Mariya Zafar and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 31 Mar 2026

Posted on April 3 by Suprajaa Rajan

In Mariya Zafar v. State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) addressed whether a Magistrate can reject an application seeking production of financial documents under Section 91 CrPC (now Section 94 BNSS) in a domestic violence proceeding.

The petitioner-wife alleged domestic violence, dowry harassment, and financial suppression by her husband. She sought disclosure of his bank accounts, Income Tax Returns (ITRs), and GST records to determine his actual income for maintenance proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.

However, the trial court rejected her application, stating that concealment could instead be dealt with under Section 340 CrPC (now Section 379 BNSS). Challenging this, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The High Court emphasized compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha, which mandates full financial disclosure in maintenance matters. After examining the husband’s ITRs (produced in sealed cover), the Court found that he had misrepresented his occupation and income. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Magistrate’s order and directed reconsideration.

“11.“…the court below has observed that there is no need to summon the Income Tax Returns of opposite party No. 2 to ascertain the income and the reason has been recorded that in case the opposite party is concealing the material fact, then he will be prosecuted under Section 340 Cr.P.C.”
“14….the opposite party No. 3 is directed to bring the income tax return of the last two years filed by the opposite party No. 2…”
“15.ITRs of opp. party No. 2… indicate that the opposite party No. 2 is an Architect… in the AY 2023-24 his total income was Rs. 4,85,290.00 and in the AY 2024-25 his income was Rs. 5,07,680.00.”
“17. ..the order dated 19-01-2026… is hereby set aside and the said court is directed to take fresh decision in the matter in the light of judgment… within 6 weeks…”

Decision

The Allahabad High Court:

Set aside the Magistrate’s order dated 19.01.2026.
Directed the trial court to reconsider the application under Section 91 CrPC (Section 94 BNSS) in light of Rajnesh v. Neha.
Ordered that the matter be decided within 6 weeks.
Allowed the petitioner access to the respondent’s ITRs.
Emphasised the importance of truthful financial disclosure in maintenance proceedings.

Mariya Zafar and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 31 Mar 2026

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Domestic Violence judgments is here.

Related Legal Concepts

Explore related stages and concepts in criminal procedure:

Financial Disclosure in Maintenance Proceedings
Summoning of Documents
Burden of Proof
Judicial Duty to Ensure Fair Maintenance Adjudication
Enforcement of Supreme Court Guidelines (Rajnesh v. Neha)

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 Nov 2010 – Judgement Summary

Posted on April 1 by Suprajaa Rajan

In Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court examined whether the accused could be convicted for abetment of suicide and cruelty under Sections 306 and 498A IPC.

The Supreme Court carefully re-evaluated the evidence and found that the prosecution relied heavily on contradictory and improved witness statements. Moreover, the Court noted that the deceased suffered from serious mental health issues, including depression and psychosis, which could independently explain the suicide.

Therefore, the Court held that the High Court had wrongly interfered with the acquittal without sufficient justification. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s acquittal, reinforcing the principles of burden of proof, presumption of innocence, and cautious appellate review.

“15. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and other witness also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence.”
“17. In case, the complainant in the FIR or the witness in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., has not disclosed certain facts but meets the prosecution case first time before the court, such version lacks credence and is liable to be discarded.”
“21. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution’s case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited.”
“23. Every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right. Subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence in India. The nature of the offence, its seriousness and gravity has to be taken into consideration.”

Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 Nov 2010

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of 498A IPC Judgements here.

Related Legal Concepts

Explore related stages and concepts in criminal procedure:

Abetment of Suicide
Cruelty by Husband or Relatives
Appeal Against Acquittal
Appreciation of Evidence & Material Contradictions
Burden of Proof & Presumption of Innocence

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Asha G Vs State of Karnataka on 6 Jan 2026 – Judgement Summary

Posted on April 1 by Suprajaa Rajan

498A IPC: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Neighbour Under CrPC 482 (BNSS 528)

In Asha G Vs State of Karnataka, the High Court of Karnataka addressed a crucial legal issue regarding the misuse of Section 498A IPC in matrimonial disputes.

