Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee Vs State of West Bengal on 19 September, 2019

Weird logic being paraded by Supreme Court here. Take a look.

No doubt, as urged by Mr. Debal Banerjee, explanation II to Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by deeming fiction includes a divorced woman to be a wife and,
therefore, a woman who has been divorced by her husband can still claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The question is how we should read the provisions of sub-section (4) in this regard, especially when we deal with those women, against whom a decree for divorce has been obtained on the ground that they have deserted their husband. Once the relationship of marriage comes to an end, the woman obviously is not under any obligation to live with her former husband. The deeming fiction of the divorced wife being treated as a wife can only be read for the limited purpose for grant of maintenance and the deeming fiction cannot be stretched to the illogical extent that the divorced wife is under a compulsion to live with the ex-husband. The husband cannot urge that he can divorce his wife on the ground that she has deserted him and then deny maintenance which should otherwise be payable to her on the ground that even after divorce she is not willing to live with him. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention of Mr. Debal Banerjee.

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/166418855/

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

Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union of India on 6 September, 2018

Posted on December 18, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

IPC 377 – unnatural offences was struck down as Unconstitutional by Supreme Court.

Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union of India on 6 September, 2018

Citations: [(2018) 10 SCC 1], [2018 SCC OnLine SC 1350],

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168671544/

People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Anr Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 23 September, 2014

Posted on December 6, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Anr Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 23 September, 2014

Hooghly Mills Company Ltd Vs State of West Bengal on 17 October, 2019

Posted on October 20, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Apex Court held that, a High Court can quash even an interlocutory order under section 482 CrPC.

From Para 11,

11. Coming to the final issue, Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. provides that the High Court’s powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. Whereas Section 482 of the Cr.P.C provides that nothing in the Cr.P.C will limit the High Court’s inherent powers to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. Hence the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 to set aside an interlocutory order, notwithstanding the bar under Section 397(2). However it is settled law that this can only be done in exceptional cases. This is, for example, where a criminal proceeding has been initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction (See Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551).

Hooghly Mills Company Ltd Vs State of West Bengal on 17 October, 2019

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org link:

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

Seema Vs Ashwani Kumar case

Posted on September 22, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

This Transfer Petition at Supreme Court led to the directions to States and Union Territories to make registration of marriages compulsory in India. The following are the key Orders.

On 14 February 2006, Directions given to States and Union Territories to make registration of marriages compulsory in India

Seema Vs Ashwani Kumar on 14 February, 2006

On 25 October 2007, further directions were issued.

“The directions given by the order dated 24.2.2006 have not been fully complied with. We, therefore, direct that the States and Union Territories who have not acted in line with the directions given on 14.2.2006 shall forthwith do it and in no case later than three months from today.“

Seema Vs Ashwani Kumar on 25 October, 2007

On 9 July 2008, again Apex Court gave 4 months time to comply with directions.

“Let all the States and Union Territories who have not given specific details, file affidavits within four months from today.“

Seema Vs Ashwani Kumar on 9 July, 2008

On 1 May 2019, Office Report was put up and the same is here.

Seema Vs Ashwani Kumar on 1 May, 2019 OR

On 1 May 2019, Transfer petition is disposed off.

The transfer petition has not been answered and the matrimonial suit in question has remained stayed since 15.4.2005. The fate of the said matrimonial suit as on date and the interest of the parties in pursuing the matter is not known to us, as none has appeared on behalf of the original contesting parties. The judicial exercise after 14.2.2006 has been to monitor implementation of the directions of the said date, as extracted above. The materials on record would indicate that most of the States barring a few have framed suitable legislations. In any event, in terms of the order dated 15.4.2005, such of the States that have not framed legislations, will be governed by the directions contained in the order dated 14.2.2006.
Taking into account the above facts, we are of the view that no worthwhile purpose will be served by keeping these proceedings pending before this Court. We accordingly close the said proceedings and vacate the interim order dated 15.4.2005, so far as the stay of Matrimonial Suit No. 104/2004 is concerned.

Seema Vs Ashwani Kumar on 1 May, 2019

Manish Jain Vs Akanksha Jain on 30 March, 2017

Posted on September 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Judgment from Supreme Court, it was held that education of knife is not a consideration to decide interim maintenance. What the fcuk?? Whatever happened to Nari_MyFoot_Shakti?

From Para 15,

An order for maintenance pendente lite or for costs of the proceedings is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim for the same has no independent income sufficient for her or his support or to meet the necessary expenses of the proceeding. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. Likewise, the financial position of the wife’s parents is also immaterial. The Court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance and whether the applicant has any independent income sufficient for her or his support. Maintenance is always dependent upon factual situation; the Court should, therefore, mould the claim for maintenance determining the quantum based on various factors brought before the Court.

Haha, the threats of SC Judge… LOLwa

In case the appellant-husband does not comply with the order, as above, including for payment of arrears, he would be visited with all consequences including action for contempt of Court.

Manish Jain Vs Akanksha Jain on 30 March, 2017

Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors Vs Shitul H Chanchani and Anr on 13 August, 1998

Posted on September 5, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Similar to M/S Pepsi Foods Ltd judgment here, here also Supreme Court held that where that are baseless and vague allegations, High Courts can invoke their inherent powers u/s 482 CrPC to quash appropriate proceedings.

Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors Vs Shitul H Chanchani and Anr on 13 August, 1998

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1770765/

Citation: JT 1998 (5) 452, (1998) 7 SCC 698

MS Pepsi Foods Ltd and Anr Vs Spl JM and Ors on 4 November, 1997

Posted on September 5, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court which held that, where appropriate High Courts should exercise its power available under Article 227 of Constitution of India to quash baseless proceedings.

The Supreme Court had held that,

“Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. Magistrate had to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.”

MS Pepsi Foods Ltd and Anr Vs Spl JM and Ors on 4 November, 1997

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/574884/

Citation: 1998 (5) SCC 749, AIR 1998 SC 128

Ganapathi and Anr Vs The State of Tamil Nadu on 27 March, 2018

Posted on September 1, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on State of Rajasthan Vs Smt. Kalki and Anr judgment here, Justice N.V. Ramana gave this judgment differentiating the related witness and interested witness.

Ganapathi and Anr Vs The State of Tamil Nadu on 27 March, 2018

Dalip Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab on 15 May, 1953

Posted on September 1, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court has held that a related witness would ordinarily speak the truth, but in the case of an enmity there may be a tendency to drag in an innocent person as an accused—each case has to be considered on its own facts.

From Paras 25 and 26,

“25. We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan.”
In the said case, it has also been further observed: (AIR p. 366, para 26)
“26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism
and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of
truth.”

Dalip Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab on 15 May, 1953

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Reportable Judgement

Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee Vs State of West Bengal on 19 September, 2019

Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union of India on 6 September, 2018

People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Anr Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 23 September, 2014

Hooghly Mills Company Ltd Vs State of West Bengal on 17 October, 2019

Seema Vs Ashwani Kumar case

Manish Jain Vs Akanksha Jain on 30 March, 2017

Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors Vs Shitul H Chanchani and Anr on 13 August, 1998

MS Pepsi Foods Ltd and Anr Vs Spl JM and Ors on 4 November, 1997

Ganapathi and Anr Vs The State of Tamil Nadu on 27 March, 2018

Dalip Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab on 15 May, 1953