Saturday, December 26, 2015

Divorce WITHOUT alimony aftr wife’s 498a where all accused acquitted! Bom HC. Trial court NEED NOT call it false !

In this Landmark case Bombay HC grants divorce to a harassed husband who was falsely accused in a 498a case. Appreciating the cruelty suffered by the husband and his relatives, and analysing the conduct of the wife, Bombay HC grants divorce WITHOUT any alimony !!

The lower court denies divorce stating that the 498a ended in acquittal because the prosecution did not prove the case, and that the trial court did NOT say the case was false, the Hon HC says it is NOT necessary for trial court to call the 498A false. Cruelty is to be decided based on conduct of parties and allegations made !!

Synopsis
****************************

A wife files a false 498A cocktail on her husband. Husband and other accused are made to run to the trial court more than 50 times. Elders at home with various ailments and his unmarried sister are charged. The complainant / wife fails to appear many times at the Criminal court, thereby lengthening the trial. Trial court finally decrees that the accusations in the 498a case as NOT proven by the prosecution and so the husband and co are acquitted.

Following this acquittal the husband applies for divorce on grounds of cruelty. The Family court refuses to grant divorce. Matter goes up to HC where HC appreciates the facts and grants divorce

The Husband submits and the HC observes that the accused were dragged 56 times to the Trial court, and on many instances because the wife was just absent !  The wife alleges that she started suffering arthritis becasue of ill treatment and her father died out of shock. But these allegations are NOT substantiated. The father dies some YEARS after the incidents !! 

more at : 

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

sosuld we rejoice when politiocs are trapped in their own game ?? the game of woman's empowerment ?

Ex wife alleges a politico tried to kill her !! case is filed and the politico resigns his post. This is another chapter in the sad saga of careers lost, years of hard work lost in India, in the name of women's appeasement

In this cacse the charges are NOT yet proven.

In many such cases it comes to light that the charges are false and motivated by anger or greed

Still men loose money, career and name. Society looses the support and services of honest men

While I write all this, I'm left with a quandy

I'm unable to decide for myself, IF I should mourn politicos caught in their own trap ??

The congress and communists have been in the forefront of women appeasement

they have enacted and supported every law possible to milk men, to bleed men, to arrest and defame men and thier families

Now one of them is caught in their own trap

What should our response be ??

Readers, brothers, YOU decide !

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news from the web>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Former wife accuses T Siddique of murder bid (and later he steps down from KPCC post!)


Thursday, May 21, 2015 11:41 hrs IST



T. Siddique


Kozhikode: KPCC general secretary T. Siddique's former wife, Nazeema, has accused that he tried to murder her.


Nazeema filed a complaint with Kozhikode police commissioner against the Congress leader. In her complaint, she said that Siddique and his aides manhandled and threatened to kill her at a hospital here when she went there for treatment.


The Kozhikode First Class Judicial Magistrate court had the other day registered a complaint against Siddique on charges of domestic violence on a complaint filed by Nazeema.


Source


http://english.manoramaonline.com/news/kerala

 



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

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
  
  

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

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
  
  

Friday, May 22, 2015

Drug addict Abla dies of overdose and they want hubby to B hanged!!

Drug addict Abla habituated to marijuana injections and paracetamol overdoes eats a strip of pills and dies at a premier hospital even after best treatment 

However the ablaas father wants the husband changed with murder 

Who will save men from ( such ) men ??

>>>>>>> case from Indian kanoon site !! >>>>>>>> 

Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar Aggarwal vs Govt. Of Nct & Anr. on 18 May, 2015

Author: Sunil Gaur

I- 29  *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI                                      Date of Decision: May 18, 2015    +     CRL.M.C. 2076/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.7386/2015        ANIL KUMAR AGGARWAL     ... Petitioner                     Through: Mr. K. S. Negi, Advocate                             versus          GOVT OF NCT & ANR.       ... Respondents                      Through:           Mr. Parveen Bhati, Additional                                         Public Prosecutor for respondent-                                         State          CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR                             JUDGMENT  

% (ORAL) 


Petitioner had filed a criminal complaint for the offence of murder etc. regarding untimely death of his daughter- Priyanka Kumari, who was married to the accused just a year back prior to unfortunate death of petitioner's daughter. After recording the pre-summoning evidence, petitioner's complaint has been dismissed by the trial court by holding that there is no incriminating material on record to justify summoning of the accused. The aforesaid order of 2nd August, 2014 of the learned trial court has been affirmed by the learned Revisional Court vide impugned order of 17th November, 2014.

According to the complainant, the factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned order of 17th November, 2014 of the learned Crl. M.C.No.2076/2015 Page 1 Revisional Court is as under:-



„According to the complainant, his daughter was married to Ranjit Kumar Aggarwal (respondent) on 26.06.2009. She died on 29.09.2010. The respondent/accused demanded Rs.4 lacs at the time of said marriage, in addition to other house hold articles. Said amount was also paid to him. After marriage, couples started residing together. In May, 2010 respondent further demanded a sum of Rs.5 lacs to purchase a car. He (complainant) did not take it seriously and ignored. Ranjit Kumar Aggarwal (respondent) joined Jindal Group of Companies, having office at Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. His daughter was thus went to Delhi. Although, the victim had some trivial complaints against her husband but same were ignored by him to save her matrimonial life. All of sudden on 25.09.2010, respondent/accused called his (complainant‟s) wife and asked them to come to Delhi. He came to Delhi. He was asked to reach Mohinder Hospital, Green Park, New Delhi.

After coming here, he (complainant) found his daughter semiconscious and unable to speak. It was disclosed to him that she (daughter of complainant) had some gastro problem and loose motion etc. Respondent/accused started requesting doctors to discharge the victim and due to his persistent requests, she was discharged from the hospital. When the victim was taken to her matrimonial house by respondent/accused, complainant was informed that she was serious and taken to Fortis Hospital, Vasant Kunj. He was asked to wait outside the hospital. In this hospital, the victim Priyanka was declared dead on 29.09.2010 at 11.50 am.


