Sivasankaran Vs Santhimeenal on 13 Sep 2021
Other Sources :
Sivasankaran Vs Santhimeenal on 13 Sep 2021
Other Sources :
A division bench of Apex Court held as follows
From Para 2, Issue was fixed.
2. Whether a Magistrate after accepting a negative final report submitted by the Police can take action on the basis of the protest petition filed by the complainant/first informant? The above question having been answered in the affirmative by the Allahabad High Court, this appeal has been filed by the accused.
From Para 7, issue was answered.
Rakesh and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 13 Aug 2014
7. If we are to go back to trace the genesis of the views expressed by this Court in Gopal Vijay Verma (supra), notice must be had of the decision of this Court in H.S. Bains vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) 3 wherein it was held that after receipt of the police report under Section 173, the Magistrate has three options –
“(1) he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action;
(2) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 (1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process; this he may do without being bound in any manner by the conclusion arrived at by the police in their report;
(3) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200. If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an inquiry under Section 202 if he thinks fit. Thereafter he may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as the case may be.”
8. The second and third options available to the Magistrate as laid down in H.S. Bains (supra) has been referred to and relied upon in subsequent decisions of this Court to approve the action of the Magistrate in accepting the final report and at the same time in proceeding to treat either the police report or the initial complaint as the basis for further action/enquiry in the matter of the allegations levelled therein.
Citations : [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 52], [2014 MPWN SC 3 73], [2014 AIR SC 3509], [2014 SCALE 9 347], [2014 AIOL 490], [2014 CRIMES SC 4 183], [2014 CRLJ SC 4195], [2014 JLJR SC 4 16], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 4 643], [2014 SUPREME 7 286], [2014 SLT 7 183], [2014 SCC 13 133], [2014 SCC CRI 5 611], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 619], [2014 AIC 142 75], [2014 ACR SC 3 3091], [2014 UC 3 1651], [2014 ALLCC 87 299], [2014 SCJ 9 159], [2014 ALT CRL AP 3 531], [2014 ALLMR CRI SC 3782], [2014 AJR 4 387], [2015 LW CRL 1 229], [2014 CCR SC 3 577], [2014 PLJR 4 176], [2014 MLJ CRL SC 4 113], [2014 ALL LJ 6 82]
Other Sources :
The Full Bench of Apex Court held as follows, with regards to Custody of minor children under GW Act 1890,
Rosy Jacob Vs Jacob A. Chakramakkal on 05 Apr 1973
15. In our opinion. Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act contemplates not only actual physical custody but also constructive custody of the guardian which term includes all categories of guardians. The object and purpose of this provision being ex facie to ensure the welfare of the minor ward, which necessarily involves due protection of the right of his guardian to properly look after the ward’s health, maintenance and education, this section demands reasonably liberal interpretation so as to effectuate that object. Hyper-technicalities should not be allowed to deprive the guardian the necessary assistance from the Court in effectively discharging his duties and obligations towards his ward so as to promote the latter’s welfare. If the Court under the Divorce Act cannot make any order with respect to the custody of Ajit alias Andrew and Maya alias Mary and it is not open to the Court under the Guardians and Wards Act to appoint or declare guardian of the person of his children under Section 19 during his lifetime, if the Court does not consider him unfit, then, the only provision to which the father can have resort for his children’s custody is Section 25. Without, therefore, laying down exhaustively the circumstances in which Section 25 can be invoked, in our opinion, on the facts and circumstances of this case the husband’s application under Section 25 was competent with respect to the two elder children. The Court was entitled to consider all the disputed questions of fact or law properly raised before it relating to these two children. With respect to Mahesh alias Thomas, however, the Court under the Divorce Act is at present empowered to make suitable orders relating to his custody, maintenance and education. It is, therefore, somewhat difficult to impute to the legislature an intention to set up another parallel Court to deal with the question of the custody of a minor which is within the power of a competent Court under the Divorce Act. We are unable to accede to the respondent’s suggestion that his application should be considered to have been preferred for appointing or declaring him as a guardian. But whether the respondent’s prayer for custody of the minor children be considered under the Guardians and Wards Act or under the indian divorce act, as observed by Maharajan, J., with which observation we entirely agree, “the controlling consideration governing the custody of the children is the welfare of the children concerned and not the right of their parents”. It was not disputed that under the indian divorce act this is the controlling consideration. The Court’s power under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act is also, in our opinion, to be governed primarily by the consideration of the welfare of the minors concerned. The discretion vested in the Court is, as is the case with all judicial discretions to be exercised judiciously in the background of all the relevant facts and circumstances. