Friday, March 11, 2016
the stiff competition between fake rape and fake DV, Fake maintenance cases !! Matrimony in India !!
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
RAPE, cheating etc on 7 of boy’s family just Bcaz engagement cancelled! Bombay HC fines police, quashes case!!
RAPE, cheating on 7 ppl of boy's famly Bcaz engagement c... When an engagement is cancelled girl goes on to file rape (sec 376) & cheating (sec 417) on the boy , his sisters, his Uncle, Aunt etc. Boy's Uncle and aunt, who ar... | |||||||
Preview by Yahoo | |||||||
can we emulate the Japanes men ? can we shun marriage and avoid trouble ?
Husband can appoint agent 2 appear @ familycourt. need NOT appear in person all dates. Madras HC.
Husband can appoint agent to appear at family court. Nee... Judgement of Hon Madras HC that can be used by NRIs & other husbands living out of station. Hon HC orders that a husband can appoint an agent who is not a lawye... | |||||||
Preview by Yahoo | |||||||
Parties may seek Exemption from personal appearance @ family court. Karnataka HC
3.5 CRORES "settlement" 2 quash 498a,406! Submitted in memory of all who scream "..Marriage is scared..."
and
"…12. Before parting with this order, I find force in the submission of learned APP for State regarding putting the petitioners to some terms. At this stage, petitioners No.1 and 2 have come forward and submitted that they are ready to contribute a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each for some welfare purposes.
3.5 CRORES to quash 498a,406 case. Add 2 lakhs to martyr... 3crore 50lakhs ONLY to quash 498a,406 34 case. Abla agrees to quash so ...quashed !! Please Add something for a social cause ...say Rs 2 lakhs to police martyrs fun... | |||||||
Preview by Yahoo | |||||||
No maintenance liability on Mother-in-law, brother-in-law !!.
No liability on Mothr,brothr inlaw.Pardiwala(J) saves MI... In this case a Sessions court orders Rs 9000 maintenance to a wife and says the husband, brother in law and mother in law are to pay the same. ( ...allowed the appe... | |||||||
Preview by Yahoo | |||||||
Saturday, December 26, 2015
Divorce WITHOUT alimony aftr wife’s 498a where all accused acquitted! Bom HC. Trial court NEED NOT call it false !
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 ?
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
Friday, May 22, 2015
Drug addict Abla dies of overdose and they want hubby to B hanged!!
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
--
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
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

