act for the relief as available under Sections 19, 20 and 22 of the Act has been kept pending for close to 52 months after its filing, notwithstanding the fact that the mandate of the Act is disposal of those applications within 60 days. The applications being kept pending would display apathy towards the litigants. The reason for the applications being kept pending is free fall for adjournments being granted by the concerned Court. In the case at hand, close to two years have passed by and the Court has gone on granting time to the husband for filing assets and liabilities statement to determine the payment of maintenance to the wife under the provisions of the Act while the wife/aggrieved person suffers. An application that has to be disposed of within 60 days, has taken 52 months, and is yet to be disposed of.
17. The law Courts which exist to remedy the wrong when it is brought to its notice has to act swiftly, as it is trite that, actus curiae neminem gravabit that the act of Court should prejudice no person. If an act of the Court should not prejudice any person; the Court should not permit any procrastination of the proceedings before it. A woman, who is a victim of domestic violence, knocking at the doors of the Magistrate, under the Act seeking maintenance or shelter such grievance, will have to be addressed with immediacy. It is for this reason that the statute mandates that such applications have to be disposed of within 60 days in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act. The mandate is unequivocal as sub-section (5) mandates that the Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose every application; every application would mean each and every, not a few or more. If the delay takes away the very soul of the enactment, such delay would definitely deny justice. It is, therefore, often said that “justice delayed is justice denied”. If the facts of the case at hand are taken note of, it would display that the petitioner has been denied maintenance and other benefits available under the Act for close to five years now, after she has been out of the matrimonial house.
18. In the aforesaid circumstances, it becomes necessary for this Court to direct the Magistrates, to henceforth decide the applications filed by the aggrieved persons within the time frame. The applications could be for the benefit of Sections 19 and 20 of the Act which are filed along with the application under Section 12 of the Act. Any delay beyond 60 days to consider the application should be only for reasons to be recorded in writing. For a maintenance application, the concerned Court shall direct the husband, after receipt of notice, to file his assets and liabilities statement within four weeks from the date of appearance and in the event, he would dodge appearance before Court, the Court is empowered to grant interim maintenance, on what is filed by the aggrieved person as assets and liabilities statement and as sought in the application, failing which, such cases, like the one that is brought before this Court, would mushroom and defeat the very purport of the promulgation of the Act.

Kavitha M Vs Raghu on 16 Mar 2023

Citations: [2023 SCC OnLine Kar 11],

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158022851/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6423e02cd66f1c555c648b74

https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/karnataka-high-court-disposal-of-application-dometic-violence-act-accommodation-monetary-relief-interim-maintenance-224447

Domestic Violence Victims Must Be Addressed With Immediacy: Karnataka High Court Issues Directions to Magistrate Courts

https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=013202793200&title=kavitha-m-vs-raghu

“S. 12 is heart and soul of Domestic Violence Act”; Karnataka High Court directs Magistrates to decide applications within the mandated period of 60 days

Index of Domestic Violence judgments is here.

Krishnanand Mishra and Anr Vs State of Jharkhand on 09 Aug 2023

Posted on September 27, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench judge of Jharkhand High Court quashed the false 498A IPC case against brother-in-law (Nandoi) and sister-in-law (Nanad).

From Paras 11 and 12,

11. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted in the statute with pious view for punishing cruelty of the husband, however, nowadays, the said Section is being misused which has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & another; [(2014) 8 SCC 273].
12. How the cases are lodged under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code at the heat of the moment, that was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta & another v. State of Jharkhand & another; [(2010) 7 SCC 667].

From Para 16,

16. Coming back to the facts of the present case. The Court finds that there are general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners and in one of the earlier case, final form was submitted in favour of the petitioners and during pendency of that case, the present case has been filed, which further suggest that maliciously the case has been lodged against the petitioners, who happened to be brother-in-law (Nandoi) and sister-in-law (Nanad) of the informant and they are residing at different place.