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and other cases can hardly serve as binding precedents, the facts of two cases in this respect being seldom — if ever — identical. The contention that if the husband is not unfit to be the guardian of his minor children, then, the question of their welfare does not at all arise is to state the proposition a bit too broadly and may at times be somewhat misleading. It does not take full notice of the real core of the statutory purpose. In our opinion, the dominant consideration in making orders under Section 25 is the welfare of the minor children and in considering this question due regard has of course to be paid to the right of the father to be the guardian and also to all other relevant factors having a bearing on the minor’s welfare. There is a presumption that a minor’s parents would do their very best to promote their children’s welfare and, if necessary, would not grudge any sacrifice of their own personal interest and pleasure. This presumption arises because of the natural, selfless affection normally expected from the parents for their children. From this point of view, in case of conflict or dispute between the mother and the father about the custody of their children, the approach has to be somewhat different from that adopted by the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court in this case. There is no dichotomy between the fitness of the father to be entrusted with the custody of his minor children and considerations of their welfare. The father’s fitness has to be considered, determined and weighed predominantly in terms of the welfare of his minor children in the context of all the relevant circumstances. If the custody of the father cannot promote their welfare equally or better than the custody of the mother, then, he cannot claim indefeasible right to their custody under Section 25 merely because there is no defect in his personal character and he has attachment for his children—which every normal parent has. These are the only two aspects pressed before us, apart from the stress laid by the husband on the allegations of immorality against the wife which, in our firm opinion, he was not at all justified in contending. Such allegations, in view of earlier decisions, had to be completely ignored in considering the question of custody of the children in the present case. The father’s fitness from the point of view just mentioned cannot override considerations of the welfare of the minor children. No doubt, the father has been presumed by the statute generally to be better fitted to look after the children — being normally the earning member and head of the family — but the Court has in each case to see primarily to the welfare of the children in determining the question of their custody, in the background of all the relevant facts having a bearing on their health, maintenance and education. The family is normally the heart of our society and for a balanced and healthy growth of children it is highly desirable that they get their due share of affection and care from both the parents in their normal parental home. Where, however, family dissolution due to some unavoidable circumstances becomes necessary the Court has to come to a judicial decision on the question of the welfare of the children on a full consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Merely because the father loves his children and is not shown to be otherwise undesirable cannot necessarily lead to the conclusion that the welfare of the children would be better promoted by granting their custody to him as against the wife who may also be equally affectionate towards her children and otherwise equally free from blemish, and, who, in addition, because of her profession and financial resources, may be in a position to guarantee better health, education and maintenance for them. The children are not mere chattels : nor are they mere play-things for their parents. Absolute right of parents over the destinies and the lives of their children has, in the modern changed social conditions, yielded to the considerations of their welfare as human beings so that they may grow up in a normal balanced manner to be useful members of the society and the guardian court in case of a dispute between the mother and the father, is expected to strike a just and proper balance between the requirements of welfare of the minor children and the rights of their respective parents over them. The approach of the learned Single Judge, in our view, was correct and we agree with him. The Letters Patent Bench on appeal seems to us to have erred in reversing him on grounds which we are unable to appreciate.
Citations : [1973 AIR SC 2090], [1973 SCC 1 840], [1973 SCR 3 918], [1974 MLJ 2 34], [1973 AIR 2090]
Other Sources :
A single judge of Karnataka High Court held that, an offence under the PWDV Act alone is subject to limitation under CrPC but not the application filed belatedly u/s 12 of the Act.
From Paras 16-17,
16. To attract Section 468 of Cr.P.C, essentially the Act alleged must be an offence. Under the DV Act, the offence is not defined, as defined in Section 40 of IPC. Therefore, we have to revert to the General Clauses Act, 1897. Section 3(38) of the General Clauses Act defines the offences as follows:
“3(38). “Offence” shall mean any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force.
17. Perusal of the above provision makes it clear that to call an act as offence, act or omission must be made punishable under law. As already pointed out, under Sections 12, 20 and 21 of the DV Act have not made the domestic violence alleged thereunder punishable or defined them as offence. Section 12 of the DV Act is only an enabling provision to initiate enquiry to find out whether such act or omission is committed.
From Para 19-20, Conclusions
19. Perusal of Section 31 of the DV Act makes it clear that only breach of the protection order or interim protection order etc. passed under Section 12 of the DV Act constitutes an offence and made punishable. As held by Punjab High Court in Vikas’s case referred to supra, Section 12 of the DV Act is only enabling provision. Therefore it is clear that the act or omission contemplated under Section 31 of the DV Act is an offence and the application under Section 12 of the DV Act itself is not an offence.