The petitioner, who was merely a neighbour of the complainant, sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (now BNSS Section 528). The allegations against her were limited to instigating the husband, without any direct involvement in matrimonial cruelty or dowry harassment.

After examining the complaint and charge sheet, the Court observed that:

The petitioner was not a relative of the husband.
Allegations were vague and omnibus, lacking specific acts.
Inclusion of the petitioner amounted to misuse of criminal law.

Consequently, the Court held that continuing proceedings against the neighbour would be an abuse of process of law, and therefore quashed the case against her.

“The name of this petitioner is nowhere found except contending that she has instigated the husband… otherwise the petitioner would not fit into the definition of family as is obtaining under Section 498A of the IPC.”

“Neighbours of the husband’s family are not relatives of the husband and cannot be implicated for offences under Section 498A of the IPC.”
“Permitting further proceedings against this petitioner would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.”

Asha G Vs State of Karnataka on 6 Jan 2026

Index of Quash Judgments is here.

Related Legal Concepts

Quashing of FIR
Relative under Section 498A IPC
Abuse of Process of Law
False Implication in Matrimonial Disputes
Requirement of Specific Allegations in FIR/Charge Sheet

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Vikaramjeet Rana Vs The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 6 Nov 2025 – Judgment Summary

Posted on March 24 by Suprajaa Rajan

The Delhi High Court held that interim rent maintenance under the DV Act cannot continue after the wife acquires her own residence.

The Court observed that the purpose of rent is to provide immediate shelter. Once the wife purchases a house, that need ends. Therefore, continuation of rent becomes unjust enrichment.Further, the Court recognised that change in circumstances under Section 25 DV Act (now read with BNSS framework) permits modification of earlier orders.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the order allowing adjustment of rent towards EMI payments.

The following paragraphs form the core reasoning of the decision:

“26. It needs no reiteration that the Domestic Violence Act had been enacted with the intention of providing immediate relief and support to a wife who has been subjected to domestic violence. The legislative intent behind the D.V. Act is to provide succour to women who are financially vulnerable and subjected to domestic violence. However, the said provision cannot be stretched to benefit a woman who is financially independent and capable of maintaining herself.”
“29. No doubt, the Interim Order directed payment of Rent of Rs.20,000/- per month. However, here is a situation when the Petitioner is claiming change of circumstances and thus, modification of this Order in terms of Section 25(2) D.V. Act which provides that in case of change of circumstances the Order may be recalled, modified or altered.”
“30. In the present case, indeed there is a change in circumstance as a flat has been admittedly acquired by Respondent No.2. The question is whether she should now continue to get Rs.20,000/- per month towards Rent.”
“31. As already noted, the purpose of granting maintenance under the D.V. Act was to provide the Respondent with alternate accommodation. However, she having acquired a flat in Hauz Khas, Delhi, she cannot be held to be in need of immediate shelter. Therefore, it would not be appropriate, fair, or just to direct that the maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month be continued, as has been rightly argued by the Petitioner. Once a flat has been acquired by the Respondent, there remains no justification to direct continuation of payment of Rs.20,000/- per month by the Petitioner.”
“32. The very substratum upon which the maintenance was granted, has ceased to exist with the acquisition of the property. To permit the continuation of such payment, would be to allow the Respondent undue benefit, which is contrary to the purpose of interim relief under the D.V. Act.”

Decision

The Court thus allowed the revision petition. It set aside the order that permitted rent adjustment towards EMI payments. It held that rent maintenance cannot continue after property acquisition.

The Court directed that payment of ₹20,000 per month shall stop from May 2024.

Vikaramjeet Rana Vs The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 6 Nov 2025

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Hindu Marriage Act is here.

