Dandamudi Phani Krishna Vs Boyapati Lakshmi Aparna on 22 Mar 2024

Posted on April 29, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Telangana High Court held that, a divorce petition is maintainable within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship.

From Para 5,

5. The petitioners have claimed that the Court below erred in dismissing their application and failed to understand the hardship faced by the petitioners that is the personal health issues and impotency, which they had explicitly stated. Their petition under Section 14(1) of H.M. Act was dismissed mechanically, without appropriate examination of the content. They have also pleaded that the Court below dismissed their petition without considering their arguments and the precedents they cited, thus exceeding the scope of the matter.

From Para 7,

7. The petitioner No.2 is forty (40) years old and who appeared personally through video conferencing submitted that she has received a marriage proposal which is at the final stage of settlement. However, things cannot materialise unless the divorce is obtained so far as the present marriage is concerned. She wishes to remarry due to biological complications that can occur with pregnancies at her age, such as a higher risk of miscarriage and potential complications during delivery.The delay in the divorce process is causing her a great deal of anxiety, as she is keenly aware that time is not on her side which is an immediate resolution to her request for divorce.

From Para 15,

15. In the present case the marriage between the petitioners was solemnized on 01.06.2023 and they commenced their matrimonial life together. However, their marital journey was short-lived as they continued their marital life for two (02) months. During this brief period, their relationship was beset by differences that arose primarily due to health problems and impotency. These issues created a barrier in their relationship and led to the consensual decision of dissolving their marital bond. The primary reason that necessitated the divorce is the couple’s incapacity to continue their marital relationship, which has been severely affected by health problems and impotency. Both parties are unequivocally in agreement about their decision to divorce, and there seems to be no possibility of reconciliation. Their mutual consent for divorce underscores the irreparable breakdown of their marriage. Further adding to the complexity of the situation is the fact that the petitioner No.2, who is forty (40) years old, has received marriage proposals and is keen on remarrying. Her decision is fuelled by the potential biological complications associated with pregnancies at her age. She is acutely aware of the higher risks of miscarriage and potential complications during delivery that can occur with pregnancies at her age. Therefore, she wishes to remarry as soon as possible to mitigate these risks at the earliest. Since they have already completed their ten (10) months waiting period and just about two (02) months time is left to complete the waiting period. Hence, they already waited for the substantial part of the statutory waiting period.

Dandamudi Phani Krishna Vs Boyapati Lakshmi Aparna on 22 Mar 2024

Index of Divorce Matters here.

Sushil Daddimani and Anr Vs Nil on 27 Mar 2024

Posted on April 28, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Karnataka High Court (at Dharwad) held that, a divorce petition is maintainable within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship.

From Para 6 (Issue Framed)

6. From above, only question that would arise for consideration is ‘whether petitioners have made out a case of exceptional hardship and whether trial Court was justified in rejecting I.A.no.I?’

From Paras 7 and 8 (Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship)

7. Perusal of petition at Annexure-A would indicate that there are specific pleading about petitioner no.2 being forged into marriage and due to same, she had withdrawn from marital obligations. They have also stated that marriage having not been consummated and parties being residing separately and failure of efforts for reconciliation by family members and elders. It is also seen that parties have intended to move on with their lives after obtaining divorce.
8. While passing impugned order, only reason assigned by trial Court is that there are no averments to make out a case of exceptional hardship, which does not appear to be justified in view of above observations.

From Para 9 (Enquire the parties about Exceptional Hardship or lack of it)

9. On other hand, it would have been appropriate for learned trial Judge to have devoted some effort to enquire about existence or otherwise of exceptional hardship as provided in Section 14 of Act. Without such exercise, arrival of conclusion as above would not be justified.

Sushil Daddimani and Anr Vs Nil on 27 Mar 2024

Index of Divorce Matters here.

Y.G. Rajesh Vs M Ramya and Anr on 08 Feb 2024

Posted on April 10, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court held as follows,

From Para 6-10,

6. Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, though there is savings of exorbitant quantum of amount made deductible just to negate giving maintenance to the wife and child, what are the compulsorily amounts to be deducted are income tax and professional tax. But considering deductions from the salary of petitioner/husband, those are provident fund contribution, house rent recovery, furniture recovery, towards loan obtained by the petitioner/husband, LIC premium and festival advance, these are all deductions accruing to the benefit of petitioner only. These amounts cannot be made deductible while considering for assessment of maintenance amount.
7. While appreciating salary/income of the husband above stated deductions cannot be considered while calculating salary of husband. If this is allowed, then in every case of petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. there would be tendency by the husband to create artificial deductions making an attempt to show lesser take home salary with an intention to mislead the Courts in order to negate to give maintenance or an attempt to award to make lesser amount of maintenance. Therefore, if the Court finds that the deductions are artificial deductions in the manner above discussed, then the Court has to consider the entire evidence on record on all its preponderance of probabilities while awarding quantum of maintenance amount. The deductions as above stated will ultimately enure to the benefit of the husband only. Suppose if the husband raises loan for purchase of site, house or car and the deduction is made from the salary and shown in his salary certificate, ultimately that raising of loan is for the benefit of husband only and just because deductions are made in this regard, it is not the ground to award lesser quantum of maintenance.
8. In the present case, the deductions is more than 50%, hence, it is proved that the husband has made an arrangement to show more deductions with an intention to pay lesser amount of maintenance. Therefore, the said deductions above discussed cannot be the factor to award lesser quantum of maintenance to the wife. In the present case, it is admitted that the petitioner/husband is a Branch Manager working in State Bank of India receiving salary of more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Then the Family Court is correct in awarding maintenance award of Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.10,000/- per month to the child/daughter, which needs no interference by this Court.
9. Therefore, it is proved that the respondents have become destitute at the hands of the petitioner and the petitioner is working as Manager in State Bank of India and receiving a lucrative salary per month and thus upon considering all these facts and circumstances, it is proved that the petitioner is financially capable person to maintain his wife and daughter. Thus, order passed by the Family Court need not be interfered with and as such, the petition is dismissed being devoid of merits with cost of Rs.15,000/- payable to the respondents by the petitioner herein.

Y.G. Rajesh Vs M Ramya and Anr on 08 Feb 2024

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

B Venkat Rao Vs State of Telangana on 07 Nov 2023

Posted on March 24, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Telangana High Court held as follows,

From Paras 3 and 4,

3. The petitioner who is the husband filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C seeking a direction from the learned Magistrate for producing the passport copy of PW1. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application on the ground that 91 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked against the witness and it would amount to testimonial compulsion.
4. The document sought to be produced is the passport of PW1. PW1 is a witness, not accused. In fact, in her cross examination on 01.11.2022, she stated that she can produce the passport if necessary. In the said circumstances, when the witness herself has volunteered to produce the passport, the same can be permitted. PW1 shall produce her passport for the purpose of cross examination.

B Venkat Rao Vs State of Telangana on 07 Nov 2023

This Order was challenged before the Apex Court here.

Rajesh Aggarwal and Anr Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 12 Mar 2024

Posted on March 20, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Paras 11 and 12,

11. He further submits that cognizance of the charge-sheet filed by the police was taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate only against accused no.1, that is, Mr. Yogesh Gupta, and summons were issued to him alone vide order dated 22.12.2020. Later, by an order dated 06.07.2022, summons were issued also against other accused, including the petitioners herein. He submits that this is a procedure unknown to law.
12. He further submits that charges inter alia against the petitioners have been framed on 24.01.2023 in absence of the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners, due to an inadvertent error, had noted the next date of hearing as 24.02.2023, which is also reflected on the official website of the Courts, and had not appeared on 24.01.2023.

From Paras 17 and 18,

17. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors.,(Supra), the Supreme Court highlighted the concern over the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC and in the increasing tendency of the complainant to implicate the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes.
18. The Supreme Court also placed reliance on the precedents on this issue in Rajesh Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2018) 10 SCC 472; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273; Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 667; Geeta Mehrotra & Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 741, and K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 and held that in the absence of any specific and distinct allegations being made against the family members of the husband and where there are only general and omnibus allegations, the FIR registered against such family members is liable to be quashed. It was further held that, in fact, in such cases if the family members are forced to go through the tribulations of trial, it would inflict severe scars upon them and such exercise must be discouraged.

From Para 22, (hehehehe)

21. As clever case of drafting, specific allegations have been made dating back to around 1994-95 against Mr.Vimal Aggarwal, the other maternal uncle of the husband of the respondent no.2 and his wife Ms.Anu Aggarwal. Specific allegations against the petitioners dating back to 18.07.2007 have been made. As noted hereinabove, the complaint has been filed almost 10 years thereafter.

From Para 23,

23. In Mahmood Ali and Others (Supra), the Supreme Court emphasised that the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not and, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, try to read in between the lines.