Krishnanand Mishra and Anr Vs State of Jharkhand on 09 Aug 2023

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Darshanik M M Vs Poornima A on 04 Dec 2023

Posted on September 23, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru Bench passed the following order in compliance of Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr on 04 Nov 2020

From Paras 4-7,

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the amount of Rs.5 lakhs is directed to be paid from nowhere, as there is no consideration at the hands of the concerned Court qua the judgments rendered on the issue of grant of maintenance by the Apex Court and the Court has passed an order directing the said payment.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would admit that the concerned Court has not followed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha,1 but would only submit that a time limit be prescribed for the concerned Court to dispose the application I.A.No.2 seeking grant of maintenance.4.
6. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, a perusal at the order would indicate that the concerned Court has passed an order directing payment of Rs.5 lakhs, without considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh (Supra). This appears to be a serious flaw, in the light of the judgment in the case of Aditi Alias Mithi vs Jitesh Sharma reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1451, which follows Rajnesh vs. Neha.
7. In the light of the law reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Aditi (Supra), the concerned Court ought to have looked into the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh (Supra) and then directed appropriate maintenance to be paid in an application filed by the wife. In the light of the order not referring to Rajnesh (Supra), the order is rendered unsustainable.

Darshanik M M Vs Poornima A on 04 Dec 2023

Index of Maintenance cases u/s 144 BNSS (125 CrPC) is here.

Parul Tyagi Vs Gaurav Tyagi on 04 Aug 2023

Posted on September 23, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Allahabad High Court passed the following guidelines in elaboration of Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr on 04 Nov 2020 and Aditi Sharma Vs Jitesh Sharma on 06 Nov 2023