The five circumstances, which weighed with the courts below in dismissing petitioner's complaint at the summoning stage, are as under:-


„(i) There was no previous complaint lodged by the victim or her parents to the police or any other authority like CAW Cell etc. alleging demand of dowry or the domestic violence committed on her.

(ii) There was evidence on record to verify that after falling ill the victim was given treatment in best hospitals including Mohinder Hospital, Green Park and Fortis Hospital, Vasant Kunj. She was given immediate treatment and there was no delay in taking her to hospital by the accused.

(iii) The deceased had history of taking poison twice. She was a case of drug abuse.

(iv) According to post mortem report, the victim died due to Panrieatitis. The patient was opined as having consumed strip of Paracetamol. She was admitted to Mohinder Hospital for diarrhea and later on shifted to Fortis Hospital. According to death summery, the deceased was habitual of intravenous drug abuse in marijuana and was patient of depression. She was also a chain smoker.

(v) A per forensic report given by Safdarjung Hospital, the death of the said victim was due to hemorrhagic Panrieatitis.



Immediately before death of his daughter i.e. victim, the complainant gave statement before the Executive magistrate mentioning that the relation of accused and his daughter were cordial. Both of them used to live happily and peacefully. His daughter died due to disease and no one should be made responsible for it. Maternal grandfather of deceased was also examined by the Executive magistrate. This witness also stated that they had no complaint against anybody and the victim died due to disease.‟ (underlined to supply emphasis) At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned order erroneously proceeds on the ground that there is no incriminating material against the accused persons and the pre- summoning evidence of petitioner as well as grandfather of deceased clearly makes out an offence of murder against the accused persons and so, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and accused persons ought to be tried in accordance with the law.


Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order and the material on record, I find that in the pre-summoning evidence of petitioner and the grandfather (nana) of the deceased, the fact of deceased earlier trying to take her life is no where questioned and nothing material has come in pre-summoning evidence regarding alleged cruelty being meted out to the deceased to come to a conclusion that grave doubt exists regarding the involvement of accused persons in causing the death of deceased.


The Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan (2012) 4 SCC 547 has reiterated that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are to be exercised in exceptional cases. Pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Ujjal Kumar (supra) on this aspect are as under: -


"It is true that the inherent powers vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide. Nevertheless, inherent powers do not confer arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whims or caprice. This extraordinary power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and as far as possible, for extraordinary cases, where allegations in the complaint or the first information report, taken on its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. It needs little emphasis that unless a case of gross abuse of power is made out against those in charge of investigation, the High Court should be loath to interfere at the early/premature stage of investigation."

In the instant case, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no palpable error in the impugned order to justify interference by this Court.


This petition and application are accordingly dismissed.

                                                                (SUNIL GAUR)                                                                JUDGE    MAY 18, 2015  r          Crl. M.C.No.2076/2015                                             



--

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

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
  
  

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Mr. Gulam !, repeatedly appear in court again & again + wife should say you are OK !!

Mr. Gulam !, repeatedly appear in court again & again + wife should say you are OK !!

"...That the petitioner is husband and he is ready to keep his wife."
"... he shall take his wife/complainant with him to his house and keep her with all respect and dignity that a wife would deserve ..."
"...That on completion of period of two months of the provisional bail of the petitioner, he again with his wife/complainant shall surrender before the court below and if, ..."
"...That on completion of period of four months, the petitioner and the complainant shall again surrender before the court below and if this time, the court below also find that the complainant had no further complaint against the petitioner and/or his family member, ..."
"...That both the bailors will be close family relatives of the petitioners, who will undertake an affidavit giving genealogy as to how they are related with the petitioner. ..."


Still MEN WANT TO GET MARRIED !!!

*****************************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 or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. 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 and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . 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
******************************************************************


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.47200 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -657 Year- 2013 Thana -
AURANGABAD COMPLAINT CASE District- AURANGABAD

******************************************************
Sujeet Kumar Mehta @ Sujit Kumar Mehta S/o Kameshwar resident of
village- Jogi Bigaha, P.S.- Jamhore, District- Aurangabad              .... .... Petitioner/s

       Versus

1. The State of Bihar
2. Sushma Devi W/o Sujeet Kumar Mehta D/o Jagdish Mehta Resident of

village- Salampur (Amauna), P.O.- Sudargani, P.S.- Risiup, District-
Auranagabad                                                        .... .... Opposite Party/s

******************************************************
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s     :     Mrs. Leelawati Kumari, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s :     Mr. Suman Kumari Singh (App)
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
******************************************************

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA

ORAL ORDER

2

14-05-2015

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Having regard to the nature of allegation against the petitioner for offence under Sections 323, 379 & 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and that the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the statement made in paragraph-8 reading as follows:

" That the petitioner is husband and he is ready to keep his wife."

has submitted that the petitioner has prepared to not only keep the complainant as wife with due respect and dignity but also this Court would find from the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 07.11.2014 that even the complainant was desirous of living with the petitioner by way of restoring of her conjugal life, this Court would direct that if the petitioner, namely, Sujeet Kumar Mehta @ Sujit Kumar Mehta surrenders on 08th June 2015 before the court below, the court below, on hearing the complainant as also her learned counsel, shall pass an order granting provisional bail to the petitioner for a period of two months, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in connection with Complaint Case No. 657 of 2013, subject to the following conditions:

(i) That the petitioner immediately after being granted provisional bail for a period of two months, he shall take his wife/complainant with him to his house and keep her with all respect and dignity that a wife would deserve in the hands of the husband and his family members.

(ii) That on completion of period of two months of the provisional bail of the petitioner, he again with his wife/complainant shall surrender before the court below and if, on query being made from the complainant, it is found by the court below that the complainant was not given any sort of physical or mental torture by her husband/petitioner as well as his family members, such provisional bail of the petitioner shall be again extended for a period of four months.