Citation : 2025:DHC:9719

Other Sources :

Related Legal Concepts

Interim Maintenance under DV act
Change in circumstances in maintenance law
Rent Vs EMI-legal distinction
Purpose of Interim Relief in DV Act

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Sandeep Pathak and Ors Vs Lalitha Tiwari on 10 Mar 2026 – Judgment Summary

Posted on March 23 by Suprajaa Rajan

The Delhi High Court in Sandeep Pathak and Ors Vs Lalitha Tiwari quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC (Section 85 BNS), Section 406 IPC (Section 316 BNS), and the DV Act.

The Court held that vague and omnibus allegations cannot establish cruelty or criminal breach of trust. It also ruled that DV Act proceedings cannot survive after divorce, as the domestic relationship ceases.

Further, the Court found that the wife filed proceedings after the divorce decree. Therefore, it treated the case as an abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS).

“45. From the entire allegations as discussed above, it emerges that the essential ingredients of Section 498A IPC are not made out from the Complaint made by Respondent No.2.”
“46. In light of the above findings, it is concluded that it is clearly a case which comes in the category of abuse of the process of law, meriting quashing of the FIR.”
“52. Thus, aside from omnibus allegations, no prima facie case of entrustment of jewellery has been made out. Thus, no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out in the Complaint against the Petitioners.”
“55. As discussion above in detail, there is not an iota of even a prima facie case of cruelty or of harassment of the Complainant by the Petitioners. There is also no element of cruelty or entrustment made out from the facts alleged by the Respondent in her Complaint. Moreover, as discussed above from the facts, when comprehensively considered, reflects that it is a case of abuse of process of law, justifying the quashing of the FIR and the Chargesheet filed therein.”
“69. Thus, the chronology of events clearly indicates that the criminal and DV proceedings were initiated after the marital relationship had already been dissolved by a decree of divorce, and is a subsequent attempt to revive matrimonial disputes through criminal proceedings, which is clearly an abuse of the process of law and an afterthought.”

“70. In view of the above discussion, the Complaint under the DV Act is based on the same vague and omnibus allegations which have already been examined in the context of the FIR. Further, the Complaint has been instituted after the decree of divorce dated 05.09.2012, which has attained finality, thereby bringing the domestic relationship between the parties to an end. In the absence of any specific allegations of domestic violence and a subsisting domestic relationship, continuation of the present proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.”

Decision

The Court allowed both petitions. It quashed the FIR and DV Act complaint, held that the allegations were vague and legally insufficient. It also held that the domestic relationship had ended due to divorce.

Therefore, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC ( Section 528 BNSS).

Sandeep Pathak and Ors Vs. Lalita Tiwari on 10 Mar 2026

Citation :

Other Sources :

Related Legal Concepts

Explore related stages and concepts in criminal procedure:

Quashing of FIR
Abuse of process of law
Domestic Relationship requirement
Abuse of process of law
Omnibus allegations in Criminal Law
Stridhan and Entrustment

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Deep Dey Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 6 Mar 2026

Posted on March 15 by Suprajaa Rajan

Calcutta High Court: Stamp Paper Marriage Has No Legal Validity; Bigamy Case Quashed

A single-judge Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that a marriage executed only through an agreement on stamp paper has no legal recognition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The complainant claimed that she married the petitioner through a written agreement on stamp paper. Later, the petitioner entered into a registered marriage with another woman. The complainant then filed a criminal case alleging bigamy under Section 494 IPC and cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

However, the Court clarified that Hindu law requires solemnisation of marriage through recognised rites and ceremonies. A mere written agreement cannot create a valid marriage. Therefore, criminal liability for bigamy cannot arise from such an arrangement. As a result, the Court held that continuation of the criminal case would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

“A marriage by signature on an agreement paper is a mode of union unrecognised under this Act. It is a procedure unknown to Hindu Law; consequently, a ‘contractual marriage’ is a legal nullity.” (Para 13)

“Unless the marriage is ‘solemnized’ in the legal sense, it cannot be said to be a marriage for the purposes of the penal section.” (Para 14)

“There is a vital distinction between a marriage that is technically void… and a union that is legally non-existent from the start.” (Para 17)

“The shift from a ‘stamp paper marriage’ in the FIR to a ‘temple marriage’ in subsequent witness statements is a transparent attempt to cure a fatal legal infirmity.” (Para 18)

Decision of the Court

Therefore, the Calcutta High Court held that the alleged stamp-paper marriage had no legal validity under Hindu law. Consequently, the ingredients of Section 494 IPC and Section 498A IPC were not satisfied.