20. When the application under Section 12 of the DV Act is not covered under the term ‘offence’, Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is inapplicable. Therefore the application of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. to an application under Section 12 of the DV Act is clearly a misconception.
From Paras 24-26,
Puttaraju Vs Shivakumari on 01 Apr 2021
24. Distinguishing judgment in Inderjit Singh Grewal’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in subsequent judgment in Krishna Bhattacharjee’s case referred to supra held that the observation regarding domestic relationship in Inderjit Singh Grewal’s case were based on the facts and circumstances of the said case and they are not of general application.
25. Further in para 32 of the judgment in Krishna Bhattacharjee’s case referred to supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the definition of the aggrieved person and domestic relationship remains and the act of domestic violence attracts the term ‘continuing offence’, therefore does not get time barred.
26. In the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, the interplay of Section 3(38) of the General Clauses Act, Section 31 of the DV Act and Section 468 of Cr.P.C. had not fallen for consideration. In view of the later judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishna Bhattacharjee’s case referred to supra the judgments of this Court in Srinivas’s case and Gurudev’s case cannot be followed. Therefore this Court does not find any merit in the contention that the petition was time barred. Under the circumstances the respondent is entitled for withdrawal of the amount. The application is allowed.
Other Sources :
Relying on Supreme Court decision here, a division bench of AP High Court held that, a husband cannot be sentenced indefinitely for breach of maintenance orders.
From Para 3,
3. From bare perusal of this provision, it becomes clear that a person against whom an order under Section 125(3) of the Code is made does not become liable to imprisonment on passing of an order of maintenance, his liability to suffer imprisonment only starts if he fails to respond to a warrant issued under Section 125 (3) of the Code for payment of maintenance. A warrant has to be issued under Section 125(3) of the Code for payment of maintenance, when an application is made by the person who has been held entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the code. When such a warrant is issued for making payment of maintenance, it has to be levied as the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines and if this warrant is not responded by making the payment, then the Magistrate can order imprisonment and the imprisonment in no case can exceed one month. Therefore, it is immaterial whether there were arrears of 12 months or of any other duration. The material question is whether a warrant under Section 125(3) been issued or not and in case of one warrant issued under Section 125(3) of the Code, there can only be one imprisonment and the maximum imprisonment would be one month. So in case a person chooses to file an application under Section 125(3) of the Code on every successive month on failure to get maintenance, she may get successive orders of imprisonment if the person against whom the warrant is issued fails to make the payment. But if a person chooses to make an application after several months, then again she will be able to get an order of imprisonment on failure to make the payment which will be only a maximum imprisonment of one month. We are fortified in our view by a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Shahada Khatoon v. Amjad Ali, 1999 SCC (Cri) 1029 : (1999 Cri LJ 5060).
Indiankanoon Version:Abdul Gafaoor Vs Hameema Khatoon and Ors on 15 Sep 2003 (IK Ver)
Casemine Version:Abdul Gafaoor Vs Hameema Khatoon and Ors on 15 Sep 2003 (CM Ver)
Citations : [2004 DMC 1 693], [2003 ALD CRI 2 902], [2003 SCC ONLINE AP 894], [2004 AP LJ 1 154], [2004 CRI LJ 1280], [2004 CCR 2 332], [2004 HLR 1 332]
Other Sources :
Relying on Supreme Court decision here, which was in turn relied on by a division bench of AP High Court here, a single-judge bench of AP High Court held that, a husband cannot be sentenced indefinitely for breach of maintenance orders.Pitchika Lakshmi Vs Pichika Chenna Mallikaharjuana Rao on 24 Dec 2012
Citations : [2012 SCC ONLINE AP 446], [2013 CRI LJ 4284], [2014 RCR CRI 5 651], [2014 HLR 1 317], [2013 ALD CRI 1 405], [LQ 2012 HC 8200]
Other Sources :
A division bench of Supreme Court held that,
The short question that arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court correctly interpreted sub-section (3) of Section 125 of CrPC by directing that the Magistrate can only sentence for a period of one month or until payment, if sooner made. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the liability of the husband arising out of an order passed under Section 125 to make payment of maintenance is a continuing one and on account of non-payment there has been a breach of the order and therefore the Magistrate would be entitled to impose sentence on such a person continuing him in custody until payment is made. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned
counsel for the appellants. The language of sub-section (3) of Section 125 is quite clear and it circumscribes the power of the Magistrate to impose imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until the payment, if sooner made. This power of the Magistrate cannot be enlarged and therefore the only remedy would be after expiry of one month. For breach or non-compliance with the order of the Magistrate the wife can approach the Magistrate again for similar relief. By no stretch of imagination can the Magistrate be permitted to impose sentence for more than one month. In that view of the matter the High Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order and we see no infirmity in the said order to be interfered with by this Court. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.
