Citations :
Other Sources :
Tag: 1-Judge Bench Decision
S.Martin Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Police on 21 Feb 2014
A single judge of Madras HC held as follows.
From Para 46,
46.For the foregoing discussions, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Further, this Court directs the Petitioner/A2 to co-operate with the Investigating Agency in respect of Crime No.304 of 2012 by joining the investigation and to make his appearance before the Investigating Officer. After completion of the investigation, the concerned Investigating Agency is to file a charge sheet before the concerned Court in the manner known to law and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible (since the LOC cannot be issued periodically for a indefinite period and issuance of the same cannot hang on like a Damocle’s Sword on a Person’s Head). As and when the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed, it is open to the Petitioner/A2 either to seek the aid of Authority/Officer (based on the request made by the concerned authority), who ordered
the issuance of LOC or the trial Court where a case is pending or having jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station relating to the cancellation of LOC, (provided it is in force and alive), by filing necessary petition in accordance with law. Also that, the LOC can be withdrawn by the authorities concerned, who issued the same. Indeed, the Criminal Court’s jurisdiction in cancelling LOC or affirming the same is quite in tune with the jurisdiction of cancellation of Non Bailable Warrant. Also, it is open to the Petitioner/A2 to seek permission of the trial Court by projecting necessary petition for proceeding abroad setting out necessary details/particulars, like places to which he intends visiting/ travelling, the addresses of the places where he would be staying or residing and the duration, the object of visit/travel etc., if so advised. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31460970/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e4104a93261a672d99d2
Index of judgments about Look Out Circular Notices is here.
Gattupalli Ujwal Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 30 Oct 2019
Single bench of AP High Court held as follows based on Sumer Salkan decision here.
In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, issue of red corner notice against the family members of the husband of the victim of an offence punishable under Section 498- A of I.P.C is quashed. However, the Apex Court and the other courts laid down certain guidelines as to when such a red corner notice is to be issued. Based on the guidelines, issued in Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director and others1, the Delhi High Court observed as follows:
The questions are answered as under:
A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest.
B. The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs, giving details & reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect.
C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by appearing before I.O. Or should surrender before the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC & explain that LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial Court where case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28103125/
Index of judgments about Look Out Circular Notices is here.
Manoj Kumar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 17 Mar 2018
A District Court in Delhi passed this detailed Judgment, relying on earlier Madras HC judgment here.
From Para 7,
At this juncture, reference may be made to Saleem P.A. etc. v. State reported as (1994) 2 LW (Crl.) 402, which is relevant for the present purpose. Paragraph 24 thereof is reproduced as under:
“ 24. In view of the discussion as above, the following positions emerge:
1. Issuance of a warrant of arrest by a Court under the Code shall remain in force beyond the date fixed for its return, until it is cancelled or executed.
2. Since the court, which issued the warrant has the power to cancel it, it is but necessary for the person against whom a warrant of arrest had been issued to approach the said Court, by his personal appearance, for its cancellation, which issued it.
3. Once a person accused of an offence against whom a warrant of arrest had been issued makes his personal appearance, with a petition for its cancellation, before the Court, which issued it, it behaves on its part not to take him into custody and send him to prison immediately after his appearance, but to pass an order on such petition, forthwith, without brooking any sort of a delay and if the order so passed ends in his favour, he
shall be bound over to appear before court on an earliest date fixed for hearing on trial, as the case may be, or otherwise, he could be taken into custody forthwith and sent to prison, with a direction to the prison authorities for his production before court on the earliest date fixed for such hearing or trial is over, so as to enable it to proceed, with ease and grace, and without any obstruction whatever, thereby not affecting in the least his right to speedy trial, a goal to be achieved, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, or on his application, being presented, release him on bail, on his executing a bond for a specified sum, with sufficient number of sureties, for such sum to secure his appearance on the dates fixed for hearing or trial, as the case may be.
4. However, a person aggrieved by an order of refusal of the cancellation by a Magistrate, who issued the same, can further agitate the same, if he so desires, by filing a revision, either under Section 397 or 401 of the Code, and then resort to invoke the inherent power of this court under Section 482 of the Code, if grounds for resortment to such a course existed (emphasis supplied).”
In the light of above discussion, it is clear that the present revision petition is maintainable.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/108983018/
NBW judgments here.
Dr.XXXXX Vs Dr.XXXXX on 03 Mar 2022
After filing divorce petition in 2013 by husband, it took 9 years for the both parties to bury the issues and come for compromise. So, Who won? The ecosystem, which looted lakhs of rupees.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66228067/
Dr.XXXXX Vs Dr.XXXXX on 24 Mar 2016
After wasting opportunities given, the knife moved an application to file Counter but husband opposed it at Karnataka High Court.
From Paras 3-6,
4. However, insofar as the position of law as to whether the opportunity to file the objection statement can be granted subsequent to the expiry of the period as provided under Order 8, Rule 1 of CPC has in fact been stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein, it is held that it is only directory and not mandatory. The said decision in Salem Advocate Bar Association -vs- Union of India has also been referred to by the Court below.
From Para 5, (Pass an ex-parte order, what are you waiting for?)
