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.
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.”
From Paras 9 and 10,
9. As a matter of fact, para ‘4(i)’ clarifies that even those women who are sisters, widows, mothers, single woman or living with the abuser are entitled to legal protection under the proposed legislation. 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.
10. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, para ‘4’ of the Statement of Objects and Reasons cannot be stated to have excluded a female relative of the male partner or a respondent and thus, a mother-in-law being an “aggrieved person” can file a complaint against the daughter-in-law as a respondent.
Citations : [2011 DMC 3 1], [2011 CRIMES 4 548], [2011 DLT 181 775], [2011 DRJ 126 298], [2011 ILR SUPP DELHI 4 435], [2012 RCR CRIMINAL 1 924], [2011 SCC ONLINE DEL 3710], [2011 AIC 106 846], [2011 AD DELHI 6 576]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1272794/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090db1e4b014971117a40b
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:
I 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.
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:
Once 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.
This is the landmark judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court, regarding free legal aid and Right to Speedy Trial.
Citation: 1979 AIR 1360, 1979 SCR (3) 169
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1007347/
Citation: 1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1373215/
Citation: 1979 AIR 1819, 1979 SCR (3)1276
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/384639/
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/
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
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
A landmark case wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “There is warrant for proposition that even if, evidence is illegally obtained it is admissible. Over a century ago it was said in an English case where a constable searched the appellant illegally and found a quantity of offending article in his pocket that it would be a dangerous obstacle to the administration of justice if it were held, because evidence was obtained by illegal means, it could not be used against a party charged with an offence. See Jones v. Owen“.
Facts of Case:
R.M.Malkani was at the crucial time the Coroner of Bombay. The evidence is that the patient died on 13 May, 1964. Dr. Motwani saw the appellant on 3 October, 1964. The appellant demanded Rs. 20,000. The appellant asked for payment of Rs. 20,000 in order that Dr. Adatia would avoid inconvenience and publicity in newspapers in case inquest was held. Dr. Motwani informed Dr. Adatia about the conversation with the appellant. On 4 October, 1964 the appellant rang up Dr. Motwani and said that he was willing to reduce the amount to Rs. 10,000. On 5 October, 1964 Dr. Adatia received calls from the appellant asking him to attend the Coroner’s Court on 6 October, 1964. Dr. Adatia got in touch with Dr. Motwani on 6 October and gave him that message. Dr. Adatia rang up the appellant on 6 October and asked for adjournment. The appellant granted the adjournment to 7 October. On 6 October there were two calls from the appellant asking Dr. Adatia to attend the Coroner’s Court on 7 October and also that Dr. Adatia should contact the appellant on 6 October. Dr. Motwani rang up the appellant and told him that the telephonic conversation had upset Dr. Adatia. On 6 October Dr. Motwani conveyed to Mugwe, Director of Intelligence Bureau about the demand of bribe to the appellant.
Punch Line:
There is no violation of section 25 of the Telegraph Act in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is warrant for proposition that even if, evidence is illegally obtained it is admissible. Over a century ago it was said in an English case where a constable searched the appellant illegally and found a quantity of offending article in his pocket that it would be a dangerous obstacle to the administration of justice if it were held, because evidence was obtained by illegal means, it could not be used against a party charged with an offence. See Jones v. Owen.
The Court will take care in two directions in admitting such evidence. First, the Court will find out that it is genuine and free from tampering or mutilation. Secondly, the Court may also secures scrupulous conduct and behaviour on behalf of the Police. The reason is that the Police Officer is more likely to behave properly if improperly obtained evidence is liable to be viewed with care and caution by the Judge. In every case the position of the accused, the nature of the investigation and the gravity of the offence must be judged in the light of the material facts and the Surrounding circumstances.
When a Court permits a tape recording to be played over it is acting on real evidence if it treats the intonation of the words to be relevant and genuine. The fact that tape recorded conversation can be altered is also borne in mind by the Court while admitting it in evidence.
Citations : [1973 AIR SC 157], [1973 MHLJ 92], [1973 MPLJ SC 224], [1973 SCC 1 471], [1973 SCC CRI 399], [1973 SCR 2 417], [1973 KHC 0 469], [1973 CAR 31], [1973 CRLJ SC 228]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1179783/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab7fe4b014971140ca8e
This is the landmark judgment, it was held that when a second complaint on same facts but fresh evidence is filed it can be entertained.
[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”]
In this landmark case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has struck down the following laws as being violative of Constitutional rights of Citizens.
Citation: [(2015) 5 SCC 1], [2015 COMPLJ SC 2 143], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 248], [2015 AIR SC 1523], [2015 DLT 218 370], [2015 KLJ 2 292], [2015 KERLT 2 1], [2015 KLT 2 1]
Other Sources : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b244e561097e45a4e264
In this landmark judgment bu Hon’ble Apex Court, it was held that even prisoners has right to free legal aid. It was a terrible act of a jail warder, who practiced torture and sustained serious anal injury because a rod was driven into that aperture to inflict inhuman torture and that as the bleeding had not stopped, he was removed to the jail hospital and later to the Irvin Hospital.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
PATHAK, R.S.
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
citations: 1980 AIR 1579, 1980 SCR (2) 557
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/778810/
[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”]
Bad Behavior has blocked 297 access attempts in the last 7 days.