Indiankanoon Version:Shahada Khatoon and Ors Vs Amjad Ali and Ors on 7 Apr 1999 (IK Ver)
Casemine Version:Shahada Khatoon and Ors Vs Amjad Ali and Ors on 7 Apr 1999 (CM Ver)
Citations : [1999 MHLJ SC 3 290], [1999 SCC CRI 1029], [1999 SUPREME 9 396], [1999 MPLJ SC 2 448], [1999 AIR SC 4880], [1999 SCC 5 672], [1999 BOMCR SC SUPP 1 978], [2000 ALD CRI 1 305], [1999 CRILJ 5060], [2000 DMC SC 1 313], [2000 KLT SC 1 696], [2000 MPHT 2 1], [1999 OLR SC 2 333], [1999 JT SC 10 260], [1999 AIR SCW 4880]
Other Sources :
A division bench of Allahabad High Court held as follows, regards to a set of 340 CrPC applications filed by the knife.
From Para 15-17,
15. It is a fact that Professor F.A Ansari himself did not file any affidavit to say that invigilation duty certificate in question was forged and the same did not contain his signatures. It has to be kept in mind that necessary, prelude for action under section 340, Cr. P.C is that the Court should be of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to do so. Action under section 340, Cr. P.C should be taken only when the Court on objective consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, is of the belief and opinion that the interest of justice so requires. The Court may act suo motu also. It is for the Court to decide whether to take action and initiate proceedings. Even when an application is made by one of the parties, it becomes a matter between the Court and the alleged perjurer. Action under section 340, Cr. P.C is undertaken in the interest of justice and not to satisfy the private grudge of a litigant. Every case of perjury need not result in prosecution.
16. An action of law should not be equated to a game of chess. Indeed, the wife cannot rely on the sheer technicality that no rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioners in criminal Writ Petition No. 822 of 2000. It is for the Court to consider the entire material and the attending circumstances to come to a right decision to be taken in the matter. The action cannot be permitted to be used by a party as a tool to derive sadistic pleasure in nailing his opponent.
17. On cumulative consideration that charge-sheets in both the cases have been submitted in Court setting the law on its course with regard to the alleged offences and that Professor F.A Ansari himself did not file any affidavit to support the contention of the wife designating the invigilation duty certificate in question to be forged and fictitious, we do not think it to be expedient in the interest of justice to accede to the prayer of Arsi Yusuf (wife) to take any action under section 340, Cr. P.C Hence, the applications under section 340, Cr. P.C are liable to be rejected.
Indiankanoon Version:Zeba Khalil and Ors Vs State of U.P and Ors on 18 Nov 2005 (IK Ver)
Casemine Version:Zeba Khalil and Ors Vs State of U.P and Ors on 18 Nov 2005 (CM Ver)
Citations : [2005 SCC ONLINE ALL 1164], [2006 ACC 54 354]
Other Sources :
Single Judge bench of AP HC held as follows:
From Para 6,
6. The points for determination in these proceedings are
(1) whether the order of maintenance passed in M.C. No. 18/84 stood cancelled ?
(2) Whether under Section 125(3), Cr.P.C. the wife can seek imprisonment of the husband for non-payment of maintenance accumulated beyond a period of 12 months ?
(3) Whether the payment of Rs. 3,250/- paid as per the directions of this court can be appropriated to the maintenance due for the first 25 months as claimed by the wife ?
From Para 11, Point (2) was answered.
11. Considering the different views expressed by the various High Courts I prefer to follow the Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Moddari Bin v. Sukdeo Bin, (1967 Cri LJ 335). The other decisions are judgments or single Judges. In my humble opinion the contraction put forward by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court is harmonesus construction and interpretation of the proviso making the proviso applicable to both the limbs of procedure contemplated under sub-section 3 of Section 125, Cr.P.C. I hold on point No. 2 that the wife the maintenance-holder cannot accumulate the maintenance for a period beyond 12 months. No application for execution of the maintenance order can be entertained for a period exceeding 12 months immediately preceding the date of application. I hold this point in favour of the petitioner. In this context I make it clear that they remedy provided under S. 125(3), Cr.P.C. is a speedy and expeditious remedy. By virtue of the order of maintains granted in M.C. 18/84 the right vested in the wife to receive maintenance from the date of the application i.e. 7-12-83. She may not be able to recover the earlier arrears by resorting to an application under Section 126(3), Cr.P.C., but still she would certainly be entitled to claim those arrear by filing a civil suit on the basis that the amount is die to her by virtue of the court order. But at the same time it should be remembered that under civil laws also her claim should be within the period of limitation. For instance, for the maintenance payable for the period 7-12-83 to 7-1-84 she should file a suit on or before 7-1-87. At the most she can recover arrears of maintenance for 3 years by resorting to a civil suit. Unfortunately in this case the right to file a civil suit for the earlier arrears is also barred by time.
