In this judgment from Apex Court, Hon’ble Bench has, in detail, explained the procedure before framing charges and the discharge procedure thereof.
Tag: Legal Procedure Explained – Interpretation of Statutes
Poongadi And Anr Vs Thangavel on 27 September, 2013
Hon’ble Apex Court in this judgment re-iterated that the imprisonment for a monthly maintenance payment failure is 1 single month, for each violation.
From Para 6,
6. In another decision of this Court in Shantha v. B.G Shivananjappa 2005 4 SCC 468 it has been held that the liability to pay maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is in the nature of a continuing liability. The nature of the right to receive maintenance and the concomitant liability to pay was also noticed in a decision of this Court in Shahada Khatoon v. Amjad Ali 1999 5 SCC 672. Though in a slightly different context, the remedy to approach the court by means of successive applications under Section 125(3) CrPC highlighting the subsequent defaults in payment of maintenance was acknowledged by this Court in Shahada Khatoon.
From Para 8,
8. In view of the above, we are left in no doubt that the order passed by the High Court needs to be interfered with by us which we accordingly do. The order dated 21-4-2004 of the High Court is set aside and we now issue directions to the respondent to pay the entire arrears of maintenance due to the appellants commencing from the date of filing of the maintenance petition (MC No. 1 of 1993) i.e 4-2-1993 within a period of six months and current maintenance commencing from the month of September 2013 payable on or before 7-10-2013 and thereafter continue to pay the monthly maintenance on or before the 7th of each successive month. If the above order of this Court is not complied with by the respondent, the learned trial court is directed to issue a warrant for the arrest of the respondent and ensure that the same is executed and the respondent taken into custody to suffer imprisonment as provided by Section 125(3) CrPC.
Citations : [2013 SCR 9 862], [2013 AIR BOMR 6 775], [2013 SLT 8 113], [2013 SCALE 12 186], [2013 CRIMES SC 4 371], [2013 AIR SC 5764], [2014 AIR SC 24], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 794], [2013 CRLJ SC 5006], [2014 SCC CRI 1 361], [2013 SCC 10 618], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 504], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 4 701], [2013 AIOL 65], [12013 SUPREME 7 254], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 893], [2013 GUJ LH 3 363], [2013 CTC 6 338], [2013 AIC 131 58], [2014 ECRN 1 720], [2014 AD SC 7 511], [2013 ALLCC 83 973], [2014 ALT CRL AP 1 299], [2013 DMC 3 460], [2014 GLR SC 3 2005], [2013 JLJR 4 575], [2014 LW CRL 1 69], [2013 NCC 2 840], [2014 PLJR 1 52], [2014 SCJ 1 797], [2013 AIR SCW 5764]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5626322/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2de4b0149711415baa
Index of maintenance cases under sec 125 CrPC are here.
Laljee Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011
This is a wonderful judgment explaining the imprisonment of accused who fails to make the maintenance payments to Knife under Sec 125(3) of CrPC.
Noticing the peculiar situation where virtually the petitioner has been made to serve life sentence and the insensitivity of the Judge in the matter, we called for the lower Court records to examine for ourselves the facts because if what is being said by the Principal Judge, Family Court is to be accepted then the petitioner would virtually be serving a life sentence with no remission possible.
What is more scandalous is, as will be shown, petitioner has been kept in prison mechanically and that too for months even without any order of remand by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court.
The Code itself provides by Section 421 for warrant for levy of fine….
… A reference to Section 421 and the proviso would show that it clearly prohibits a person to be imprisoned in execution of warrant levying fine which would simply for recovery of the maintenance and, thus, there is no scope for issuance of any distress warrant for detaining a defaulter husband.
For the purposes of sentencing, the Code has provision in terms of Sections 29 and 30 thereof but the question remains that can there be a sentence straightway upon default being shown. In our view, no.
Unfortunately, in total disregard to the binding precedent, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court proceeded. The result is that the petitioner is being detained in custody ad infinitum which is against the statutory provisions.
Again, this is significant inasmuch as the maintenance being a monthly payment, for each month’s default, defaulter can be sentenced for a month’s imprisonment.
As seen above, the maintenance is to be fixed on monthly basis. The sentence has, accordingly, been limited to a month maximum for each breach.
We, therefore, hold that the detention of the petitioner cannot be justified and is contrary to the scheme as provided under Section 125 (3) of the Code. We have no option accordingly but to direct the immediate release of the petitioner, while quashing the order committing the petitioner to custody and subsequent orders of remand. The writ application is allowed.
Bobbili Ramakrishna Raju Yadav Vs State of AP Rep. By Its Public on 19 January, 2016
A key legal point enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this judgment.
