Select a page

Useful Judgements

  • MANGAT RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Sections 306, 498A — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 113A — Abetment of Suicide — Cruelty — Dowry demand — Presumption — Death of deceased was accidental as she was suffering from epilepsy for last 3 years — This fact is fortified by DW 1-Doctor and DW 2-Investigating Officer, who recorded her statement. Prosecution has not succeeded in establishing offence under Sections 498A and 306, IPC against appellant. Conviction set aside.

    0
  • KUSUM LATA SHARMA Vs. STATE & ANR.

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Sections 2(a), 2(f), 2(q), 12 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — “Aggrieved Person” — “Female relative” — Mother who is being maltreated and harassed by her son would be an “aggrieved person” — If said harassment is caused through female relative of son, i.e. his wife, said female relative will fall within the ambit of “respondent” — Mother-in-law being an ‘aggrieved person’ can file complaint against daughter-in-law as respondent — No case for quashing of complaint made out.

    0
  • RAJINDER SINGH JOON Vs. SMT. TARA WATI

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    The conduct of the wife in refusing to see the husband lying seriously ill, was such that it amounted to cruelty. It can properly and rationally be stigmatised by the word “cruelty” in its ordinary acceptation.

    0
  • BADRI NARAYAN Vs. SAVITRI

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Wife’s behaviour with Husband and his family members was of continuous torture and harassment. Respondent living with her parents most of the time and came intermittently only to matrimonial home for short intervals — She created trouble, causing tension, harassment and apprehension to appellant and his family members.Husband entitled to decree of divorce.

    0
  • SMITA SINGH Vs. BISHNU PRIYA SINGH & ORS.

    Court:ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Orders which scuttle rights of applicants to get relief under Act or bring proceeding to an end at the threshold must be held to be appealable under Section 29 of Act — Impugned order is appealable under Section 29 of Act.

    0
  • BALBEER SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

    Court:UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
    Sections 406 — Criminal Breach of Trust — If daughter leaves this mortal world for any reason whatsoever, then dominion over the property will not return to father of that woman — It will be inherited as per succession law — No offence made out under Section 406, IPC.

    0
  • AJOY KR. GHOSH Vs. SMT. KAJAL GHOSH & ANR.

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Sections 406 – There was neither any demand from side of complainant for return of her Stridhan properties nor any refusal on part of petitioners to return them — Absence of allegation of criminal breach of trust.

    0
  • HIMA CHUGH Vs. PRITAM ASHOK SADAPHULE & ORS.

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Sections 2(f), 2(s) — “Domestic Relationship” — Protection order — Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 viz., father-in-law, brother-in-law and other near relations of respondent No. 1 husband were not in domestic relationship with petitioner wife — No protection order could be passed against them — Petition allowed so far as it concerns petitioner No. 1, who was in domestic relationship, being husband of petitioner — It would be different matter whether on basis of material on record, any protection order is required to be passed against him or not.

    0
  • MOHANAN Vs. THANKAMANI

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Mental Cruelty — Murder of two minor children — Amounted to cruelty of the worst-sort — Single act of violence against the children establishes the cruel conduct — Amounts to infliction of mental cruelty.

    0
  • C. CHANDRAMOHAN & ANR. Vs. VARSHA & ANR.

    Court:MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 12 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Domestic Violence — Allegation against brother of husband — Quashing of proceeding – Complaint allegations not only inherently improbable but tainted by mala fides.

    0
  • AJIT SINGH & ANR. Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Hindu Succession Act, S. 15 — Hindu female dying leaving property gifted by, and not inherited from parents — Husband in the absence of any son or daughter, alone succeeds to such property — Husband retaining such property and appropriating to his own use — No question of criminal breach of trust on his part arises — Even otherwise matter purely of civil nature.

    0
  • BHARAT BHUSHAN & ANR. Vs. STATE OF M.P.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Unless it is established that appellants committed some act of cruelty or harassment towards a woman, they cannot be held guilty of offences under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC — Act of remaining silent with regard to settlement of dowry demand will also not amount to cruelty — Impugned judgment of High Court as well as judgment of trial Court set aside.

    0
  • GHUSABHAI RAISANGBHAI CHORASIYA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    There is no allegation of any kind of physical torture — Evidence brought on record with regard to cruelty is absolutely sketchy and not convincing — On basis of evidence, it is difficult to sustain conviction under Sections 306 and 498A, IPC — As such, conviction under Section 201, IPC also not sustainable — Conviction and sentence of appellants set aside.

    0
  • MEENAKSHI JATAV & ORS. Vs. SEEMA SEHAR (DR.) & ANR.

