A landmark judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court which has seen many twists and turn of events spearheaded by the cunning knife who is an Advocate and filed a large number of cases against her husband and in-laws.
- Filing of false 498A in Ahmedabad, that got transferred to Baroda and later dismissed
- Another criminal proceeding against the appellants and their family members under Sections 323, 452, 427, 504, 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the same proceeding has also been dismissed as withdrawn.
- Another criminal case was initiated by her against appellant No.2, his son and another under Section 406, 420, 468 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, which is still pending.
- Another case, being No.2338 of 2006 was filed by her under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Another case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code being Case No.2145 of 1993 was filed against the appellants.
- Petitions filed for cancellation of bail granted to appellants, at magistrate, District and High Courts
At the end, the cunning foxy knife bit the dust and had to put her tail between her legs.
Another important aspect is the following from Para 24:
24. Section 4 provides for a non obstante clause. In terms of the said provision itself any obligation on the part of in-laws in terms of any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of law before the commencement of the Act, are no longer valid. In view of the non obstante clause contained in Section 4, the provisions of the Act alone are applicable. Sections 18 and 19 prescribe the statutory liabilities in regard to maintenance of wife by her husband and only on his death upon the father-in-law, Mother-in-law, thus, cannot be fastened with any legal liability to maintain her daughter-in-law from her own property or otherwise.
Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel Vs Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel And others on 14 March, 2008
Citations: [AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2675], [2008 AIR SCW 4475], [2008 (5) SRJ 92], [(2008) 1 CRILR(RAJ) 259], [(2008) 6 ALLMR 75 (SC)], [(2008) 2 MARRILJ 376], [(2008) 2 JCC 1127 (SC)], [2008 CRILR(SC&MP) 259], [(2008) 65 ALLINDCAS 38 (SC)], [2008 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 259], [2008 (65) ALLINDCAS 38], [2008 (4) SCALE 601], [2008 (4) SCC 649], [2008 (2) CALCRILR 1], [2008 (2) JCC 1127], [2008 (2) MARR LJ 376], [2008 (6) ALL MR 75 NOC], [(2008) 3 CIVILCOURTC 570], [(2008) 2 MAD LJ(CRI) 1111], [(2008) 4 RAJ LW 3440], [(2008) 2 RECCRIR 699], [(2008) 2 WLC(SC)CVL 93], [(2008) 3 ALLCRILR 9], [(2008) 2 ALL WC 1636, (2009) 1 GUJ LR 200], [(2008) 4 SCALE 601], [(2008) 71 ALL LR 482], [(2008) 5 BOM CR 441]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/913087/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae92e4b01497114142ed
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=302265
Index of judgments under HAMA 1956 are here.