(iii) That it goes without saying that if the court below, on the other hand, from the statement of the complainant, finds that in the period of two months, she was badly treated by the petitioner and his family members, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner shall be cancelled and he shall be taken into custody.

(iv) That on completion of period of four months, the petitioner and the complainant shall again surrender before the court below and if this time, the court below also find that the complainant had no further complaint against the petitioner and/or his family member, the provisional bail of the petitioner shall be confirmed. It is again made it clear that if at this stage also, the complainant makes out any allegation of torture or misbehaviour by the petitioner/husband and/or his family members, his provisional bail shall come to an end and he will be taken to custody. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

(v) That both the bailors will be close family relatives of the petitioners, who will undertake an affidavit giving genealogy as to how they are related with the petitioner. The bailors will also undertake to inform the court if there is any change in the address of the petitioner.

(vi) That the affidavit shall clearly state that the petitioner is not accused in any other case and if he is, he shall not be released on bail.

(vii) That the bailors shall also state on affidavit that they will inform the court concerned, if the petitioner is implicated in any other case of similar nature after his release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of his bail on the ground of misuse.

(viii) That the petitioner will be well represented on each and every date in course of trial and if his fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled on this ground alone.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)


Sujit/-

U



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

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
  
  

Thursday, May 7, 2015

They can take away your 16 year old son for 30 years !! Gummin passes Juvenile amendment in LS

16 to 18: LS passes bill redefining a juvenile's age in serious crimes


Under the proposed law, any juvenile aged between 16 and 18 will stay in a borstal, till the age of 21.


"....Maneka Gandhi said she has tried to be "pro-child" and made efforts to strike "a fine balance" between justice to victims and rights of children. ....."  !!!!




Over 40 amendments moved by the government were adopted while those moved by opposition MPs were kept out. (Source: PTI)

 

By: Press Trust of India | New Delhi | Updated: May 8, 2015 1:31 am


A bill providing for trial of juveniles aged between 16 and 18 for heinous crimes under laws governing adults was passed by the Lok Sabha Thursday. Over 40 amendments moved by the government were adopted while those moved by opposition MPs were kept out.


Trying to allay the concerns of the House, Minister for Women and Child Development Maneka Gandhi said she has tried to be "pro-child" and made efforts to strike "a fine balance" between justice to victims and rights of children.


Maneka added the new law is intended to be "deterrent" to ensure juveniles refrain from crime and avoid spoiling their lives. She justified the need for the new law quoting National Crime Records Bureau data that shows around 28,000 juveniles had committed various crimes in 2013 and of them, 3,887 had allegedly committed heinous crimes. "The new law is meant to apply to such 3,887 juveniles out of 47.2 crore juvenile population of the country."


She rejected the opposition's contention that the government had disregarded the recommendations of the parliamentary standing committee, saying 11 out of 13 recommendations had been accepted.


 "We do not want to be mean to children…. This Act is a deterrent," the minister added, also rejecting allegations that while she loved animals she was not favourable to juveniles.


Under the proposed law, any juvenile aged between 16 and 18 will stay in a borstal, an institution for housing adolescent offenders, till the age of 21 whatever the sentence. Also, there will be no provision for death sentence or life imprisonment. Once an offender turns 21, his behaviour will be assessed and if he has reformed, his sentence may be reduced, Maneka said.


She added that the cases will be tried by a Juvenile Justice Board, which will include a sociologist and a child rights activist and that she had prepared the bill after exhaustive consultation, including with judges who tried the Delhi bus gangrape case.

 

Source : http: //indianexpress.com/ article/india/juvenile-justice-bill- passed-in-lok-sabha/

 

 


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

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
  
  

Saturday, May 2, 2015

Victim of a false Dowry or Rape Law? Want Justice for Men? You have a DATE on 5.5.2015

Attention Gents, Gentlewomen and all concerned populi!... 

Victim of a false Dowry or Rape Law? Want Justice for Men? You have a DATE on 5.5.2015

As the country debates bringing a law on Marital Rape, a Delhi Court recently acquitted a husband and his family charged under various sections of IPC including rape. The woman admitted to have filed a false rape case in order to get a divorce and compensation. The court acquitted the woman's husband, parents-in-law, three brothers-in-law, two sisters-in-law of the offences under sections 498A (cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 354 (molestation) read with 34 (common intention) of IPC – in all 5 Men and 3 Women of which husband was sent behind bars on false charges. 



THIS IS NOT THE ONLY CASE. About a month ago two young boys incarcerated for one year for an alleged "gang rape" were acquitted by a Delhi Court. In December last year, three young boys who spent 9 months in jail in a gang rape case were acquitted after they produced a CD where complainant was seen demanding 5 crores in exchange for the false case. In February this year, a young boy hanged himself in Jhansi as his wife implicated him and his family in a false dowry and molestation case. Barely few days after this, a young doctor injected himself to death in Asansol implicated in a false 498A by his wife. 



These cases are a drop in the ocean of false cases that are filling our police stations and courts today in the name of stringent laws protection women from violence. Every single case of atrocity on a woman makes it to the front pages of newspapers but these cases are barely reported and rarely discussed in the main stream media.

Pain of men falsely accused and tears of families undergoing extreme humiliation due to soul shattering allegations has been conveniently ignored by all – lawmakers, media and the society. 



Latest media reports suggest, government is now serious on controlling misuse of the widely abused act – IPC 498A. And how? By making it compoundable!  Ask anyone who has suffered a false 498A and he would tell you what a joke this is. As per National Crime Records Bureau out of about 11 Lac cases filed between 1998 and 2013, more than 91000 cases were compounded when the law apparently is "non compoundable." Statistical evidence proves abuse of this provision has not abated in the state of Andra Pradesh where the law is already compoundable. 



