The cunning knife tried to extort money from husband saying he earns in dollars and hence he should pay her interim maintenance under HMA 24 as she just earns in rupees. Hon’ble Delhi High Court has shown the door to the knife.
PS: The husband is working as Vice President in Infineon Technologies at Singapore.
Index of this couple’s cases is here.
Index of Section 24 HMA judgments is here.
In this order from Calcutta High Court(appellate side),
Para 15,
According to the Law Lexicon, Third Edition (2012), the Latin Maxim “Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi” defines that the suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of falsehood. The suppression or failure to disclose what one party is bound to disclose to another, may amount to fraud. Where a person is found to be guilty of suppressio veri suggestio falsi for having concealed material information from scrutiny of the Court, he is not entitled for any equitable relief under order 39 of CPC (5 of 1908). [Arbind Kumar Pal v. Hazi Md. Faizullah Khan, AIR 2007 (NOC) 1035 (Pat) : (2006) 1 BLJR 430].
From Para 25,
I have no hesitation in saying that the doors of justice would be closed for a litigant whose case is based on falsehood or suppression of material facts. Fraud and justice never dwell together. They are alien to each other. Fraud pollutes the sanctity, regularity, orderliness and solemnity of the judicial proceedings. It is the bounden duty of the Court to keep the stream of justice absolutely clean.
Finally, from Para 29,
Before finally pronouncing my decision, I must state that this court, in all fairness gave an opportunity, after hearing and going through the documents produced by the respondents, to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition (with liberty to file afresh with better particulars). However, Mr. Saktipada Jana appearing on behalf of the petitioner, refused and pressed the writ petition unabated. One is reminded of the saying, “you can take a horse to the well, but cannot force it to drink”. In view of the same, I dismiss the writ petition in limine. I am of the view that exemplary costs should be awarded. However, on a compassionate plea made by Mr. Jana, the order as to costs is limited to Rs.5,000/- only, payable to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority, Kolkata, within two weeks from date.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
My Favorite Mr Justice Dalveer Bhandari of Supreme Court of India delivered this judgment. He elaborately destroyed the false pleadings and false pleas made by the Appellate solely for the purpose of dragging on the case. Observe how he cites all his past landmark, reported judgments in this one and sets the stage to expose the appellate thoroughly.
From Para 21,
This case demonstrates widely prevalent state of affairs where litigants raise disputes and cause litigation and then obstruct the progress of the case only because they stand to gain by doing so. It is a matter of common experience that the Court’s otherwise scarce resources are spent in dealing with non-deserving cases and unfortunately those who were waiting in the queue for justice in genuine cases usually suffer. This case is a typical example of delayed administration of civil justice in our Courts. A small suit, where the appellant was directed to be evicted from the premises in 1994, took 17 years before the matter was decided by the High Court. Unscrupulous litigants are encouraged to file frivolous cases to take undue advantage of the judicial system.
From Para 35,
Experience also reveals that our Courts have been very reluctant to grant the actual or realistic costs. We would like to explain this by giving this illustration. When a litigant is compelled to spend Rs.1 lac on a frivolous litigation there is hardly any justification in awarding Rs. 1,000/- as costs unless there are special circumstances of that case.We need to decide cases while keeping pragmatic realities in view. We have to ensure that unscrupulous litigant is not permitted to derive any benefit by abusing the judicial process.
From Para 42,
On the facts of the present case, following principles emerge:
1. It is the bounden duty of the Court to uphold the truth and do justice.
2. Every litigant is expected to state truth before the law court whether it is pleadings, affidavits or evidence. Dishonest and unscrupulous litigants have no place in law courts.
3. The ultimate object of the judicial proceedings is to discern the truth and do justice. It is imperative that pleadings and all other presentations before the court should be truthful.
4. Once the court discovers falsehood, concealment, distortion, obstruction or confusion in pleadings and documents, the court should in addition to full restitution impose appropriate costs. The court must ensure that there is no incentive for wrong doer in the temple of justice. Truth is the foundation of justice and it has to be the common endeavour of all to uphold the truth and no one should be permitted to pollute the stream of justice.
5. It is the bounden obligation of the Court to neutralize any unjust and/or undeserved benefit or advantage obtained
by abusing the judicial process.
6. Watchman, caretaker or a servant employed to look after the property can never acquire interest in the property
irrespective of his long possession. The watchman, caretaker or a servant is under an obligation to hand over the possession forthwith on demand. According to the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, Courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a watchman, caretaker or servant who was only allowed to live into the premises to look after the same.