5. In the instant case, though the petitioner contends that the respondent has not putforth any justifiable reasons seeking such opportunity, what cannot be lost sight is that the instant case is a matrimonial dispute where personal allegations would be made by the parties. If that be so, unless such personal allegations as made are controverted and thereafter evidence is available before the Court below, the Court in any event cannot come to an appropriate conclusion. Therefore, if in that light, when it is seen that the petition filed by the petitioner is for annulment of the marriage under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it is more so that the petition averments would have to be controverted and thereafter a conclusion is to be reached. Therefore, in that circumstance, in any event, the Court below was justified in allowing the application and taking on record the objection statement.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/135443264/
Index here.
Shivanand Gurannavar Vs Basavva on 17 Feb 2022
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://www.latestlaws.com/case-analysis/hc-maintenance-granted-u-s-12-of-dv-act-cannot-be-enhanced-u-s-127-cr-p-c-read-order
https://indianlawwatch.com/maintenance-granted-under-dv-act-cannot-be-subjected-to-enhancement-under-s-125-crpc-karnataka-high-court/
Gayatri alias Gadigevva Vs Vijay Hadimani on 03 Dec 2021
A Single judge of Karnataka High Court (Dharwad bench) held as thus…
(If it feels like biased/pre-judged, I too felt the same)
20. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the following issue arises for consideration in this writ petition. Whether, it is permissible for a Family Court to summon the medical records of a spouse on the request of the other spouse, especially when it pertained to records relating to any procedures relating to the reproductive choices of the spouse?
Illogical Reasoning of the Court:
22. Regulation 7.14 of the Regulation, 2002, upon which, reliance was placed is a reflection of this declaration. The said regulation reads as follows : 7.14. The registered medical practitioner shall not disclose the secrets of a patient that have been learnt in the exercise of his/her profession except
i) in a court of law under orders of the Presiding Judge;
ii) in circumstances where there is a serious and identified risk to a specific person and / or community ; and
iii) notifiable diseases. In case of communicable / notifiable diseases, concerned public health authorities should be informed immediately.23. As could be seen in Regulation 7.14 of the Regulations, 2002, there is an absolute embargo on the medical practitioner from disclosing the secrets of a patient that comes within the knowledge of the medical practitioner during the discharge of his professional duties.
24. To this embargo, however, there are three exceptions. The first exception, with which we are concerned, is when a presiding Judge passes an order calling upon the medical practitioner to divulge a secret that he is aware of regarding his patient. Thus, unless there is a specific order of a Judge presiding over a Court of law, no medical practitioner can disclose the secrets that he has become privy to during the discharge of his professional duties.
25. Merely because a Court of law possesses that power to direct the medical practitioner to divulge a secret confided with a medical practitioner, that power would not and should not be exercised merely for the asking or routinely. The power to direct a medical practitioner to act in violation of his declaration should be exercised only for strong and compelling reasons and would be more or less be exercised only when an element of public interest was involved.
26. The Courts, therefore, cannot direct medical practitioners to disclose the secrets that they are privy to Divorce proceeding, by their very nature, is adversarial and more often than not a bitter and acrimonious battle, at times initiated to tarnish the reputation of the warring spouse. Thus, the power of the Court to direct the medical practitioners to divulge secrets that are confided to them should be exercised very sparingly and only for exceptional reasons.
27. In order to get over the bar imposed on the medical practitioners to disclose the secrets of the patients to which they are privy, the Courts should not be asked to exercise their power to secure medical records. If this is permitted, it would mean the Medical practitioner is required to divulge the secrets that the patient has disclosed to him contrary to his professional ethics only because an adversary in litigation wishes to use it to non-suit the other.
28. It is to be kept in mind that the medical records of an individual are very private and are not for public consumption. If the medical record of a person is private to him, a direction to his medical practitioner to produce the medical records or divulge any secret that he is privy to it would essentially amount to infringing the fundamental right of privacy guaranteed to an individual, which emanates from the Right to Life granted under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
Conclusions:
40. The Doctor, even if summoned, cannot by the production of medical records, assist the Court in concluding as to whether the wife had voluntary sexual intercourse with a person other than the husband. If the husband can prove that he had no access to his and if he can establish that his wife had or was having any illicit sexual relationship with another person, the same will have to be established by appropriate evidence as provided under the Evidence Act.
41. In any event, the illicit relationship of a spouse cannot be proved by securing his or her private medical records. In fact, if this approach is to be accepted, it would amount to the destruction of the entire concept of Doctor and patient confidentiality and also drag the Doctor into a marital dispute.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54113030/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/61c2b9899fca1942b75d83b1
https://www.lawyerservices.in/Gayatri–Gadigevva-Versus-Vijay-2021-12-03
Lower Family Court Divorce Case details:
(: KADW03-000434-2017)
Related News:
Jan 3, 2022, 05:05 IST
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/medical-records-private-cant-be-used-to-prove-adultery-karnataka-hc/articleshow/88655481.cms
Jan 3, 2022, 05:36 IST
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/cant-use-medical-records-to-prove-spouses-relationship-dharwad-bench-of-karnataka-hc/articleshow/88655662.cms
Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022
A single judge of Karnataka High Court upheld the law the way it is.
From Para 5,
5. The application is filed admittedly invoking Section 12 of the Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act reads as follows:
“12. Application to Magistrate.-
(5) The Magistrate shall Endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.”
Sub-section (5) mandates that every application filed under the Act shall be disposed of by the Court within six months from the date of its presentation. The order sheet reveals that the application was filed on 12-11-2021 seeking maintenance. Six months have passed by. The order sheet does not demonstrate any consideration of the application. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus at the hands of this Court or a direction to the learned Magistrate to dispose of the application for maintenance expeditiously.
Connects to a PIL here.