The Court thus exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. However, the Court clarified that the complainant may pursue other remedies available in law, if applicable.

Deep day Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 6 Mar 2026

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Bigamy Judgments under Sections 494 and 495 of IPC is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Asish Bera and Ors Vs The State of West Bengal and Anr on 30 Jan 2026

Posted on March 9 by Suprajaa Rajan

The Calcutta High Court held that criminal proceedings cannot continue when the complaint lacks specific material and shows serious inconsistencies. The Court found that the complainant had filed two complaints regarding the same alleged incident without proper explanation.

The Court also noted contradictions in the statements recorded during investigation. It observed that courts must prevent misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes. Exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS), the Court held that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and therefore quashed the case.

The following paragraphs explain the reasoning that led to the decision.

“On careful perusal of the materials on record, it can be found that the Opposite Party no. 2 lodged the complaint before Sagar Police Station… The subsequent complaint was filed before the Court of Learned ACJM at Ranaghat under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C… also in respect of the incident dated March 18, 2022.”

“No satisfactory explanation can be found as to why the de-facto complainant had to lodge two different complaint before different places in respect of self-same incident within a gap of 2 months.”

“It is also a settled law that in case it is found that the nature of complaint primarily found to be of vexatious and frivolous, the courts owes a duty to look into the other evidences collected and did not have to be confined within the content of the written complaint.”

“Therefore on the cumulative assessment of the entire facts and circumstances this Court do not find any material or sufficient material to allow the proceedings to continue further since it would otherwise be absolute abuse of the process of law.”

Decision

The Calcutta High Court allowed the criminal revision petition.

The Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the Magistrate. The Court held that continuation of the case would amount to abuse of the process of law.

Asish Bera and Ors Vs The State of West Bengal and Anr on 30 Jan 2026

Citation :2026:CHC-AS:134

Other Sources :

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

M/s Jindal Polyster Ltd Vs Rahul Jaura on 18 Oct 2005 – Judgment Summary

Posted on March 8 by Suprajaa Rajan

The Delhi High Court examined a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a trial court order. The dispute arose in a recovery suit where the defendant denied appointing the plaintiff as an insurance consultant. Later, the defendant realised that the denial resulted from confusion regarding the company’s earlier name. The defendant then sought amendment of the written statement.

The plaintiff opposed the amendment and also filed an application under Section 340 CrPC (Section 379 BNSS) alleging perjury.

The High Court examined whether the amendment should be allowed and whether such allegations should affect the amendment request.

The following paragraphs explain the reasoning that led to the final decision.

“The defendant then realized its mistake because the earlier name of the defendant-company was ‘M/s Hindustan Pipe Udyog Limited’ and ‘Hindustan Synthetic Fibres’ was a division of ‘Hindustan Pipe Udyog Limited’. In the year 1992 the name ‘Hindustan Pipe Udyog Limited’ was changed to ‘Jindal Polysters and Steel Limited’, which name was again changed to ‘Jindal Polysters Limited’ in the year 1995.”

“The explanation given for the amendment was that there was a communication gap between the defendant and his earlier counsel and that Mr. Sumeet Maheshwari, who joined the defendant as Company Secretary in the year 1994 was not very much acquainted with the fact that the earlier name of the defendant company was ‘Hindustan Pipe Udyog Limited’.”

“After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that so far as the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is established law that this has to be dealt with normally at the time of final disposal of the matter and after the trial court judge forms an opinion that an offence of perjury had been intentionally committed and that it was expedient in the interest of justice to lodge a complaint.”