G. Guidelines to the Family Courts
87.1 The Family Court Judge shall ensure compliance of the following guidelines in maintenance proceedings:
i) Both parties must submit the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities as Enclosure-I or II (as applicable), as provided in the Rajnesh Case (supra).
ii) The memo of parties shall include the parties’ current mobile number, email address (if available), and the latest residential and official addresses, particularly if the applicant/respondent is employed.
iii) The memo of parties shall also specifically mention the name of the concerned police station, where the applicant and respondent resides and works (as applicable).
iv) Additionally, the Family Court Judge must ensure that Enclosure-I or II, as applicable, are accompanied by an affidavit from the respondent, containing the following details:
a) Permanent and current address of the respondent.
b) Mobile number of the respondent for communication during the pendency of the petition.
c) Email ID and WhatsApp number, if any.
d) Name and address of the respondent’s employer, along with a telephone number.
e) An undertaking from the respondent to promptly inform the court through an affidavit if there is any changes to his address, mobile number, E-mail ID, WhatsApp number, residential address, workplace, or employer’s name.
87.2 Upon receiving an application for maintenance, the Family Court shall include the following specifics in the initial order:
i) Mandatory requirement of an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, as per Enclosure-I & II, whichever is applicable, along with the reply.
ii) The respondent shall be given two opportunities for filing a reply, and the application for interim maintenance shall be decided in less than six months.
iii) The respondent must submit the reply within four weeks.
iv) If the affidavit is not filed within four weeks, the court will proceed based on the applicant’s submission and the existing pleadings to decide the application. If the respondent repeatedly delays in filing the reply with the affidavit, requesting more than two adjournments, the court may exercise its authority to strike off the respondent’s defence, provided it determines that the delays are intentional and obstructive, causing undue disruptions to the proceedings. In such cases, the Family Court may proceed to adjudicate the maintenance application based on the applicant’s submitted affidavit and the existing pleadings.
v) The order shall indicate that false statements in the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities may lead to proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C. besides contempt of court. It should also explain the ingredients of section 340 Cr.P.C., the potential criminal prosecution in IPC, and the maximum sentence for such offences, if proved in court.
87.3 The Family Court shall employ all legally permissible methods of serving notices to the respondent, using persuasive measures as may be necessary. The Family Court shall develop practical and effective mechanisms to ensure successful service on the respondent, aligning with the objectives and principles of these guidelines. If the court determines that the Process Server/Postman/Police Officer has submitted a routine, repetitive service report (e.g., citing unclaimed postal articles, locked premises, addressee left the address, or an unknown address), it may hold the officer accountable in accordance with the law. The Family Court may also explore modern methods of service facilitated by internet access, including courier services, email, or instant messaging platforms like WhatsApp and other electronic media. The essence of service lies in ensuring that the proceedings are duly conveyed to the respondents or contesting parties. Service on a litigant can be accomplished through e-mail or phone contact29. Serving notice, summons, and exchange of pleadings, service via e-mail, fax, or commonly used instant messaging services like WhatsApp is considered valid30.
87.4 If either party disputes the information declared in the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, the aggrieved party has the right to seek the other party to produce the relevant documents in question31.
87.5 To determine the amount of maintenance, the Family Court Judge shall adhere to the criteria outlined in Part-3 of the Rajnesh Case (supra). In cases where the wife has her own income, this shall not preclude her from being eligible to receive maintenance from her husband. The court must assess whether the wife’s income allows her to sustain a lifestyle commensurate with that of her husband in her matrimonial home32.
87.6 It is assumed that an able-bodied husband is capable of earning enough to support his wife and children. For interim maintenance determination, the minimum wage rates of Uttar Pradesh, as per the latest Government Notification, may serve as a guideline. This is just one of the alternatives that the Family Court Judge may consider when assessing a person who claims to be a labourer with no other income sources, among other pleadings.
88. The interim maintenance order shall contain the ingredients of the third proviso to section 125 Cr.P.C. (added by Act 50 of 2001, effective from 24.9.2001), and Uttar Pradesh State Amendments (upto date) in this regard, in plain language so that the respondent could understand understand the consequences of non-payment of interim maintenance. A table summarizing hearing dates and a brief description of Family Court orders on each date shall also be made part of the order.
89. Both interim and final maintenance orders shall include a table showing the number of orders passed by the Family Court prior to awarding interim and final maintenance, along with brief descriptions of orders passed on each date until the final adjudication of the section 125 Cr.P.C. application. The final maintenance order shall also include a date-wise account of proceedings related to section 125(3) Cr.P.C.
90. In cases involving parties from the Economically Weaker Section, individuals living below the poverty line, or casual labourers, the obligation to submit the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities would be exempted. The court may demand an EWS/BPL certificate issued by the competent authority, which may be the Office of the Labour Commissioner or the Revenue Authority, as applicable.
91. District Judges shall develop a structural system for regularly assessing and overseeing the performance of family courts within their districts, ensuring the adherence to directives issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Case (supra) and by this Court, in the instant case, this reporting mechanism would serve as a means of accountability, enabling timely interventions by the Constitutional Courts, when necessary. This may encompass routine evaluations, case audits, and feedback mechanisms to gauge the effectiveness and quality of judicial decisions in this context.
92. All District Judges shall convene semi-annual meetings of their respective Family Court Judges to review and evaluate the implementation progress of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Case (supra) and this Court in the instant case. If the guidelines issued to Family Courts are not followed, concerned District Judge shall submit a semi-annual report to the Registrar General of this Court, against the Judicial Officer, who has not complied the guidelines. The Registrar General shall record its finding and present these reports to the respective Administrative Judge of the concerned Judicial Officer for their review and reference. Additionally, a record of these reports shall also be maintained in the service book of the concerned Judicial Officer. The District Judge shall prepare the progress report in the manner as provided in Enclosure-III attached with this judgment.
93. The District Judge along with the Principal Judge, Family Court shall flag the critical issues with respect to service of notice/summons and problems encountered in enforcement of interim maintenance/maintenance orders passed by respective Family Court Judges in the meeting of District Monitoring Committee for Family Courts, and the civil administration shall provide all assistance, as may deem necessary.
94. The District Legal Services Authority, in collaboration and cooperation with the respective District Bar Association, shall arrange awareness and training sessions/ workshops to encourage Bar members to submit pleadings in accordance with Enclosure-I & II.
95. For the sake of convenience, the Enclosures I & II attached to Rajnesh Case (supra) are hereby included as part of this order. Additionally, Enclosure-III is provided for the convenience of all District Judges to prepare the compliance report, in case aforesaid guidelines are not followed.
96. The Registrar (Compliance) of this court shall communicate copy of this judgment to all District Judges for dissemination among all Family Court Judges, and Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh to circulate among all District Magistrates and Senior Superintendent of Police, of respective districts. Furthermore, a copy of this judgment shall be published on the websites of all District Courts, Family Courts, and Courts of Judicial Magistrate to facilitate awareness and implementation.

Parul Tyagi Vs Gaurav Tyagi on 04 Aug 2023

Index of Maintenance cases u/s 144 BNSS (125 CrPC) is here.

Abhilash.M.V Vs Soumya Soman on 10 Nov 2023

Posted on September 23, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Kerala High Court held as follows,