What is interesting to note is, several organizations that have been working for a decade on abuse of this provision, have not even been called for a discussion by the lawmakers before an amendment is made to the law. So who has advised the changes? Ones who have turn a blind eye to the misuse or ones who perhaps don't even recognize there is a misuse? I don't know the answer. But I have a proposition for those who have suffered silently – it's time to speak up. And this is the only time!! 



Half the population of this country has NO GOVERNMENT BODY to represent their woes or even a 'helpline' where they could call for help if abused, ridiculed or in distress. SIFONE – 08882498498 - a volunteer run helpline by Save Indian Family – receives about 130 calls every day by abused men. 



On May 5, 2015 men, women, families from all over India are gathering at Jantar Mantar to raise voice against gross abuse of IPC 498A and demand creation of a Men's Commission to allow men of this country also to live a life of dignity. The protest also marks culmination of 2500KM Journey of Dr. Santosh Potdar and his wife Geeta , who have travelled all the way from Karnataka to New Delhi on a tricycle, demanding creation of a Men's Welfare Ministry and scrapping of 498A – a law that's been abused much more than used. If you don't speak up and raise your voice against INJUSTICE – no one would.  So keep yourself free on May 5, 2015. You have a date with your own self, where you speak up for justice to you and your family too.  

EVERYONE IS INVITED!


--

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

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
  
  

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

One or two physical assaults, even if true, cannot make out a case of cruelty u/s 498a!

 

 

Delhi Sessions court "....One or two instances of physical assault, even if found to be true, cannot make out a case of cruelty for the purpose of satisfying unlawful demand. The cruelty or torture, as contemplated in Section 498-A IPC denotes to a continuous process...."

 

Looking at the allegations they are all from 2003 and so on , so this seems to be a 10 ..12 year OLD case!!

 

*****************************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 or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. 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 and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . 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

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

 

Criminal Revision No. 122/14

IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

Criminal Revision No. : 122/14

FIR No. : 25/04

Under Section : 498-A/406/34 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act

Police Station : Gokal Puri

Unique I.D. No. : 02402R0292662014

 

In the matter of :-

 

State                           …..Revisionist

 

V E R S U S

 

1. Ishtqar

S/o. Mohd. Islam,

R/o.F-312, Gali No.10,

Bhagirath Vihar, Delhi.

 

2. Saira

W/o. Zahir,

R/o.F-312, Gali No.10,

Bhagirath Vihar, Delhi.

 

 

3. Israr

S/o. Mohd. Islam,

R/o.E-302, Gali No.10,

Bhagirath Vihar, Delhi.

 

4. Rahis

S/o. Rafiq,

R/o. Gaon-Shikarpur, PS-Bhorkala,

District-Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. …. Respondents

 

Date of Institution : 24.09.2014

Date of receiving the case in this court : 25.09.2014

Date of reserving order: 24.03.2015

Date of pronouncement: 07.04.2015

Decision: Revision petition is dismissed

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

 

Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara)

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi

Criminal Revision No. 122/14

 

O R D E R

 

1. This is a criminal revision petition challenging the order dated 05.08.2014, passed by the trial court, in the case titled as State v. Mohsina etc., bearing FIR No. 25/04, PS Gokal Puri, under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Vide the impugned order, the trial court discharged accused/respondents herein namely Ishtqar, Saira, Israr and Rahis for offence under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

 

2. The relationship of the complainant Shabnam with the accused persons is as follows :-

i. Mohsina - Sister-in-law (Jethani)

ii. Farida – Sister-in-law (Jethani)

iii. Ansar – Brother-in-law Devar

iv. Ishtikar – brother-in-law (Jeth)

v. Sayra – Sister-in-law (Nanad)

vi. Rehana – Sister-in-law (Devrani)

vii. Rahis – Brother-in-law (Nandoi)

viii.Jahira - Sister-in-law (Nanad)

ix. Mohammad Islam – Father-in-law (Sasur)

x. Mehboob – Husband (since PO)

xi. Israr – Brother-in-law (Jeth) and

xii. Hamiden – Mother-in-law (Saas)

 

3. Briefly stated, the case set up by prosecution is that accused Mohsina, Farida, Ansar, Ishtikar, Sayra, Rehana, Rahis, Jahira, Mohammad Islam, Mehboob, Israr and Hamiden had subjected complainant Shabnam with cruelty by their willful conduct and by making unlawful demands of dowry in furtherance of their common intention, during subsistence of marriage of complainant.

 

4. The revisionist/State has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds :-

 

i. That impugned order is illegal, improper, unjustified and against the established principle of law as settled by hon'ble Apex Court of India and is liable to be modified.

 

ii. That the trial court has grossly erred in the basic law on the point of framing of charges as laid down by hon'ble Supreme Court of India "that roving enquiry is not required at this stage and further held that charge can be framed even on strong suspicion" and reliance was placed on the judgment pronounced by hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2010) (9) SCC368. Another case law was cited i.e. State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) (4) SCC 6559, passed by Supreme Court, to submit that "at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage."

 

iii. The trial court failed to appreciate the complaint/statement of the complainant, wherein accused/respondents herein have been named, which reflects that a prima facie case under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against them and the same has been ignored by ld. MM.

 

iv. That the serious miscarriage of justice will be occasioned in the present case, if the present revision petition is not allowed. 5. The respondents challenged the revision petition on the grounds that the case was falsely lodged against them. They relied upon the judgment passed by High Court of Delhi in Criminal M.C. No. 7262/2006 decided on 23.02.2007 in the case titled as Smt. Neera Singh v. State, wherein it was observed that "vague allegation as made in the complaint by the petitioner against every member of the family of the husband cannot be accepted by any Court at their face value and the allegations have to be scrutinized carefully by the Court before framing charges." They also referred to the judgment passed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Sarita v. R. Ram Chandra (I) (2003) DMC 37. They supported the impugned order, vide which the respondents were discharged by the trial court.