From Para 24,

24. Where the wife is set to implicate the entire family of the husband in a criminal case, it is to be expected that through her lawyer she would get a complaint properly drafted making some specific allegations against each of the family members. If only on such averment, the family members are to face agony of the trial, it would defeat the ends of the justice. In my opinion, therefore, the Court must scrutinise the complaint/FIR to determine whether the allegations are a case of clever drafting or have at least some element of truth in the same. Though the Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial, the Court also cannot be a mere spectator and refuse to exercise the power that is vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., where it finds that the continuation of such proceedings would defeat the ends of the justice and would amount to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the accused and be an abuse of the criminal process.

Rajesh Aggarwal and Anr Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 12 Mar 2024

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Sachin Kumar Daksh Vs Mamta Gola and Anr on 16 Feb 2024

Posted on March 14, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Delhi High Court allowed wife to file fresh affidavit in a 125 CrPC maintenance proceedings, after husband files a 340 CrPC perjury application.

From Para 8,

8. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised.
The maintenance granted to the wife is as a measure of social justice and the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is with an objective to protect women and children from vagrancy and destitution. The Family Courts have been established for adopting and facilitating the conciliation procedure and to deal with family disputes in an expeditious and speedy manner. Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides that nothing in sub-section 1 or sub-section 2 of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 shall prevent a Family Court from laying down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject matter of the suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by one party and denied by another party. Thus, the objective remains to reach at the truth of the facts, which is a guiding star for the proceedings under the Family Courts Act. Even in terms of Section 14 of the Family Court Act, the Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, information or matter that may in its opinion assists it to deal effectively with the dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Keeping in perspective the aforesaid objective and provisions, the technicalities cannot be permitted to prevail. The learned Family Court after appreciation of the facts correctly permitted the filing of the fresh affidavit instead of amendment of earlier affidavit to enable the parties to bring out any inconsistencies or discrepancies for consideration.

From Para 10, (Perjury proceedings are intact)

10. It may further be observed that any direction by the Trial Court to file a fresh affidavit does not obliterate the earlier affidavit filed by respondent No.1 on record. Appropriate proceedings can always be considered by the Court in accordance with law in case the Court is of the opinion that a false affidavit had been filed in the proceedings by either of the parties. The same does not in any manner adversely impact the application, if any, preferred by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

Sachin Kumar Daksh Vs Mamta Gola and Anr on 16 Feb 2024

Index of Perjury proceedings is here. Index of Maintenance proceedings is here.

Rajkumar Amruthrao Guddadigi Vs Shilaja Rajkumar Guddadigi on 04 Jan 2024

Posted on March 12, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single (Dr) judge of the Bombay High Court held as follows,

From Para 10, (Enjoy the perversity)

10. The perusal of the order impugned indicates that the trial Judge has taken into account all the facts necessary to be considered for fair adjudication and determination of quantum of interim maintenance. The trial Judge has applied all the settled parameters while doing so. The Petitioner/husband is a qualified Engineer and is suitably employed. His standard of living is fairly modest. The Respondent/wife is also a qualified MBA but unable to hold down a permanent job as she is single handedly looking after a ten years old. The mere fact that she is residing in the matrimonial home is not a pretext to disentitle her to a reasonable amount of maintenance. She still needs some amount towards food, medicine, clothes and educational expenses for the child. Thus, considering the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife and minor son are parameters to be considered while determining the sufficiency and the reasonableness of the quantum of interim maintenance to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself and the minor son in reasonable comfort. The quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial Judge is neither oppressive nor is it unendurable for the Petitioner/husband and there is no hardship caused to him. The amount of Rs.3,000/- is also reasonable for litigation expenses and barely sufficient for her to defend herself in the divorce Petition initiated by her husband. In view of the same, no interference is required in the order impugned herein. The quantum of interim maintenance, as adjudged by the trial Court, is reasonable and does not suffer from any infirmity. The Petition is, thus, dismissed.

Rajkumar Amruthrao Guddadigi Vs Shilaja Rajkumar Guddadigi on 04 Jan 2024

Index of HMA judgments 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.

Suresh Tiwari and Anr Vs Madhu Tiwari on 31 Jul 2023

Posted on March 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Delhi High Court, relying on Vimalben and Laxmi decisions, held as follows,

From Paras 4-6,

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, while not disputing the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the respondent has now become aware of certain coparcenary properties in the possession of the petitioners. He submits that, in fact, there are certain properties of the late husband of the respondent which are now being held by the petitioners. He submits that he shall be moving an appropriate application before the learned Family Court to bring on record the above facts.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners disputes the assertions of the learned counsel for the respondent that there are any coparcenary properties held by the petitioner no.1 or that there are any properties of the late husband of the respondent being held by the petitioners.
6. Be that as it may, the Impugned Order, which grants interim maintenance to the respondent, cannot be sustained.

