Friday, July 11, 2014

Wife who poured boiling water on hubby gets 2lakhs prmnt alimony also tries intr. maint. u-s 125 CrPC !!



* petitioner (wife) has candidly admitted during cross-examination that she poured boiling water on her husband !! and left the matrimonial home and did not come back to the matrimonial home again

* it was agreed that the opposite party-husband would make payment of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) only as permanent alimony to the petitioner-wife

* learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that learned Magistrate should have granted maintenance to the petitioner-wife !!!!


*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
 
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************


Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Mr. Arindam Jana vs Unknown on 4 June, 2014

Author: Ranjit Kumar Bag

04.06.2014

b.r. C.R.R 1256 of 2014 In the matter of petitioner. Mr. Arindam Jana

Lila Ghosh .................. for the petitioner.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision challenging the order dated13.01.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arambagh, Hooghly in Misc. Case No. 65 of 2012, by which the learned Magistrate refused to grant the maintenance to the petitioner.

Mr. Arindam Jana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that learned Magistrate should have granted maintenance to the petitioner-wife as there was sufficient cause for leaving the matrimonial home by the petitioner and as such this criminal revision may be admitted.

On consideration of the contents of the application and the impugned judgment and order challenged in this criminal revision, I find that the opposite party-husband was subjected to torture and cruelty by the petitioner for prolonged period of time and there was talk of amicable settlement by way of mutual divorce between the parties. It also appears from the impugned judgment and order, it was agreed that the opposite party-husband would make payment of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) only as permanent alimony to the petitioner-wife when the mutual divorce will take place in the court of law.

The copies of depositions of the witnesses have been produced before this court by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears from the cross-examination of the petitioner that the petitioner has candidly admitted during cross-examination that she poured boiling water on her husband and left the matrimonial home and did not come back to the matrimonial home again. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the inference drawn by the learned Magistrate that the petitioner has refused to live with her husband without sufficient cause as laid down in Sub-Section (4) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The logical inference is that the petitioner is not entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not find any merit in this criminal revision. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the learned court below for favour of information and necessary action. Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent photostat certified copy of this order to the learned counsel of the petitioner, if applied for, as early as possible.

( R.K. Bag, J. )

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com



*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist