Another BS judgment here. Don’t want to write anything about it. Help yourself.
Tirumalasetty Jyothirmayi Vs Peddisetty Venkata Siva Sai Ram on 20 April, 2017
Another BS judgment here. Don’t want to write anything about it. Help yourself.
Tirumalasetty Jyothirmayi Vs Peddisetty Venkata Siva Sai Ram on 20 April, 2017
The Knife eyed share in houses and in lands of In Laws via this DV Case. Since maintenance was already granted in CrPC 125 case, no maintenance was granted in DVC. As there are no specific allegations of DV on respondent and also incidentally they got acquittal from the 498A case, no protection order was also issued.
Ballikurava Kiranmayi Vs Ballikurava Anjaneyulu on 5 May, 2015
Gujarat High Court has held that as no source of funds could be proved from which Dowry amount is given to accused, the accused are acquitted from Dowry allegations and there by IPC 498A is not made out.
Shobhnaben Vs Shekhar on 2 December, 2010
A Significant omission in the witness statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C amounted to a contradiction and resulted in acquittal of accused in this Supreme Court case under IPC 498A.
Explanation to Section 162 of the Cr.P.C.
Explanation. – An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact.”
Here is the Clincher…
A bare reading of this Explanation would reveal that if a significant omission is made in the statement of a witness recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the same may amount to a contradiction and that whether it so amounts is a question of fact in each case.
Subhash Vs State Of Haryana on 16 December, 2010
In this Delhi High Court judgment, Justice V.K.Jain has held that Money Demanded after marriage are not in connection of Marriage.
Hans Raj Sharma & Ors. Vs State Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 2 March, 2010
Wonderful judgment from High Court of Himachal Pradesh where the Husband was acquitted from IPC 498A for following reasons
Ramesh Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 11 April, 2017
This judgment from Supreme Court of India revisits the evidences submitted at the trial court stage and overturns the conviction under 498A due to no material evidence in regards to cruelty under the statutes of IPC 498A.
Key point on delay in filing the complaint
Manju Ram Kalita vs State Of Assam on 29 May, 2009The complaint of cruelty was lodged by filing an FIR on 23.5.1997 i.e. after four years of leaving the matrimonial home. More so, the mental or physical torture was not continuous on the part of the appellant as there is no complaint against him between 1993 to 1997 i.e. leaving the matrimonial home by the wife and performing the second marriage by the husband.
Here are list of judgments where husband and/or his family and relatives acquitted from False Criminal Matrimonial Cases. These are the so called Success Stories. Hope it helps.
Bombay High Court:
MASTER SITEMAP here.
A hyper sensitive Knife killed herself by hanging. And so Hon’ble Justice of Bombay High Court said,
Para 10,
Prima facie, this discloses hyper sensitivity of a wife, and ordinary petulance and discord in matrimonial life. Prima facie, this incident cannot be said to satisfy the requirement of ingredients of offence of cruelty defined in Section 498A of the IPC.
Similarly, for making out an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, what is required to be proved is mens rea. Without knowledge and intention, there cannot be an abetment. There must be some active suggestion or stimulation by accused persons to the victim.
Neeraj Subhash Mehta vs. The State of Maharashtra on 13, January 2017
This is a landmark judgment from Hon’Ble Delhi High Court based on which recent Landmark Rajesh Sharma Judgment is delivered issuing guidelines in regards to heavy misuse is matrimonial cases.
Operating portion of judgment:
Savitri Devi vs Ramesh Chand And Ors. on 19 May, 2003Para 19,
Only allegation against the respondents is that they did not like the clothes brought by the petitioner as customary gifts for relatives of the husband. One of the sisters-in-law remarked that had the marriage taken place with her sister, more dowry would have been received. These allegations when tested on the anvil of aforesaid tests, do not make out a case of either `cruelty’ or `harassment’ as contemplated by section 498A IPC.
Non-acceptance of gifts might have hurt her feelings and other remarks might have been unkindly and incisive but by no stretch of imagination, such a conduct involves any of the ingredients of either offence under section 498A IPC or 406 IPC.
Neither such an act nor conduct has the effect of driving the woman to commit suicide nor of causing grave injury nor is likely to cause danger to life or limb nor did it amount to tormenting her either physically or mentally to compel or force her or her relatives to fulfill the demands of any property or valuable security.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is highly misconceived and is being used as a tool to hold the entire household to ransom and jeopardy. Petition is dismissed.
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 239 are here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 1607 access attempts in the last 7 days.