From Paras 4-7,

4. When the revision petition came up for consideration on 20.3.2023, this Court admitted the revision petition and stayed further proceedings in M.C.No.6/2020, subject to the condition that the revision petitioner deposits the arrears of maintenance due to the second respondent and continues to pay interim monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.4000/- to the second respondent. This Court had called for a report from the Family Court, to ascertain as to whether the revision petitioner was served with notice prior to the passing of the impugned order.
5. Pursuant to the above order, the learned Judge of the Family Court, by communication dated 27.3.2023, has informed this Court that the order
sheet and the records in M.C.No.6/2020 reveal that even before notice was served on the revision petitioner in the application, a counsel named Sri. K.R.Muraleedharan appeared on behalf of the revision petitioner on 13.12.2023 and prayed for time for appearance of the revision petitioner. Accordingly, the application was adjourned to 27.10.2022 and then to 16.12.2022, on which date the impugned order was passed. It is also reported that the counsel failed to file any vakalath. Subsequently he gave his no objection certificate to another counsel named Sri.S. Nidhin, who has now filed a vakalath for the revision petitioner.
6. On a consideration of the assertions in the memorandum of the revision petition, the materials placed on record, and the communication of the learned Judge of the Family Court, it is evident that the notices in both the M.C as well as Crl.M.P. were not served on the revision petitioner. It is only on the basis of the submission made by a counsel, that the Family Court assumed that the revision petitioner had failed to appear in the application and then passed the impugned order. Thus, I am of the definite view that the revision petitioner has not been granted an opportunity to contest the Crl.M.P. on merits.
7. In the above conspectus, I am of the firm view that the order has to be set aside and the revision petitioner be granted an opportunity to file his objection to the Crl.M.P. No.16/2020 and M.C. No.6/2020, which will do complete justice to both sides.

Finally,

In the result,
(i) The order in Crl.M.P. No.16/2020 in M.C. No.6/2020 is set aside.
(ii) The revision petitioner and the respondents are directed to appear before the Family Court on 1.12.2023.
(iii) The revision petitioner shall be given an opportunity to file his written objections both in Crl.M.P. No.16/2020 and M.C.No.6/2020, within 30 days from today.
(iv) The Family Court shall keep in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [2020 (6) KHC 1] and Aditi alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma [Crl.Appeal No. 3446/2023], and direct the parties to file the affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities.
(v) The Family Court shall dispose of Crl.M.P. No.16/2020, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from 1.12.2023.
(vi) The Family Court shall also make an endeavour to dispose of M.C. No.6/2020, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.

Abhilash.M.V Vs Soumya Soman on 10 Nov 2023

Index of Maintenance cases u/s 144 BNSS (125 CrPC) 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.

Mr xxxx Bhat Vs State of Karnataka and Ms xxxx Rao on 28 Jun 2024

Posted on September 4, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru Bench) held that the husband may initiate perjury proceedings against the knife, if he desires so.

From Para 7,

A perusal at the complaint would indicate that the complainant laid emphasis upon infections of the husband on his genital areas which resembled as STD. Therefore, the husband is guilty of mental harassment dishonestly concealing his mental condition and breaching the trust of the wife. Minute details of certain allegations are made which are found in the complaint. The crux of the complaint was STD on him, making her leave her job after marriage and therefore, she would be dependent upon him. There is not a single sentence about the petitioner demanding dowry and indulging in cruelty for the purpose of demand of dowry. All the harassments that the complainant narrates are minor skirmishes between the husband and the wife.
A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet would also not indicate any demand of dowry or cruelty on the part of the husband. Prior to filing of the charge sheet by the Police, statements were recorded of the family members of the complainant.
The mother herself in her statement speaks that at the time of discussions about the marriage, the parents of the petitioner and the petitioner had clearly indicated that they do not want any dowry and they are not demanding anything. The same goes with the statements of others.
What is given to the complainant, according to the complainant’s tradition, is 614 grams of silver and 160 grams of gold, not as demand but as a tradition of her family which at best be said to be ‘Stridhana’. Such statements galore. If the statements recorded of the mother and the brother of the complainant, the complaint, the charge sheet and summary of the charge sheet are red in tandem, what would unmistakably emerge is that, no demand for dowry was made and no cruelty that would become ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC would get attracted in the case at hand.
Section 498A has two circumstances, which can draw an accused into its web. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty which is likely to drive the woman to suicide or the harassment should be such that they would coerce the woman for meeting any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, and on failure to fulfill the demand, indulge in cruelty. If the contents of the complaint, summary of the charge and the statements are considered on the bedrock of necessary ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC, the allegation of the offence would tumble down like a pack of cards, as, no where it is indicative, of the fact that there is dowry harassment and cruelty by the husband or the members of the family of the petitioner.