 

6. I have given due attention to the rival contentions and to the case laws cited before me as well as the materials placed on the trial court record. http://evinayak.tumblr.com  http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

 

Analysis of evidence:-

 

7. From the chargesheet filed by IO, I find that the case of prosecution is based only on the complaint made by the complainant namely Ms. Sabnam. In her complaint given to ld. ACP, CAW Seelampur, the complainant made allegations that after her marriage with Sh. Mehboob, she was used to be beaten by her husband at the instance of her in-laws. She further alleged that on 15.05.2002, she was beaten by Sayra, Jahira, Mehboob, Israr and Mohsina due to which she went back to her parental house and after about 5 months she was brought back at her matrimonial house. In the Panchaayat, Israr, Ishtikar, Mehboob, Islam, Jahira and Rahis had promised that she would not be physically assaulted. She further alleged that there was no change in the behaviour of her in-laws and they always used to make demand for money and dowry. She further alleged that her brother-in-laws and sister-in-laws had got the dowry articles broken through their children and themselves. She also alleged about another instance of 28.04.2003 stating that that night her father-in-law, husband, Jahira, Rahis, Ishtikar, Ansar, Hamiden, Sayra, Mohsina and Farida had beaten her and they had thrown her out of the house. She further alleged that her in-laws used to torture her to bring the dowry and they did not allow her to live in the matrimonial house.

 

FINDINGS:-

 

8. From the aforesaid allegations made by the complainant, I do find that she had made very vague and general kind of allegations involving name of all family members of her husband, to allege that they used to harass her to bring more dowry. There are apparently no specific allegations against the respondents, which could prima facie show that the respondents used to torture and harass her for the purpose of bringing dowry or to satisfy any other unlawful demand. One or two instances of physical assault, even if found to be true, cannot make out a case of cruelty for the purpose of satisfying unlawful demand. The cruelty or torture, as contemplated in Section 498-A IPC denotes to a continuous process.

 

9. From the allegations made by the complainant, even I am unable to find any case of continuous torture, if committed by any of the respondents for the purpose of making demand of dowry or any other unlawful demand. It is also to be established that the torture or harassment caused to the complainant was to such an extent so as to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to the complainant. All such ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are not satisfied by the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Hence, present

 

10.Trial court record along with copy of this order be sent back to the trial court.

 

File of revision be consigned to record room, as per rules.

 

Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 07.04.2015 Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara)

 

(This order contains 6 pages)

 

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi

(Pulastya Pramachala)

Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara)

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi

 

 

PDF File uploaded to http://1drv.ms/1aZeTwN

 

 


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

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
  
  

One or two instances of assault not cruelty, says court

One or two instances of assault not cruelty, says Delhi Sessions court; In laws acquitted


The News Minute | April 14, 2015 | 09:34 am IST


New Delhi: A court here has said that "one or two instances of physical assault", even if proved, cannot make for a case of cruelty for the purpose of satisfying unlawful demand.


"One or two instances of physical assault, even if found to be true, cannot make out a case of cruelty for the purpose of satisfying unlawful demand," Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala said while dismissing a woman's revision plea challenging a magisterial court order that acquitted her in-laws.


The sessions court uphold a magisterial court order, acquitting the woman's brothers-in-law and a sister-in-law of the offences of cruelty by husband or relative of husband of a woman, criminal breach of trust with common intention of the Indian Penal Code and under Dowry Prohibition Act.


The court observed that the cruelty or torture, as contemplated in Section 498-A of the IPC denotes a continuous process.


It noted that there are apparently no specific allegations against the woman's in-laws, which could prima facie show that they used to torture and harass her for the purpose of bringing dowry or to satisfy any other unlawful demand.


"I do find that she had made very vague and general kind of allegations involving name of all family members of her husband to allege that they used to harass her to bring more dowry," the judge said.


"From the allegations made by the complainant, even I am unable to find any case of continuous torture, if committed by any of the respondents for the purpose of making demand of dowry or any other unlawful demand."


According to complainant, her husband used to beat her at the instance of her in-laws. She further alleged that her in-laws used to torture her to bring the dowry and they did not allow her to live in the matrimonial house.


The woman's husband is on run.


The order was delivered last week but released on Monday.


With IANS


© 2014 www. thenewsminute.com Developed by Girish Swaminathan


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

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
  
  

Monday, April 13, 2015

a 498a hit husband commits suicide & Ablaa 498a wife gets bail


a 498a hit husband commits suicide (Manish Jain committed suicide). His Ablaa 498a wife gets bail (in husband's side counter case ) ...


Salient points

* It is reported that during the Pendancy of THIS bail application, the complainant Manoj Jain committed suicide

* The applicants IN THIS case are the wife of that 498a hit husband !! Husband has filed a counter case, and wife is seeking bail

* FINALLY .... wife gets bail !!!!


Saturday, April 11, 2015

direction NOT to arrest absconding husband IF he cooperates with investigation State vs. Chanpreet Singh Sehmi



 

* applicant has not joined the investigation and is absconding.

* the applicant be not arrested subject to his not leaving the country and joining the investigation as and when required

 

*****************************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 or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. 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 and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . 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

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

 

IN THE COURT OF Ms. ANU MALHOTRA DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST) : DELHI

 

Bail App. No. 2301

State vs. Chanpreet Singh Sehmi

FIR No. 816/2014

U/s: 406/498A/34 IPC

PS: Tilak Nagar

 

01.04.2015

 

Present:

Ld. Addl. PP Ms. Sushma Badhwar for the State.

Ld. counsel Shri G. P. Thareja for the applicant.

IO / SI Rajpal in person.

Ld. counsel Shri Lalit Kumar for the complainant.