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    No specific allegations made against petitioners — Petitioners are sisters-in-law of respondent, are residing separately — Marriage of petitioners took place much before marriage of respondent — Relief sought for under Sections 19, 20 and 22 of Act by respondent No. 1 against petitioners cannot be granted.

    0
  • RAMESH LAXMAN SONAWANE Vs. MEENAXI RAMESH SONAWANE

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Cruelty — Desertion — Dissolution of marriage — Appellant-husband proved that respondent wife treated him with cruelty — Unsubstantiated allegations levelled by respondent wife that husband is having illicit relations.— This amounted to mental cruelty. Marriage between appellant and respondent dissolved in accordance with provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act.

    0
  • SHASHI KUMAR Vs. NEELAM

    Court:HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Husband was denied sexual access, subjected to abuse, locked out of his room, kicked out of bed, his mother was abused and respondent was not performing any household work — This stands established by evidence on record — Marriage between parties is dissolved by decree of divorce.

    0
  • K. NARASIMHAN Vs. ROHINI DEVANATHAN

    Court:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Making certain allegations against respondent by itself would not amount to domestic violence in absence of ingredient of shared household — No proof of petitioner and respondent living together at any point of time — Proceedings initiated against petitioner and complaint filed by respondent is abuse of process — Proceedings quashed.

    0
  • RADHA KANT ADHIKARI & ORS. Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR.

    Court:UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
    Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Quashing of proceedings. Allegations made by complainant in her complaint do not prima facie inspire confidence against Applicant— Applicant appear to be falsely implicated being relatives of complainant and her husband.

    0
  • RENU MITTAL Vs. ANIL MITTAL & ORS.

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Maintenance — Grant of — Jurisdiction under Criminal Procedure Code and Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is parallel jurisdiction — If maintenance has been granted under Section 125, Cr.P.C. after taking into account entire material placed before Court and recording evidence, it is not necessary that another Metropolitan Magistrate under Domestic Violence Act should again adjudicate issue of maintenance — Law does not warrant that two parallel Courts should adjudicate same issue separately — If adjudication has already been done by Court of Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 125, Cr.P.C., re-adjudication of issue of maintenance cannot be done by Court of Metropolitan Magistrate under Domestic Violence Act .

    0
  • DR. SANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Sections 406/498-A — Complainant made omnibus allegations against petitioners-accused and tried to rope them all as co-accused to face trial : No justification for summoning co-accused on basis of statement of complainant.

    0
  • SURENDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Sections 2(a), 12, 18, 19, 20 — Aggrieved person — Marriage has been declared as null and void at instance of wife, she cannot be an aggrieved person as provided under Section 2(a) of Act — Claim by wife for Protection order, residential order and monetary relief — Not maintainable — She is not entitled to claim benefit under Act or file petition under Section 12 of Act.

    0
  • MR. M. Vs. MRS. M

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Cruelty — Desertion — Respondent-wife has not substantiated allegations of cruelty in her evidence — She could not substantiate allegations even in Criminal Court — Appellant and his family members were subjected to humiliation, trauma and agony as set out in deposition of appellant — Respondent-wife made unfounded defamatory allegations against appellant — Allegation of death of her father due to harassment suffered by her from appellant, is an unfounded defamatory allegation — Said conduct of respondent amounts to mental cruelty to appellant and he is not reasonably expected to continue cohabitation with respondent.

    0
  • RAJ PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Sections 498-A, 406 — Allegations against petitioners (mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of complainant) are general and vague — At one breath complainant stated that dowry articles were handed over to accused Nos. 1 to 3 but in next breath she stated they were received by accused Nos. 1 to 4 — Allegations made by petitioners not only vague but varying — F.I.R. in question and consequential proceedings, if any, quashed.

    0
  • MANGESH BALKRUSHNA BHOIR Vs. LEENA MANGESH BHOIR

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Cruelty — False complaint by wife — Arrest of Husband and his family members — Taking advantage of one’s own wrong — Respondent-wife filed false complaint alleging offence under Section 498A and other provisions of IPC — Appellant-Husband and his family members were acquitted — Husband entitled to seek divorce on ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of Act — Since respondent-wife had taken advantage of appellant of her own wrong and not appellant, Section 23(1)(a) would come to rescue of appellant and not respondent.

    0
  • BHUPENDER SINGH MEHRA Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Before passing an order on application under Section 12 of the PWDVA 2005, Magistrate has to take into consideration domestic incident report received from the Protection Officer. Aggrieved person does not have liberty to make every relative of husband as a respondent — Order of Magistrate set aside.