From Para 8,

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that every time the petitioner was accused of suffering from STD. In the aforesaid affidavit, it is clearly indicated by the wife that the petitioner is suffering from HPV infection as he has some rashes on his buttock. The petitioner gets himself tested at the Victoria Hospital and several hospitals.
The diagnostic centre at Columbus, USA observes that history and physical examination of the petitioner was done. He has no physical signs and no history of concern for HPV or any other infection in the body. Therefore, the bogey that is projected by the complainant/wife that the husband has some physical problem appears to be a white lie.

From Para 9,

9. The other bogey projected by the wife is that the petitioner has closed all channels of communications and had never shown any interest in getting the complainant to the USA, this is completely belied by the documents appended to the petition itself, as not one but four appointments were taken by the petitioner for VISA purposes of the wife. The first appointment after the petitioner left to the USA was on 13-10-2020. There are four appointments, confirmation acknowledgments of which are produced by the petitioner as annexures to the petition. They are dated 13-10-2020, 02-03-2021, 07-05-2021 and 24-05-2021;
It is on the 5th appointment, the complainant goes before the visa office and Visa is granted to the complainant, which is also appended as document to the petition. These are documents which speak for themselves. A mail communication on 05-12-2021 is quoted hereinabove. The complainant seeks confirmation regarding her travel to USA. Therefore, it is clearly a bogey projected by the complainant that the petitioner was not interested in getting her to the USA and had blocked all channels; but the documents speak otherwise. The attitude of the complainant also speaks for itself.
Therefore, it is not a case where there is an iota of ingredient against the petitioner/husband for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. It is misuse and abuse of criminal justice system by the complainant right from the word go.

Para 10,

10. This Court has completely considered the complaint, summary of the charge sheet, the statements recorded and the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. All this exercise is undertaken only to arrive at a conclusion as to any of the ingredients of the offences are met or otherwise. The unmistakable conclusion is that, the complainant in gross misuse and abuse of law has set the criminal law into motion. Such frivolous cases registered by the wife have taken enormous judicial time, be it before the concerned Court or before this Court, and has led to enormous civil unrest, destruction of harmony and happiness in the society. It may not be that these would be the facts in every given case. The Court is only concerned about frivolous and vexatious litigations clogging the criminal justice delivery system, where genuine cases lie in cold storage. If the facts narrated hereinabove are noticed and as observed, the complainant has, in gross misuse and abuse of the process of the law, has set the criminal law into motion. Therefore, it becomes a fit case where the husband must be given liberty to initiate proceedings for malicious prosecution or initiate proceedings under Section 211 of the IPC. Liberty is thus reserved to the husband, for such action to be initiated in accordance with law, if he so desires.

Mr xxxx Bhat Vs State of Karnataka and Ms xxxx Rao on 28 Jun 2024

List of Quash judgments is here and List of Perjury judgments is here.

Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 19 Jul 2024

Posted on September 4, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru Bench) held that along with notice under 41A CrPC (Section 35 BNSS), a copy of the FIR must be sent along.

From Para 9,

This notice does have clarity as to why the petitioner is being summoned. The matter could be disposed of recording the fact that the second notice does contain the crime number, as the issue may seem to be very simple. In the considered view of the Court, it is not, as Section 41 of the Cr.P.C., deals with arrest of persons. Any notice so issued under Section 41-A if not complied with, the Station House Officer is entitled to arrest the noticee. Therefore, the noticee must be aware of why he is being summoned to the Police Station, as summoning to the Police Station is not summoning a person to a happy place. A citizen must know as to why he is being summoned. The information to the citizen cannot be half baked; it must be in full. The notice must contain the crime number and the purpose for which he is being summoned. While it can be transmitted electronically, no fault can be found with that, but it should mention crime number. The duty of the Station House Officer would not stop at mentioning crime number, but he should also attach to the communication, a copy of the FIR, so registered against the noticee, as power is available to summon the accused or any person in connection with a crime. Therefore, the noticee, without knowing the crime number and without getting a copy of the FIR, cannot be asked to appear before an officer of the police station on receipt of notice under Section 41-A.

From Para 10,

Sub-sections (2) to (6) of Section 35 of the BNSS assume significance. Section 35(4) permits issuance of a notice to any person and the noticee shall be bound to comply with the terms of the notice. Section 35(6) commands that if a person fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the Police Officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by the competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice. Therefore, the rigour is little stronger. Stronger the rigour, the noticee is required to know all that he has to reply, prior to his appearance before the Police. It, thus, becomes mandatory for a notice to be issued under Section 35 of the BNSS to mention the crime number, the offence alleged in the crime so registered and necessarily append to it a copy of the FIR so registered, as any person who receives the notice must be aware for what he is being summoned to the Police Station.