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

 

In reply to a specific Court query to the IO as to what is the status of investigation after the date 05.03.2015, when the previous application seeking anticipatory bail was rejected by the ld. ASJ (FTC) (West), it is informed by the IO and the counsel for the complainant that the applicant has not joined the investigation and is absconding.

 

Before proceeding further, the applicant is directed to present himself before the IO on the date 04.04.2015 at 2.00 PM at the PS Tilak Nagar and the IO is directed to submit a report in relation to the investigation conducted for the date 07.04.2015, till which date, the applicant be not arrested subject to his not leaving the country and joining the investigation as and when required and not tampering with the evidence in any manner.

 

(ANU MALHOTRA)

 

District & Sessions Judge (West)

 

Delhi/01.04.2015

 

 




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

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
  
  

How rape cases are settled every day while the world thinks ALL Indians are rapists !!

IN THE COURT OF Ms. ANU MALHOTRA DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST) : DELHI

Bail App. No. 1901
State vs. Narender Sawardekar
FIR No. 1619/2014
U/s: 376/420 IPC
PS: Tilak Nagar 

01.04.2015

Present:

Ld. Addl. PP Ms. Sushma Badhwar for the State.
Ld. counsel Shri Arvind Vashistha for the applicant.
IO / SI Anju Tyagi in person.

Complainant in person with ld. counsel Shri Saurabh Jain.

On behalf of the complainant and the applicant, at the outset, it is submitted that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties.

An affidavit of the complainant Ms. Manju Singh has been submitted,   submitting   to   the   effect   that   she   does   not   want   to   proceed against the applicant under Section 376/420 of the IPC.

As   per   the   said affidavit, she was also living with the applicant and that the applicant has gone to Russia for work.

The complainant in reply to specific Court queries affirms on oath that she does not want to proceed against the applicant and the statement of the complainant to that effect has been recorded.

The IO has identified the complainant.    

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the State does not oppose the anticipatory bail application of the applicant, in view of the statement made on behalf of the complainant but submits that there are NBWs   already  issued  against  him,  qua  which,  the   applicant  may  seek redressal in accordance with law before the ld. Trial Court.

In view of the statement made by the complainant and there being   nothing   to   disbelieve   the   same,   the   applicant   is   allowed   to   be released on bail on his filing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/­ with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned, subject to the applicant joining the investigation as and when required and not leaving the country.

(ANU MALHOTRA)

District & Sessions Judge (West)

Delhi/01.04.2015



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

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
  
  

Thursday, April 9, 2015

SAME maintenance EVEN after retirement. Able bodied male can't deny maintenance

 

Hon. Supreme Court

 

"...... Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.

 

While determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court in Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun & Ors has held as follows:-

 

" The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."...."

 

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

 

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.564-565 OF 2015

[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6380-6381 of 2014]

 

SHAMIMA FAROOQUI... Appellant

Versus

SHAHID KHAN ... Respondent

 

J U D G M E N T

 

Dipak Misra, J.

 

Leave granted.

 

2. When centuries old obstructions are removed, age old shackles are either burnt or lost their force, the chains get rusted, and the human endowments and virtues are not indifferently treated and emphasis is laid on "free identity" and not on "annexed identity", and the women of today can gracefully and boldly assert their legal rights and refuse to be tied down to the obscurant conservatism, and further determined to ostracize the "principle of commodity", and the "barter system" to devoutly engage themselves in learning, criticizing and professing certain principles with committed sensibility and participating in all pertinent and concerned issues, there is no warrant or justification or need to pave the innovative multi-avenues which the law does not countenance or give its stamp of approval. Chivalry, a perverse sense of human egotism, and clutching of feudal megalomaniac ideas or for that matter, any kind of condescending attitude have no room. They are bound to be sent to the ancient woods, and in the new horizon people should proclaim their own ideas and authority. They should be able to say that they are the persons of modern age and they have the ideas of today's "Bharat". Any other idea floated or any song sung in the invocation of male chauvinism is the proposition of an alien, a total stranger – an outsider. That is the truth in essentiality.  http://evinayak.tumblr.com http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

 

3. The facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of these appeals are that the appellant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) contending, inter alia, that she married Shahid Khan, the respondent herein, on 26.4.1992 and during her stay at the matrimonial home she was prohibited from talking to others, and the husband not only demanded a car from the family but also started harassing her. A time came when he sent her to the parental home where she was compelled to stay for almost three months. The indifferent husband did not come to take her back to the matrimonial home, but she returned with the fond and firm hope that the bond of wedlock would be sustained and cemented with love and peace but as the misfortune would have it, the demand for the vehicle continued and the harassment was used as a weapon for fulfilment of the demand. In due course she came to learn that the husband had illicit relationship with another woman and he wanted to marry her. Usual to sense of human curiosity and wife's right when she asked him she was assaulted. The situation gradually worsened and it became unbearable for her to stay at the matrimonial home. At that juncture, she sought help of her parents who came and took her to the parental home at Lucknow where she availed treatment. Being deserted and ill-treated and, in a way, suffering from fear psychosis she took shelter in the house of her parents and when all her hopes got shattered for reunion, she filed an application for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month on the foundation that husband was working on the post of Nayak in the Army and getting a salary of Rs.10,000/- approximately apart from other perks.

 

4. The application for grant of maintenance was resisted with immense vigour by the husband disputing all the averments pertaining to demand of dowry and harassment and further alleging that he had already given divorce to her on 18.6.1997 and has also paid the Mehar to her.

 

5. A reply was filed to the same by wife asserting that she had neither the knowledge of divorce nor had she received an amount of Mehar.