“I find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant that there was change of names repeatedly about the defendant company and the company could not run away with any averment about its denial of the appointment of plaintiff.”

Decision

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and set aside the trial court’s order.

The Court permitted the amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It allowed the amendment subject to costs of ₹10,000.

The Court also clarified that allegations under Section 340 CrPC (Section 379 BNSS) should be considered at the appropriate stage during the trial.

M:s Jindal Polyster Ltd Vs Rahul Jaura on 18 Oct 2005

Citation :2005:DHC:3716

Other Sources :

Index of Perjury proceedings is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Shailendra Sharma and Ors Vs Indus Residency Pvt Ltd and Ors on 07 Jan 2026

Posted on March 3 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madhya Pradesh Hugh Court at Jabalpur Bench held as follows,

From Para 8,

8. A police officer cannot directly register a crime for offence under Section 215 B.N.S.S. once the offence is committed in or in relation to a proceeding in the Court. As per Section 379 B.N.S.S., the Court has to cause preliminary enquiry and then can make a complaint in writing. However, in the present case, the Court has not made any enquiry, nor recorded any prima-facie satisfaction and has simply directed the police authorities to carry out an investigation and submit a report before the Court. Though the Court in its discretion could have directed the police authorities to investigate the matter and to furnish report before the Court, but the discretion to register FIR should not have been left at the discretion of the police authorities. It was for the Court to have applied its mind after receiving the preliminary enquiry report of the police authorities.

Shailendra Sharma and Ors Vs Indus Residency Pvt Ltd and Ors on 07 Jan 2026

Citations: [2026:MPHC-JBP:1337]

Other Sources:

Index of Perjury judgments is here.

Praveen Kumar Singh Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Feb 2026

Posted on February 28 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Allahabad High Court held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist had filed written submissions before the trial court specifically alleging that opposite party no. 2 was living in adultery with one Rocky @ Tarun. However, the trial court did not consider the said allegation on the ground that no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act had been filed in support of the electronic evidence.

From Para 7,

7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A., as well as perusal of the record and the order passed by the trial court, it appears that the WhatsApp chats annexed by the revisionist were not accepted solely on the ground that a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act had not been submitted. However, Section 14 of the Family Courts Act provides that a Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, document, information, or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it in effectively dealing with a dispute, whether or not such evidence would otherwise be relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Moreover, while adjudicating matrimonial disputes, the Family Court may lay down its own procedure.

Praveen Kumar Singh Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Feb 2026

Citations: [2026:AHC:34917]

Other Sources:

https://lawtrend.in/family-court-must-consider-whatsapp-chat-indicating-adultery-even-without-section-65-b-certificate-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-maintenance/

Index

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: 1-Judge Bench Decision

Mariya Zafar and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 31 Mar 2026

Decision

Related Legal Concepts

Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 Nov 2010 – Judgement Summary

Related Legal Concepts

Asha G Vs State of Karnataka on 6 Jan 2026 – Judgement Summary

498A IPC: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Neighbour Under CrPC 482 (BNSS 528)

Related Legal Concepts

Vikaramjeet Rana Vs The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 6 Nov 2025 – Judgment Summary

Decision

Related Legal Concepts

Sandeep Pathak and Ors Vs Lalitha Tiwari on 10 Mar 2026 – Judgment Summary

Decision

Related Legal Concepts

Deep Dey Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 6 Mar 2026

Calcutta High Court: Stamp Paper Marriage Has No Legal Validity; Bigamy Case Quashed

Decision of the Court

Asish Bera and Ors Vs The State of West Bengal and Anr on 30 Jan 2026

Decision

M/s Jindal Polyster Ltd Vs Rahul Jaura on 18 Oct 2005 – Judgment Summary

Decision

Shailendra Sharma and Ors Vs Indus Residency Pvt Ltd and Ors on 07 Jan 2026

Praveen Kumar Singh Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Feb 2026