    0
  • RAVI DUTTA Vs. KIRAN DUTTA & ANR.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Sections 12, 28, 23(2) — Interim maintenance — Non-consideration of Domestic Incident Report by trial Court — Court trying cases under D.V. Act cannot bypass mandate of Section 12 of Act which requires Domestic Incident Report to be considered — Mandate of Section 12 of D.V. Act cannot be deviated and object of D.V. Act cannot be defeated by not remanding matter back to trial Court — Impugned order remanding matter back to trial Court does not suffer from any palpable error — In impugned order, Appellate Court has not disclosed prima facie that petitioner husband is/was committing an act of domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of D.V. Act — Direction to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. to complainant-wife is rendered unsustainable and quashed.

    0
  • HARSH VARDHAN ARORA Vs. SMT. KAVITA ARORA

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Sections 498-A, 406 — Quashing of Proceedings : Cruelty, Criminal Breach of Trust : Omnibus Allegations made against All Accused in Respect of Demand of Dowry, Harassment, Torture and Beating Given to Her during Her Stay in Matrimonial Home : Allegations Vague and General : No Offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. made Out : Complaint and Proceedings Quashed.

    0
  • SURESH GURJAR Vs. USHA GURJAR

    Court:RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Section 13(1)(ia) — Cruelty — Dissolution of Marriage — Respondent wife was adament in her disinclination to discharge her marital obligations including cohabitation — Coupled with this is institution of criminal case under Section 498A, IPC against appellant and his family members in connection with which he had been arrested by police — Parties not conducive to rehabilitation — Age-wise whole life awaits then — This Court inclined to grant dissolution of marriage between parties.

    1
  • LEKH RAJ KUKREJA Vs. RAYMON

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 — Section 12 — Interim custody of minor male child aged 11 — Lower Court gave it to mother as he would be in the company of his sister — Revision against — Father natural guardian — Welfare of child also demands that he should be in the custody of his father — Child showed inclination to stay with father — Whether custody be continued with father-husband ? (Yes).

    1
  • SUSHILA AGRAWAL Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL

    Court:RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Cruelty — Dissolution of Marriage – Children of husband from earlier marriage had to be shifted to Jaipur on account of atrocious behaviour of wife — Wife found to have adopted double standard in her behaviour to her own child and children of husband from their earlier marriage — When husband met with accident, wife did not look after him and he had to be shifted to Jaipur to his brother for care and treatment.

    1
  • SMT. SWASTIKA SEN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Maintenance can only be granted to a wife who is indeed unable to maintain herself. This is clear dictate of law and cannot be permissible.

    0
  • TARA CHAND MAVAR Vs. BASANTI DEVI

    Court:RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Sections 7, 17, 25(2) — Family Courts Act, 1984 — Section 19 — Father a man of means, educated no allegation against his character — Father is a fit person to be guardian.

    0
  • RAZIA BEGUM Vs. STATE, NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Sections 2(q), 2(f) — ‘Respondent’ — Every relative of husband cannot be made as respondent — In order to fix liability upon a respondent, he must be a person who is or has been in domestic relationship with aggrieved person.

    0
  • USHA Vs. VIMAL KUMAR

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Section 13(1)(ia) — Husband’s petition for divorce on wife’s cruelty — Wife asked to accompany husband and engaged herself in a scuffle with him and also slapped him — Altercation seen by witness — Her behaviour with members of his family not proper. Divorce granted to husband on ground of cruelty.

    1
  • Sanjiv Kumar Vs. State Of Haryana And Another

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Section 498A/406 – Brother-in-law(Jeth), residing separately. The complainant appears to have falsely involved the petitioner in the present case. Therefore, the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed.

    0
  • Smt. Rama @ Ram Kala Vs. Anil Kumar Joshi

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Father given the guardianship and claim of wife dismissed that she is better financially.

    0
  • PRITAM ASHOK SADAPHULE & ORS. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Section 498A — Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Quashing of FIR — Cruelty — Allegations levelled against in-laws by wife aimed at harassing the appellants except husband — They could not be held responsible for offence under Section 498A, IPC.

    0
  • FARJANABI Vs. SK. AYUB DADAMIYA

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Guardians and Wards Act — Section 25 and Mohammedan law — Guardianship — Male children above 7 years of age — Custody — Under Mohammedan law father is entitled.

    0
  • KAILASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & ANR. Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Section 406 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 6 — Quashing of Proceedings — Criminal Breach of Trust — Dowry demand — Appellants not named in FIR — In criminal complaints they have been named without attributing any specific role to them — Relationship of appellants with husband of complainant is distant — Proceedings in this case abuse of process of Court — Proceedings against appellants quashed.