From Para 13,

13. It is made clear that till the guidelines/check list is so notified by the State, if any person is necessary to be summoned, the drill that shall be followed are:-
(a) The notice under Section 35 of the BNSS shall mention the crime number and the offence alleged in the crime number. This can be communicated to the noticee either through the conventional method or through electronic mode.
(b) The communication shall attach copy of the FIR so registered, as the FIR would contain the gist of the complaint.
(c) In the event notice does not contain the crime number, the offence alleged or appending of the FIR, subject to just exceptions, the noticee is not obliged to appear before the officer who has directed him to appear and no coercive action can be taken for non-appearance.
(d) It is also necessary for the Police Department to bring about robust system for the FIR being uploaded immediately on their registration and make it search friendly.

Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad AND State of Karnataka on 19 Jul 2024

Other remedies to police atrocities are here.

Roshan Lal Tickoo Vs Predimant Krishan Tickoo on 02 Aug 2024

Posted on August 14, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladhak High Court at Srinagar held as follows,

From Pars 9-10,

9. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that before initiating an enquiry into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 of the Cr. P. C, the Court has to frame an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to do so, whereafter the Court has to record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing. The same has to be sent to the Magistrate of 1st Class having the jurisdiction.
10. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 of the Cr. P. C makes a reference to the offences punishable under Section 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 2011 and 228 of IPC when such offences are alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceedings in any court. The aforesaid offences fall under Chapter (XI) of the Indian Penal Code which relate to false evidence and offences against public justice. Thus, it is important for a Court to frame an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to hold an enquiry with regard to commission of aforesaid offences if the same appear to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in a Court.

From Para 13,

13. From the analysis of the legal position on the subject, it is clear that preliminary enquiry under Section 340 of the Cr. P. C can be directed only if in the opinion of the Court, it is expedient in the interests of justice to do so when it appears that the offence of perjury in relation to court proceedings has been committed. Thus, two conditions are necessary for initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr. P. C, first that the offence of perjury in relation to court proceedings should appear to have been committed and secondly, in the opinion of the court it should be expedient in the interests of justice to hold such preliminary enquiry.

From Paras 14-15,

14. Coming to the present case, the respondents/applicants have alleged that the petitioner/non-applicant has made false statements in his petition which relate to estimated losses as per the audit conducted on account of unauthorized sale of 18 tanker lorries, decline in profits of the partnership firm, non-deposit of sale amount of the vehicles in the account of the partnership firm, respondent having entered into partnership without consent of the petitioner and sale of plot of land by respondent/applicant owned by the partnership firm at Channi Himmat, Jammu, unilaterally. The veracity of all these allegations is a matter in issue before the Arbitral Tribunal. It is, therefore, yet to be determined as to whether the aforesaid allegations made by the petitioner in his petition under Section 9 of the Act are false.
15. It is not a case where the petitioner is stated to have made any contradictory statements in his pleadings but it is a case where he has made certain allegations, the veracity of which is yet to be determined. Had it been a case of contradictory stands having been taken by the petitioner in his pleadings, perhaps this Court would have been justified in holding a preliminary enquiry in terms of Section 340 of Cr. P. C at this stage itself but because the veracity of the allegations made by the petitioner in his petition, which according to the respondent/applicant are false, is yet to be determined and there is no material on record to suggest that the same are, prima facie, false, this Court feels that the prayer of the respondents/applicants for initiating preliminary enquiry under Section 340 of the Cr. P. C cannot be considered at this stage. The same has to await the determination of the aforesaid issues by the Arbitral Tribunal.

Roshan Lal Tickoo Vs Predimant Krishan Tickoo on 02 Aug 2024

Index of perjury judgments is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: 1-Judge Bench Decision

H P Komala Vs N Ravikumar on 29 Jul 2024

Kavitha M Vs Raghu on 16 Mar 2023

Krishnanand Mishra and Anr Vs State of Jharkhand on 09 Aug 2023

Darshanik M M Vs Poornima A on 04 Dec 2023

Parul Tyagi Vs Gaurav Tyagi on 04 Aug 2023

Abhilash.M.V Vs Soumya Soman on 10 Nov 2023

Shikha Vs Avaneesh Mahodaya on 10 Sep 2024

Mr xxxx Bhat Vs State of Karnataka and Ms xxxx Rao on 28 Jun 2024

Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 19 Jul 2024

Roshan Lal Tickoo Vs Predimant Krishan Tickoo on 02 Aug 2024