From Paras 8-9,

8. This Court in Laxmi & Anr. (supra) has reiterated that a daughter-in-law can claim maintenance from her father-in-law, provided that the father-in-law has inherited some estate of her husband. In absence of any such disclosure, the daughter-in-law cannot maintain such claim against the father-in-law; in any case, claim cannot be maintained against the mother-in-law.
9. In Satpal (supra), the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court also reiterated that for invoking the provision of Section 19 of the Act, the widowed daughter-in-law has to show that the father-in-law has coparcenary property in his possession. Such claim will not lie against the salary of the father-in-law or against his self-acquired property.

Finally, from Paras 10-11,

10. In the present case, as the petition filed by the respondent stands today, there is no averment of the petitioner no.1 holding any coparcenary property against which the respondent can maintain her claim under Section 19 of the Act. The Impugned Order also does not give any such finding. The Impugned Order, therefore, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.
11. As far as the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent has now become aware of coparcenary property in the possession of the petitioner no.1 and/or that the petitioners are holding properties belonging to the late husband of the respondent, in absence of such averments before the learned Family Court, they cannot be taken cognizance of at this stage by this Court. The respondent shall be free to move an appropriate application in this regard before the learned Family Court, and the same shall be considered by the learned Family Court remaining uninfluenced by any observations made in the present order.

Suresh Tiwari and Anr Vs Madhu Tiwari on 31 Jul 2023

Index of judgments under HAMA 1956 are here.

Pulipati Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and Ors on 14 Feb 2024

Posted on March 5, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Telangana High Court imposed ‘exemplary costs on petitioner as well as learned counsel, to be quantified at Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lacs only) so as to prohibit them, in future, from filing cases which result in taxing the judicial time.’

From Paras 4-7,

4. Concealing / suppression of material facts would amount to abuse of process of law, playing fraud with Court as well as opposite party. The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that petitioner approaching the writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state the facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he / she withholds some vital / relevant material, in order to gain advantage over the other side, then he / she would be guilty of playing fraud which cannot be countenanced. The parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigation either past or present concerning any part of the subject matter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the lis, no legal proceedings or court litigation were or are pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law.
5. Alas, our judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation, hence, ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims. Litigation like the present one is contributing fuel to fire in mounting pendency, disabling the Courts to discharge the prime duty of justice dissemination. One needs to keep in mind that there is an innocent sufferer on the other side of every irresponsible and senseless claim.
6. This Court expresses its dissatisfaction on the unbecoming conduct of a legal practitioner such as the counsel for petitioner in this case for wasting judicial time by filing cases suppressing the facts. It is a well-known fact that there is huge pendency of cases and pressure on Judges in disposing of such cases is enormous. Genuine litigation is not getting the attention of this Court by this type of frivolous litigation. Earlier, on couple of occasions, this Court cautioned learned counsel to refrain from filing such type of cases which benefit no citizen. Learned counsel filed Writ Petition No. 37851 of 2022 wherein, for suppression of material events, this Court imposed Rs.1,00,000/- to petitioner. Thereafter, in Writ Petition No. 2666 of 2004, for the very same reason, this Court imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000/-, however, at the request of his junior colleagues, the said order was recalled. On the next occasion, on the same ground, when this Court warned the learned counsel, he sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petition. Keeping in view the financial status of the litigant, this Court has shown lenience and disposed of the Writ Petition. Still, learned counsel has been exhibiting the same attitude which forces this Court to impose exemplary costs on petitioner as well as learned counsel, to be quantified at Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lacs only) so as to prohibit them, in future, from filing cases which result in taxing the judicial time.
7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lacs only) to be deposited with Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today. In default, needless to say, Registry shall list the Writ Petition before the Court.

Pulipati Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and Ors on 14 Feb 2024

Index of Perjury Judgements is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: 1-Judge Bench Decision

Dandamudi Phani Krishna Vs Boyapati Lakshmi Aparna on 22 Mar 2024

Sushil Daddimani and Anr Vs Nil on 27 Mar 2024

Y.G. Rajesh Vs M Ramya and Anr on 08 Feb 2024

B Venkat Rao Vs State of Telangana on 07 Nov 2023

Rajesh Aggarwal and Anr Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 12 Mar 2024

Sachin Kumar Daksh Vs Mamta Gola and Anr on 16 Feb 2024

Rajkumar Amruthrao Guddadigi Vs Shilaja Rajkumar Guddadigi on 04 Jan 2024

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

Suresh Tiwari and Anr Vs Madhu Tiwari on 31 Jul 2023

Pulipati Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and Ors on 14 Feb 2024