7. The watchman, caretaker or agent holds the property of the principal only on behalf the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatsoever in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession.
8. The protection of the Court can be granted or extended to the person who has valid subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or licence agreement in his favour.
Let’s begin with the foremost judgment that raised curtain for Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in India, delivered by none other than the Super Judge, Shri Krishnaiyer, V.R.
Hon’ble Delhi High Court had quashed the FIR on parents and relatives in a false case of 498A, 406 IPC.
Citations: [2007 (4) JCC 3074]
Other Source links:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea93be607dba371ebcab91
This is the case in which Supreme Court held that Right to Privacy is a fundamental right as a part of Article 21, overruling M.P. Sharma And Ors. Vs Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi on 15 March 1954.
List of other case laws around Article 21 are here.
Listed below are a reasonably laid-out sequence of events in a Domestic Violence Case filed under PWDV Act, 2005. The rules related to the Act are here.
Note: Take a thorough look at the below infographic to understand the various remedies available for an aggrieved person under this law.
Copyright (c) Holders:
Content: Suprajaa Rajan
Infographic: Padma Priya Jupally #IAmEnough
Other Life Cycles: 498A IPC Case Lifecycle || Maintenance Case u/s 125 CrPC Lifecycle. Index of all life cycles is here. Looking for Domestic Violence case-laws? go here!
Before Entering Into Court
Key Highlights
Focus Areas
After Entering Into Court (APPEARANCE AND FOR COUNTER stages)
Key Highlights
Focus Areas
EXAMINATION Stage
After Written Statement is filed generally, the next stage is the EXAMINATION. Naturally, it would begin examination of the complainant. The Court frames the issues at this Stage of the case. (read O14 R1 of CPC)
Additionally, if the AP filed an application u/s 23 of the PWDV Act seeking interim/ex-parte reliefs, then that application will be picked up by the Court. Scroll down to the relevant section (INTERIM Orders Stage) on this page.
Key Highlights
ARGUMENTS Stage
After completion of examination of Prosecution and Respondent Witnesses and bring on record all the Evidence from both the parties, the Court opens for Arguments Stage.
Key Highlights
JUDGMENT Stage
The Court takes time to draft the judgment with reasons for the decision taken and pronounces the same in the Open Court, in the presence of both the parties. The court passes appropriate order/judgement. The court may decide the matter in three manners.
Next steps
INTERIM Orders Stage
The AP may file an application u/s 23, seeking Interim orders on the available reliefs under this Act. Such interim applications are to be disposed of in summary manner meaning, no evidence is to be taken on record and only the application/written statement/counter and relevant affidavits are the only things that need to be considered. Both parties will be given an opportunity to submit their arguments/hearing, after which the Court will pass an Order.
If such interim orders were obtained by AP by committing the offence of perjury upon the Court, do not hesitate to file an application u/s 340 CrPC in the same Court, right after such judicial order is passed.
Ready Reference:
Key Contributor:
In this landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has given a statutory shape to the CVC and to endow it with wider powers including supervision over Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Indeed the Supreme Court, while giving the said directions had relied upon the report of the Independent Review Committee (IRC) comprising Shri B. G. Deshmukh, former Cabinet Secretary, Shri N. N. Vohra, Principal Secretary to the PM and Shri S. V. Giri, Central Vigilance Commissioner, which Committee was constituted under the Government Order dated 8th September, 1997. The directions of the Supreme Court are quite elaborate and they extend to the appointment, powers and functioning of CVC, CBI and ED all designed to insulate the said institutions from political control and to invest them with good amount of independence coupled with accountability.
Citation: [1998 CRI LJ 1208], [1997 SUPREME 10 476], [1998 SLT 1 518], [1997 SCALE 7 656], [1996 AWC SC 1 465], [1998 CRLJ 104 1208], [1998 CCR 1 190], [1998 AIR SC 889], [1998 AIR SC 645], [1998 SCC CR 307], [1998 SCC 1 226], [1997 JT SC 10 247], [1998 CRIMES 1 12], [1997 SUPP SCR 6 595], [1998 GLT 1 11], [1998 RCR CRIMINAL 1 357], [1998 SCC CRI 307]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1203995/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad17e4b0149711410838#7
Bad Behavior has blocked 297 access attempts in the last 7 days.