In Para 13,
Giving of dowry and the traditional presents at or about the time of wedding does not in any way raise a presumption that such a property was thereby entrusted and put under the dominion of the parents-in-law of the bride or other close relations so as to attract ingredients of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Geeta Mehrotra and Anr Vs State Of U.P. and Anr on 17 October, 2012
This is a popular quash judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of IPC 498A, IPC 504, IPC 506 and 3 & 4 of DP Act.
The grounds on which quash is done are
- No territorial jurisdiction
- No specific allegations on accused
- No justification for delay of 7 years in filing complaint
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125470413/
Citations: [(2012) 10 SCC 741]
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
Banti And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 August, 2012
This is a interesting judgment from Allahabad High court where the Hon’ble Judge has, in detail, elaborated the procedure of application of discharge and various allied aspects such as CrPC 239, CrPC 244, CrPC 245 and CrPC 246.
K.Srinivas Vs K.Sunita on 19 November, 2014
Wonderful judgment from the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby it is declared that filing a false complaint by Knife on husband and his family constitutes cruelty and this is sufficient ground a marriage can be dissolved.
The prosecution tried these tactics to counter the appeal from Husband
- if a specific finding regarding the falsity of the criminal complaint was returned
- if the Complainant or a witness on her behalf had committed perjury or had recorded a contradictory or incredible testimony
- it is not possible to label the wife’s criminal complaint detailed above as a false or a vindictive action. In other words, the acquittal of the Appellant and his family members in the criminal complaint does not by itself, automatically and justifiably, lead to the conclusion that the complaint was false
- the investigation may have been faulty
- the prosecution may have been so careless as to lead to the acquittal, but the acquittal would not always indicate that the Complainant had intentionally filed a false case
Hon’ble two-judge bench has destroyed this angle in Para 5.
The Respondent-Wife has admitted in her cross-examination that she did not mention all the incidents on which her Complaint is predicated, in her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. It is not her case that she had actually narrated all these facts to the Investigating Officer, but that he had neglected to mention them. This, it seems to us, is clearly indicative of the fact that the criminal complaint was a contrived afterthought. We affirm the view of the High Court that the criminal complaint was “ill advised”.
Final nail in the coffin:
Prosecution: the filing of the criminal complaint has not been pleaded in the petition itself by Husband
Supreme Court: the criminal complaint was filed by the wife after filing of the husband’s divorce petition, and being subsequent events could have been looked into by the Court.
This is also called as Counter blast.
In Para 7,
We unequivocally find that the Respondent-Wife had filed a false criminal complaint, and even one such complaint is sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty.
Citations: [2014 SUPREME 8 36], [2015 JLJR SC 1 114], [2014 JT 13 8], [2015 SCC CRI 3 400], [2015 RCR CIVIL SC 1 38], [2014 AIOL 702], [2015 ALLCC 90 808], [2015 ALLMR SC 2 435], [2015 ALR 108 742], [2015 AWC SC 1 80], [2015 SCSUPPL CHN 1 233], [2015 LW 4 671], [2015 OLR 1 267], [2015 PLJR 1 126], [2015 PLR 179 435], [2014 SCC 16 34], [2015 SCC CIV 3 415], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 915], [2015 AIC 146 107]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175889126/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5767b12be691cb22da6d57e4
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007
This judgment from a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Dalveer Bhandari has enumerated some of the illustrations of mental cruelty citing Judgments of England, America, Canada and Australia.
Intro
The appellant and the respondent are senior officials of the Indian Administrative Service, The respondent was a divorcee and had a female child from her first marriage. The custody of the said child was given to her by the District Court of Patna where the respondent had obtained a decree of divorce against her first husband, Debashish Gupta, who was also an I.A.S. officer. The respondent’s first husband, Debashish Gupta filed a belated appeal against the decree of divorce obtained by her from the District Court of Patna. Therefore, during the pendency of the appeal, she literally persuaded the appellant to agree to the marriage immediately so that the appeal of Debashish Gupta may become infructuous.
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.12.1984.
… In these circumstances, the appellant has prayed that it would not be possible to continue the marriage with the respondent and he eventually filed a suit for the grant of divorce. In the suit for divorce filed by the appellant in Alipur, Calcutta, the respondent filed her written statement and denied the averments. The learned Additional District Judge came to the finding that the appellant has succeeded in proving the case of mental cruelty against the respondent, therefore, the decree was granted by the order dated 19.12.1996 and the marriage between the parties was dissolved.
The Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment dated 20.5.2003 reversed the judgment of the Additional District Judge on the ground that the appellant has not been able to prove the allegation of mental cruelty.
Key Points
Such a vital decision cannot be taken unilaterally after marriage by the respondent and if taken unilaterally, it may amount to mental cruelty to the appellant.
The finding of the High Court that the appellant started living with the respondent amounted to condonation of the act of cruelty is unsustainable in law.