 

6. During the proceeding before the learned Family Judge the wife-appellant examined herself and another, and the respondent-husband examined four witnesses, including himself. The learned Family Judge, Family Court, Lucknow while dealing with the application forming the subject matter Criminal Case No. 1120 of 1998 did not accept the primary objection as regards the maintainability under Section 125 CrPC as the applicant was a Muslim woman and came to hold even after the divorce the application of the wife under Section 125 CrPC was maintainable in the family court. Thereafter, the learned Family Judge appreciating the evidence brought on record came to opine that the marriage between the parties had taken place on 26.4.1992; that the husband had given divorce on 18.6.1997; that she was ill treated at her matrimonial home; and that she had come back to her parental house and staying there; that the husband had not made any provision for grant of maintenance; that the wife did not have any source of income to support her, and the plea advanced by the husband that she had means to sustain her had not been proved; that as the husband was getting at the time of disposal of the application as per the salary certificate Rs.17654/- and accordingly directed that a sum of Rs.2500/- should be paid as monthly maintenance allowance from the date of submission of application till the date of judgment and thereafter Rs.4000/- per month from the date of judgment till the date of remarriage. http://evinayak.tumblr.com http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

 

7. The aforesaid order passed by the learned Family Judge came to be assailed before the High Court in Criminal Revision wherein, the High Court after adumbrating the facts referred to the decisions in Anita Rani v. Rakeshpal Singh Dharmendra Kumar Gupta v. Chander Prabha Devi, Rakesh Kumar Dikshit v. Jayanti Devi , Ashutosh Tripathi v. State of U.P. , Paras Nath Kurmi v. The Session Judge and Sartaj v. State of U.P. and others and came to hold that though the learned principal Judge, Family Court had not ascribed any reason for grant of maintenance from the date of application, yet when the case for maintenance was filed in the year 1998 decided on 17.2.2012 and there was no order for interim maintenance, the grant of Rs.2500/- as monthly maintenance from the date of application was neither illegal nor excessive. The High Court took note of the fact that the husband had retired on 1.4.2012 and consequently reduced the maintenance allowance to Rs.2000/-from 1.4.2012 till remarriage of the appellant herein. Being of this view the learned Single Judge modified the order passed by the Family Court. Hence, the present appeal by special leave, at the instance of the wife.

 

8. We have heard Dr. J.N. Dubey, learned senior counsel for the appellant. Despite service of notice, none has appeared for the respondent.

 

9. It is submitted by Dr. Dubey, learned senior counsel that Section 125 CrPC is applicable to the Muslim women and the Family Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue. It is urged by him that the High Court has fallen into error by opining that the grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month is excessive and hence, it should be reduced to Rs.2000/- per month from the date of retirement of the husband i.e. 1.4.2012 till her re-marriage. It is also contended that the High Court failed to appreciate the plight of the appellant and reduced the amount and hence, the impugned order is not supportable in law.

 

10. First of all, we intend to deal with the applicability of Section 125 CrPC to a Muslim woman who has been divorced. In Shamim Bano v. Asraf Khan, this Court after referring to the Constitution Bench decisions in Danial Latifi v. Union of India and Khatoon Nisa v. State of U.P. had opined as follows:

 

" 13. The aforesaid principle clearly lays down that even after an application has been filed under the provisions of the Act, the Magistrate under the Act has the power to grant maintenance in favour of a divorced Muslim woman and the parameters and the considerations are the same as stipulated in Section 125 of the Code. We may note that while taking note of the factual score to the effect that the plea of divorce was not accepted by the Magistrate which was upheld by the High Court, the Constitution Bench opined that as the Magistrate could exercise power under Section 125 of the Code for grant of maintenance in favour of a divorced Muslim woman under the Act, the order did not warrant any interference. Thus, the emphasis was laid on the retention of the power by the Magistrate under Section 125 of the Code and the effect of ultimate consequence.

 

14. Slightly recently, in Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan, a two-Judge Bench, placing reliance on Danial Latifi (supra), has ruled that:-"

 

21. The appellant's petition under Section 125 CrPC would be maintainable before the Family Court as long as the appellant does not remarry. The amount of maintenance to be awarded under Section 125 CrPC cannot be restricted for the iddat period only." Though the aforesaid decision was rendered interpreting Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, yet the principle stated therein would be applicable, for the same is in consonance with the principle stated by the Constitution Bench in Khatoon Nisa (supra)."

 

In view of the aforesaid dictum, there can be no shadow of doubt that Section 125 CrPC has been rightly held to be applicable by the learned Family Judge.

 

11. On a perusal of the order passed by the Family Court, it is manifest that it has taken note of the fact that the salary of the husband was Rs.17,654/- in May, 2009. It had fixed Rs.2,500/- as monthly maintenance from the date of submission of application till the date of order i.e. 17.2.2012 and from the date of order, at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month till the date of remarriage. The High Court has opined that while granting maintenance from the date of application, judicial discretion has to be appropriately exercised, for the High Court has noted that the grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month from the date of application till date of order, did not call for modification.

 

12. The aforesaid finding of the High Court, affirming the view of the learned Family Judge is absolutely correct. But what is disturbing is that though the application for grant of maintenance was filed in the year 1998, it was not decided till 17.2.2012. It is also shocking to note that there was no order for grant of interim maintenance. It needs no special emphasis to state that when an application for grant of maintenance is filed by the wife the delay in disposal of the application, to say the least, is an unacceptable situation. It is, in fact, a distressing phenomenon. An application for grant of maintenance has to be disposed of at the earliest. The family courts, which have been established to deal with the matrimonial disputes, which include application under Section 125 CrPC, have become absolutely apathetic to the same. The concern and anguish that was expressed by this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Ors., is to the following effect:-

 

" 13. The Family Courts have been established for adopting and facilitating the conciliation procedure and to deal with family disputes in a speedy and expeditious manner. A three-Judge Bench in K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida, while highlighting on the purpose of bringing in the Family Courts Act by the legislature, opined thus:-"

 

The Family Courts Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of, disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith."