    0
  • KAILASH MANDAL & ANR. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

    Court:JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 319, 482 — Dowry Death — No specific overt act attributed against petitioners, mother-in-law and father-in-law of deceased — Allegations general in nature — Other witnesses have not supported contention of PWs 6 and 7 out of 14 witnesses already examined — No prima facie case against petitioners to be arrayed as accused for charge under Section 304-B, IPC so as to summon petitioners under Section 319, Criminal Procedure Code — Impugned order quashed.

    0
  • RAJNI Vs. SHANTILAL

    Section 13 — Cruelty — Husbands petition for divorce — Ground — Cruelty — Marriage took place in 1976 — Wife living with the husband only two or three times — Tried to commit suicide — Wife denying the allegations — But did not examine herself or any witness — Wife, alleged that husband married for second time — Implying that husband living adultery — Whether inference can be drawn against her ? (Yes).

    0
  • MOHAMMED NAIM Vs. SHAIKH SHAZIYA FARHEEN & ANR.

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Sections 125, 127 — Maintenance — Cancellation — Change in circumstances — Ground — Wife started earning after initial order passed. This was significant change in circumstances, inasmuch, inability of wife to maintain herself is not only relevant, but pre-requisite for entitlement to get maintenance. Maintenance awarded to respondent liable to be cancelled.

    0
  • DARSHNA KUMARI ALIAS WORSELY Vs. INDER KUMAR ARORA

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Section 13(1)(ia) — Divorce granted to husband on account of wife’s cruelty — Wife filing criminal complaints against husband and his parents. Beating to husband by wife and her brothers. Aforesaid acts of cruelty sufficient to grant decree of divorce.

    3
  • HANSABEN RAMJIBHAI PITHWA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

    Court:GUJARAT HIGH COURT
    Section 127, Cr.P.C. has no jurisdiction to entertain application on account of inherent lack of jurisdiction and existing order of Civil Court under which maintenance was fixed — Now that maintenance was rightly fixed or wrongly fixed or not adequately fixed is not a question which can be gone into on an application made under Section 127, Cr.P.C.

    0
  • K.R. SOORACHARI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Cruelty, Demand of Dowry : No material to connect appellant with offence of cruelty : High Court not noticed any such evidence to justify conviction under Section 498A, IPC : Appellant entitled to acquittal for charge under Section 498A, IPC.

    0
  • SHALEEN KABRA Vs. SHIWANI KABRA

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

    Bench: JUSTICE J.B. Garg

    PARMANAND MISHRA Vs. REKHA MISHRA On 13 May 1994

    Law Point:
    Custody of Children — Paramount consideration is welfare of child — Separation of two sons, brothers, not just and proper as they are very close to each other — High Court vide impugned judgment permitted respondent-mother to have custody of younger son, whereas appellant-father was to have custody of elder son — Welfare of both children would be best served if they remain together — Respondent-mother is not in a position to look after educational need of elder son — This Court desires not to separate both the brothers, it would be in the interest of children that they stay with appellant-father — Appellant is a member of IAS and well groomed person — With the help of his father, Professor, he will be able to take very good care of children — Their education would not be adversely affected even in J&K as it would be possible for appellant-father to get them educated in a good school in Jammu — Normally, grand-parents can spare more time with their grand-children and especially company of well educated grand-parents would not…

    0
  • MANORMA Vs. KARAN SINGH

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Section 13(1)(ia) — Husband’s petition for divorce on ground of wife’s cruelty — Husband proving continuous contempt, disrespect and misbehaviour of wife towards him and his family members causing mental agony — Wife even not attending funeral of his father-in-law — Wife held guilty of mental cruelty entitling the husband to divorce.

    1
  • BHAGWANT SINGH Vs. SURJIT KAUR

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Sections 125 and 127(2) — Magistrate passing order of maintenance under Section 125 enhanced in revision — Wife not satisfied, filing civil suit for maintenance — Civil Court dismissing holding wife not entitled to maintenance — Husband moving under Section 127(2) Cr. P.C. for cancellation of order of maintenance under Section 125 in view of Civil Court decision — Whether a decree of the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, specifically on the liability and quantum of maintenance, would be normally binding on the Magistrate under Section 127(2) Cr. P.C. so as to entail a necessary variance or cancellation of the earlier order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. ? (Yes).

    0
  • Kanchan Gulati And Anr. Vs. The State And Ors.

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Section 498A/406/34 – No offence has been committed by any of the petitioners. There are no allegations of cruelty against the petitioners. Criminal law can not be allowed to be used to settle the personal scores neither the Courts can be allowed to be used as tools. The complainant, who lost her divorce case in USA and was in USA all along from 1997 till 2002 and had not stayed with the petitioners, even for a single day. She lodged this FIR only to settle her personal scores. FIR Quashed.

