This is judgment from Apex Court which is hearing the contention, No Maintenance to Willfully Deserting Knife. Let’s follow the case.
Subrat Kumar Sen Vs State of UP on 03 October, 2019Here is the Allahabad High Court order
Dr. Subrat Kumar Sen Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 18 July, 2019Reproduced 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
The Bombay High Court has observed that leaving the matrimonial home with personal belongings signifies that there is intention of knife leaving husband/matrimonial home permanently and this can be construed as deserting the husband with out any reasonable cause and that leading to a solid ground for Divorce decree.
Ambika Ramakant Uniyal Vs Ramakant Shriram Uniyal on 18 November, 2013Reproduced 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
This judgment should have been a reported one for it covers soo many good points to dustbin the complaint of the knife against the family members. Read the tags for more info.
From Para 8,
Chandralekha Vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 14 December, 2012….
However, after a careful perusal of the FIR and after taking into consideration the attendant circumstances, we are of the opinion that the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed. The allegations are extremely general in nature. No specific role is attributed to each of the appellants. Respondent 2 has stated that after the marriage, she resided with her husband at Ahmedabad. It is not clear whether appellants 1, 2 and 3 were residing with them at Ahmedabad. The marriage took place on 9/7/2002 and respondent 2 left her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 i.e. within a period of seven months. Thereafter, respondent 2 took no steps to file any complaint against the appellants. Six years after she left the house, the present FIR is lodged making extremely vague and general allegations against appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is important to remember that appellant 2 is a married sister-in-law. In our opinion, such extra ordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations made by respondent 2 against appellants 1, 2 and 3, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and vague allegations, respondent 2 has tried to rope them in this case along with her husband. We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against appellants 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of process of law. In the interest of justice, therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3.
Citations: [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 1 577], [2012 AIOL 2078], [2013 CRLJ SC 3644], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 969], [2013 SCC 14 374], [2012 SCC CRI 4 426], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 1073], [2013 CRILJ 3644], [2013 AD SC 2 565], [2013 AJR 4 643], [2013 DMC SC 1 1], [2012 JT SC 12 390], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 1 959], [2012 SCALE 12 692], [2013 UC 1 155], [2013 BOMCR CRI 1 577], [2013 CRI LJ 3644]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151787634/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af17e4b014971141594d
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/chandralekha-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-anr
Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the charges framed on the husband and his parents as the allegations are vague and bereft of the details as to the place and the time of the incident. The knife has been living separately since April 2011 and hence, there is no question of any beating by the appellants as alleged by her.
Swapnil & Ors Vs State Of M.P & Anr on 9 May, 2014Bad Behavior has blocked 622 access attempts in the last 7 days.