 

14. The purpose of highlighting this aspect is that in the case at hand the proceeding before the Family Court was conducted without being alive to the objects and reasons of the Act and the spirit of the provisions Under Section 125 of the Code. It is unfortunate that the case continued for nine years before the Family Court. It has come to the notice of the Court that on certain occasions the Family Courts have been granting adjournments in a routine manner as a consequence of which both the parties suffer or, on certain occasions, the wife becomes the worst victim. When such a situation occurs, the purpose of the law gets totally atrophied. http://evinayak.tumblr.com http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

 

The Family Judge is expected to be sensitive to the issues, for he is dealing with extremely delicate and sensitive issues pertaining to the marriage and issues ancillary thereto. When we say this, we do not mean that the Family Courts should show undue haste or impatience, but there is a distinction between impatience and to be wisely anxious and conscious about dealing with a situation. A Family Court Judge should remember that the procrastination is the greatest assassin of the lis before it. It not only gives rise to more family problems but also gradually builds unthinkable and Everestine bitterness. It leads to the cold refrigeration of the hidden feelings, if still left. The delineation of the lis by the Family Judge must reveal the awareness and balance. Dilatory tactics by any of the parties has to be sternly dealt with, for the Family Court Judge has to be alive to the fact that the lis before him pertains to emotional fragmentation and delay can feed it to grow. We hope and trust that the Family Court Judges shall remain alert to this and decide the matters as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the objects and reasons of the Act and the scheme of various provisions pertaining to grant of maintenance, divorce, custody of child, property disputes, etc." [emphasis supplied]

 

13. When the aforesaid anguish was expressed, the predicament was not expected to be removed with any kind of magic. However, the fact remains, these litigations can really corrode the human relationship not only today but will also have the impact for years to come and has the potentiality to take a toll on the society. It occurs either due to the uncontrolled design of the parties or the lethargy and apathy shown by the Judges who man the Family Courts. As far as the first aspect is concerned, it is the duty of the Courts to curtail them. There need not be hurry but procrastination should not be manifest, reflecting the attitude of the Court. As regards the second facet, it is the duty of the Court to have the complete control over the proceeding and not permit the lis to swim the unpredictable grand river of time without knowing when shall it land on the shores or take shelter in a corner tree that stands "still" on some unknown bank of the river. It cannot allow it to sing the song of the brook. "Men may come and men may go, but I go on for ever." This would be the greatest tragedy that can happen to the adjudicating system which is required to deal with most sensitive matters between the man and wife or other family members relating to matrimonial and domestic affairs. There has to be a pro-active approach in this regard and the said approach should be instilled in the Family Court Judges by the Judicial Academies functioning under the High Courts. For the present, we say no more.

 

14. Coming to the reduction of quantum by the High Court, it is noticed that the High Court has shown immense sympathy to the husband by reducing the amount after his retirement. It has come on record that the husband was getting a monthly salary of Rs.17,654/-.  http://evinayak.tumblr.com http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

 

15. The High Court, without indicating any reason, has reduced the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs.2,000/-. In today's world, it is extremely difficult to conceive that a woman of her status would be in a position to manage within Rs.2,000/- per month. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right. While determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court in Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun & Ors. has held as follows:-

 

" The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."

 

16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, it has been ruled that:-

 

" Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat."

 

This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning.

 

17. In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash wherein it has been opined thus:-

 

" An able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodies person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable to reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him."

 

18. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is limpid that the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife and children arises. When the woman leaves the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived of many a comfort. Sometimes the faith in life reduces. Sometimes, she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling that her fearless courage has brought her the misfortune. At this stage, the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny. Therefore, the lawful imposition for grant of maintenance allowance. http://evinayak.tumblr.com http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

 

19. In the instant case, as is seen, the High Court has reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.2,000/-. As is manifest, the High Court has become oblivious of the fact that she has to stay on her own. Needless to say, the order of the learned Family Judge is not manifestly perverse. There is nothing perceptible which would show that order is a sanctuary of errors. In fact, when the order is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, no revisional court should have interfered with the reason on the base that it would have arrived at a different or another conclusion. When substantial justice has been done, there was no reason to interfere. There may be a shelter over her head in the parental house, but other real expenses cannot be ignored. Solely because the husband had retired, there was no justification to reduce the maintenance by 50%. It is not a huge fortune that was showered on the wife that it deserved reduction. It only reflects the non-application of mind and, therefore, we are unable to sustain the said order.

 

20. Having stated the principle, we would have proceeded to record our consequential conclusion. But, a significant one, we cannot be oblivious of the asseverations made by the appellant. It has been asserted that the respondent had taken voluntary retirement after the judgment dated 17.2.2012 with the purpose of escaping the liability to pay the maintenance amount as directed to the petitioner; that the last drawn salary of respondent taken into account by the learned Family Judge was Rs.17,564/- as per salary slip of May, 2009 and after deduction of AFPP Fund and AGI, the salary of the respondent was Rs.12,564/- and hence, even on the basis of the last basic pay (i.e. Rs.9,830/-) of the respondent the total pension would come to Rs.14,611/- and if 40% of commutation is taken into account then the pension of the respondent amounts to Rs.11,535/-; and that the respondent, in addition to his pension, hand received encashment of commutation to the extent of 40% i.e. Rs.3,84,500/- and other retiral dues i.e. AFPP, AFGI, Gratuity and leave encashment to the tune of Rs.16,01,455/-.

 

21. The aforesaid aspects have gone uncontroverted as the respondent-husband has not appeared and contested the matter. Therefore, we are disposed to accept the assertions. This exposition of facts further impels us to set aside the order of the High Court.

 

22. Consequently, the appeals are allowed, the orders passed by the High Court are set aside and that of the Family Court is restored. There shall be no order as to costs.

 

........................................J. [DIPAK MISRA]

 

........................................J. [PRAFULLA C. PANT]

 

NEW DELHI

 

APRIL 06, 2015.

 

 

 

PDF File uploaded to http://1drv.ms/1PpllMZ

 

 

 



 

*****************************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 or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. 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 and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . 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

 

 


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

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