Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has laid down the procedure to be follow in Delhi by Police in regards to the CrPC Section 41A.
Amandeep Singh Johar Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 7 February, 2018
Tag: Landmark Case
Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr on 27 March, 2014
In this landmark judgment, a 2-judge Bench of Apex Court has held that a person can approach either High Court of a Sessions Court for a Regular bail under 439 CrPC, instead of exhausting the remedy of approaching the Magistrate Court.
Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr on 27 March, 2014News about this judgment:
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors Vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973
This is the landmark judgment of Supreme Court, where in Hon’ble Justice Hans Raj Khanna has outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution and that only those amendments which tend to affect the ‘basic structure of the Constitution’ are subject to judicial review.
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors Vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973Wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesavananda_Bharati_v._State_of_Kerala
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors Vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 July, 1980
In this landmark judgment from Apex Court, two sections of Article 368 of Constitution of India are struck down as being invalid and unconstitutional, as they are against the basic structure of Constitution.
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors Vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 July, 1980Citation : 1980 AIR 1789, 1981 SCR (1) 206
Indiankanoon.org link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1939993/
Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. & Anr Vs State of Maharashtra on 19 November, 1968
Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. & Anr Vs State of Maharashtra on 19 November, 1968
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti Vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 16 September, 2008
Following questions arise for consideration in this petition filed with Hon’ble Bombay High Court:
“Whether an order passed on an application made under section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) is appelable under section 29 of the said Act?
Whether an appeal will lie under section 29 of the said Act against every order passed by the learned Magistrate in proceedings initiated on the basis of an application made under section 12 of the said Act?
What is the scope of an appeal under section 29 of the said Act?”
From Para 25,
Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti Vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 16 September, 2008Thus, the conclusions which can be summarised are as under:
(i) An appeal will lie under section 29 of the said Act against the final order passed by the learned Magistrate under sub-section 1 of section 12 of the said Act;(ii) Under sub-section 2 of section 23 of the said Act, the learned Magistrate is empowered to grant an ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of sections 18 to 22 of the said Act. The power under sub-section 1 is of granting interim relief in terms of sections 18 to 22 of the said Act. Before granting an interim relief under sub-section 1, an opportunity of being heard is required to be granted to the respondent.
(iii) An appeal will also lie against orders passed under sub section 1 and sub section 2 of the section 23 of the said Act which are passed by the learned Magistrate. However, while dealing with an appeal against the order passed under section 23 of the said Act, the Appellate Court will usually not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the learned Magistrate. The appellate Court will interfere only if it is found that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely or if it is found that the Court has ignored settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interim relief.
(iv) An appeal under section 29 will not be maintainable against purely procedural orders which do not decide or determine the rights and liabilities of the parties.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Kusum Lata Sharma vs State & Anr. on 2 September, 2011
This is the landmark judgment from Delhi High Court which held that “A mother who is being maltreated and harassed by her son would be an “aggrieved person”. If the said harassment is caused through the female relative of the son i.e. his wife, the said female relative will fall within the ambit of the “respondent‟. This phenomenon of the daughters-in-law harassing their mothers-in-law especially who are dependent is not uncommon in the Indian society.”
Kusum Lata Sharma Vs State & Anr. on 2 September, 2011[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Harbans Lal Malik Vs Payal Malik on 29 July, 2010
This is the Delhi High Court judgment from Shri. Shiv Narayan Dhingra, affirming that in a DV case, respondent can be other family member other than husband and are liable for relief mentioned under Monetary Relief u/s 20 of PWDV Act.
Punch Statement:
The girl and the parents of the girl knew it very well that they had selected a person for marriage with whom the girl was going to live abroad and the matrimonial home and the shared household was going to be outside India. This act of marrying a person settled abroad is a voluntary act of the girl. If she had not intended to enjoy the fat salary which boys working abroad get and the material facilities available abroad, she could have refused to marry him and settled for a boy having moderate salary within India. After having chosen a person living abroad, putting the responsibility, after failure of marriage, on the shoulders on his parents and making them criminals in the eyes of law because matrimonial ties between the two could not last for long, does not sound either legally correct or morally correct. How can the parents of a boy who is working abroad, living abroad, an adult, free to take his own decisions, be arrayed as criminals or respondents if the marriage between him and his wife failed due to any reason whatsoever after few years of marriage. If the sin committed by such parents of boy is that they facilitated the marriage, then this sin is equally committed by parents of the girl. If such marriage fails then parents of both bride and groom would have to share equal responsibility. The responsibility of parents of the groom cannot be more. Shelter of Indian culture and joint family cannot be taken to book only relatives of boy. A woman’s shared household in India in such cases is also her parents’ house where she lived before marriage and not her in-laws’ house where she did not live after marriage.
Another one here:
Harbans Lal Malik Vs Payal Malik on 29 July, 2010I am surprised that the Courts below did not give weight to the judgment of New Jersey where parties lived for 7 ½ years but assumed jurisdiction under Domestic Violence Act because of the pure temporary residence (as pleaded by her) of wife in Delhi who is otherwise resident of Hissar. The Court of ASJ wanted that the order of the Court of MM should be honoured by the US while the Court here would not honour a decree of Court of USA where the husband and wife lived for 7 ½ years.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Juveria Abdul Majid Patni Vs Atif Iqbal Mansoori on 18 September, 2014
In this Supreme Court judgment, it was held that
From Para 31, “An act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the Respondent from the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 including monetary relief Under Section 20, Child Custody Under Section 21, Compensation Under Section 22 and interim or ex parte order Under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.“.
Lesson Learnt:
Juveria Abdul Majid Patni Vs Atif Iqbal Mansoori on 18 September, 2014Once an act of domestic violence is done, later on divorce happens, the woman can file DV case even after getting divorce, for the dv acts committed while the marriage was in vogue.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors Vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar
This is the landmark judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court, regarding free legal aid and Right to Speedy Trial.
1 Hussainara Khatoon & Ors Vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar on 12 February, 1979Citation: 1979 AIR 1360, 1979 SCR (3) 169
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1007347/
2 Hussainara Khatoon & Ors Vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar on 9 March, 1979
Citation: 1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1373215/
3 Hussainara Khatoon & Ors Vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar on 19 April, 1979
4 Hussainara Khatoon & Ors Vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar on 4 May, 1979
Citation: 1979 AIR 1819, 1979 SCR (3)1276
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/384639/
5 Hussainara Khatoon & Ors Vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar on 4 August, 1995
Citation: 1995 SCC (5) 326, 1995 SCALE (4)633
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68294832/
Some background about the advocate who fought this case.
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/in-public-interest/
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]