The finding of the High Court that the respondent’s refusal to cook food for the appellant could not amount to mental cruelty as she had to go to office, is not sustainable….. The question was not of cooking food, but wife’s cooking food only for herself and not for the husband would be a clear instance of causing annoyance which may lead to mental cruelty.
The High Court’s finding that the husband and wife might be sleeping in separate rooms did not lead to a conclusion that they did not cohabit and to justify this by saying that the respondent was highly educated and holding a high post was entirely unsustainable. Once the respondent accepted to become the wife of the appellant, she had to respect the marital bond and discharge obligations of marital life.
During illness, particularly in a nuclear family, the husband normally looks after and supports his wife and similarly, he would expect the same from her. The respondent’s total indifference and neglect of the appellant during his illness would certainly lead to great annoyance leading to mental cruelty.
The credibility of the witness does not depend upon his financial standing or social status only. A witness which is natural and truthful should be accepted irrespective of his/her financial standing or social status.
… the appellant and the respondent have been living separately for more than sixteen and half years (since 27.8.1990). The entire substratum of the marriage has already disappeared. During this long period, the parties did not spend a single minute together. The appellant had undergone bye-pass surgery even then the respondent did not bother to enquire about his health even on telephone. Now the parties have no feelings and emotions towards each other.
Mental Cruelty Guidelines
No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of ‘mental cruelty’. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive.
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.
Citations : [2007 SCC 4 511], [2007 SUPREME 3 26], [2007 JT 5 569], [2007 CTC 3 464], [2007 BLJR 2 1047], [2007 RCR CIVIL 2 595], [2007 RAJ 2 177], [2007 ALD SC 4 11], [2007 ALL SCR 0 881], [2007 SCALE 5 1], [2007 SCC 4 411], [2007 SLJ SC 2 705], [2007 ALT 3 62], [2007 DMC 1 597], [2007 SCJ 3 253], [2007 WBLR 3 525], [2007 GHJ 16 204], [2007 KERLT 2 55], [2007 RAJLW 2 1357], [2007 AWC 5 4820], [2007 CLT 2 72], [2007 JCIVC 2 1028], [2007 SLT 4 76], [2007 AIOL 339], [2007 BOMCR SC 6 834], [2007 SCR 4 428], [2007 GUJ LR 2 1520], [2007 MADLJ 2 1185]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/766894/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae45e4b01497114135d2
The index page is here.
Bharat Hegde Vs Saroj Hegde on 24 Apr 2007
Another Key Judgement from Delhi High Court elucidating the judicial principles required to be applied while deciding an Interim Maintenance application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
This is a case involving the son of Ex CM of Karnataka State of India, Mr. Rama Krishna Hegde.
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act goes a step further inasmuch as it permits maintenance to be claimed by the husband even against the wife.
It should not expose the non applicant to unjust contempt or other coercive proceedings. On the other hand, maintenance should not be so low so as to make the order meaningless.
Tax avoidance is the norm. Tax compliance is the exception in this country. Therefore, in determining interim maintenance, there cannot be mathematical exactitude.
The 11 factors for consideration are:
1. Status of the parties.
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.
3. The independent income and property of the claimant.
4. The number of persons, the non applicant has to maintain.
5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar life style as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
6. Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any.
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant.
8. Payment capacity of the non applicant.
9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed.
10. The non applicant to defray the cost of litigation.
11. The amount awarded u/s. 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded u/s. 24 of the Act.”
If the capital asset is an industrial property, a coffee plantation, an orchard or any other agricultural holding, there would be a presumption that the said capital asset is yielding some income. It is not presumed to be a dead asset.
But where the law requires a Judge to form an opinion based on a host of primary data, a Judge can formulate an opinion pertaining to the likely income from the capital assets of the husband.
It is a well recognized principle of law that where a person withholds vital information, a presumption arises against him that had he disclosed the information, the same would have been adverse to him.
Citations : 140 (2007) DLT 16
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/260066/
G.Chilakamma Vs G.Sattaiah on 20 February, 2003
Here is a AP High Court judgment aligning to the principle of fixing 1/3rd of Salary as Maintenance as well as Monthly Interim Maintenance under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
“…finding had been recorded even by the appellate Court that the principle of 1/3rd salary can be taken as the basis for fixing the quantum. Hence, in this view of the matter, the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance granting Rs. 800/- per month are liable to be restored.
The reasons why the difference of amount had been granted for the said period and the subsequent period, had not been recorded. it would be just and reasonable to grant the same quantum of maintenance of Rs. 800/- during the period of pendency of the suit also.
Citation : 2003 (4) ALD 219, 2003 (5) ALT 354
Indiankanoon.org link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/232227/