Indiankanoon Version:Jangam Srinivasa Rao Vs Jaagam Rajeshwari and Anr on 13 Mar 1989 (IK Ver)
Casemine Version:Jangam Srinivasa Rao Vs Jaagam Rajeshwari and Anr on 13 Mar 1989 (CM Ver)
Citations : [1990 CRILJ 2506], [1989 ALT 2 295], [1989 SCC ONLINE AP 66], [1989 AP LJ 2 41], [1989 ALT NRC 2 8]
Other Sources :
Division bench of Apex Court held as follows:
It is true that the amount of maintenance became due by virtue of the Magistrate’s order passed on 20th January, 1993 and in order to seek recovery of the amount due by issuance of warrant, application shall be made within a period of one year from the date the amount became due. In the present case, the application, namely, Crl. Misc. Petition No. 47 of 1993 was filed well within one year. As no amount was paid even after the disposal of the matter by the High Court, the appellant filed IA No. 1 in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 47 of 1993 wherein the arrears due up to that date were calculated and sought recovery of that amount under Section 125(3). Thus, IA No. 1 was filed even when Crl. Misc. Petition No. 47 of 1993 was pending and no action to issue warrant was taken in that proceeding. Crl. Misc. Petition No. 47 of 1993 which was filed within one year from the date the amount became due was kept alive and it was pending throughout. The purpose of filing IA on 16-6-1998 was only to mention the amount due up to date. The fact that the additional amount was specified in the IA does not mean that the application for execution of the order by issuing a warrant under Section 125(3) was a fresh application made for the first time. As already noticed, the main petition filed in the year 1993 was pending and kept alive and the filing of subsequent IA in 1998 was only to specify the exact amount which accrued due up to that date. Such application is only supplementary or incidental to the petition already filed in 1993 admittedly within the period of limitation. The fact that only a sum of Rs 5365 representing the arrears of eight months was mentioned therein does not curtail the scope of criminal miscellaneous petition filed in 1993 more so when no action was taken thereon and it remained pending.
8. We are, therefore, of the view that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the bar under Section 125(3) cannot be applied and the High Court has erred in reversing the order of the Sessions Judge. It must be borne in mind that Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social legislation and it has to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and daughter. It is unreasonable to insist on filing successive applications when the liability to pay the maintenance as per the order passed under Section 125(1) is a continuing liability.
Note: The last line of para 8 (underlined) is against the law laid down by the Apex Court in Shahada Khatoon and Ors Vs Amjad Ali and Ors.Shantha @ Ushadevi and Anr Vs B.G.Shivananjappa on 6 May 2005
Citations : [2005 SCC 4 468], [2005 SCC CRI 1089], [2005 AIR SC 2410], [2005 CRI LJ 2615], [2005 KANTLJ 4 208], [2005 CRIMES SC 2 225], [2005 AIR SC 0 2613], [2005 RCR CRI 2 796], [2005 AIOL 264], [2005 BOMCR CRI SC 2 548], [2005 CRLJ SC 2615], [2005 JT 5 347], [2005 SCALE 4 742], [2005 SCC 4 463], [2005 SCC CRI 1098], [2005 SCR 153], [2005 SUPREME 4 93], [2005 SCC CR 1098], [2005 SCJ 4 553], [2005 AD SC 5 319], [2005 BCR 2 548], [2005 MLJ CRI 1 665], [2005 SRJ 6 238], [2005 ALT CRI 2 282], [2005 CRLR 356], [2005 CALLJ 2 233], [2005 ALD CRI 1 370], [2005 CALCRILR 2 1], [2005 CCC 2 430], [2005 ALL MR CRI 179], [12005 DMC 2 1], [2005 JCRIC 2 753], [2005 SLT 4 292], [2005 CCR 2 231], [2005 MLJ CRL 1 665], [2005 AIR SCW 0 2613], [2005 AIR SCW 2613], [2005 CRIMES 2 225], [2005 CRLJ 2615], [2005 BCR CRI 2 548]
Other Sources :
Bad Behavior has blocked 816 access attempts in the last 7 days.