    0
  • KALA AGGARWAL Vs. SURAJ PRAKASH AGGARWAL AND OTHERS

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Art. 226––Petition filed under Art. 32 before Supreme Court—Transferred—Petitioner divorced from Husband by decree passed by Court of U.S.A.—Being appointed managing conservator of children—Husband as possessory conservator—Husband brought children to India—Petition for custody––Children not wanted to live with Mother—Custody granted to Father.

    0
  • SANJU Vs. SOBHANATH

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 — Sec. 6 — Minor Child-Custody — Husband and wife living separately- Minor children above 5 years age living with father — Welfare of child is main criteria — Father is financially well off — Mother is poor — Hence custody in hands of father is just and proper.

    0
  • SATINDER KUMAR Vs. ASHA RANI

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Secs. 406, 498-A — Criminal Breach of Trust, Cruelty — Complaint against husband & petitioner-brother-in-law by respondent — Offences u/Secs. 406, 498-A, I.P.C not prima facie disclosed against petitioner, husband’s brother — Maliciously dragged in criminal prosecution with oblique motive to harass him — Dowry articles (stridhan) are delivered to husband & parents-in-laws of bride — Brothers & sisters of bridegroom not usually expected to accept stridhan — Omnipotent allegations in complaint regarding petitioner’s maltreatment for demand of dowry — In such matters brothers & sisters have no involvement — No offence proved against petitioner u/Secs. 406, 498-A, I.P.C — Whether correct ? — (Yes).

    0
  • S. INDRAKUMARI Vs. S. SUBBAIAH

    Court:MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Section 13(1)(ia) — Cruelty : Wilful denial of sexual relationship by spouse, when other spouse anxious for it, would amount to mental cruelty : Family Court rightly granted decree of divorce.

    1
  • PRITAM SINGH Vs. NIRMALA DEVI

    Court:HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Section 125 — Maintenance — Enhancement — Compromise was arrived at between parties during pendency of proceedings — Compromise was signed by parties and wife had given up her future maintenance — Husband has given pucca house to wife and she is getting regular income from house — Not the case of wife that compromise was outcome of coercion or undue influence — Wife along with her sons have sworn in affidavit also that they would not claim any future maintenance — Wife not entitled for enhancement of maintenance.

    0
  • SHANTARAM TUKARAM SARFARE Vs. SANDHYA SHANTARAM SARFARE

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Cruelty — Sufficient cause — Grant of divorce — Unreasonable criminal proceedings initiated by respondent-wife — Appellant-husband suffered tremendous mental agony — Not possible for him to cohabit with respondent-wife — Her continuous complaints to appellant’s employer jeopardized his prospects in his employment — Cross-examination of respondent-wife shows she was blaming appellant-husband for not being able to conceive, that also amounts to cruelty meted out to appellant — Appellant made out sufficient case for grant of divorce on ground of cruelty — Respondent-wife made false allegation of cruelty and desertion against appellant-husband — Appellant was acquitted in both cases — He suffered harassment and ignominy of having been taken in custody for 8 days for complaint under Section 498A, IPC.

    2
  • MAYA Vs. SUDESH

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Sections 498-A, 406 — It is not clear as to when petitioners taunted complainant for not bringing sufficient dowry and gifts — They are living separately and not in same house with complainant — Difficult to make out case of cruelty and misappropriation of dowry articles — Impugned complaint quashed.

    0
  • Raj Kumar Vs. Mst. Shanta Bai

    Court:Rajasthan High Court
    Petition under s. 127 of Crpc has to be filed before the Magistrate who has passed the first order of maintenance.

    0
  • SMT. KAKALI DAS Vs. DR. ASISH KUMAR DAS

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Cruelty : Mental Cruelty: Wife asserted husband had illicit relationship with many women : It was for wife to prove such allegations : It was not for husband to prove allegations of wife were false : Baseless allegations of cruelty by one spouse against other constitute mental cruelty of gravest character to warrant divorce.

    1
  • MYLA SUNITHA PRIYADARSHINI Vs. SHO NANDYAL III TOWN P.S. AND STATE OF A.P. & ANR.

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Section 498A — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Quashing of Proceedings — Cruelty — Dowry Demand — No specific overt acts of harassment attributed. Petitioner residing in US and married. Continuation of proceedings qua A3 will amount to abuse of process of law and quashed.

    0
  • Saroja Vs. Janardhanan

    Court:Kerala High Court
    Cancellation of order granting maintenance. There is no justification for continuing to provide maintenance to wife and child invoking power under section 125 of CrPC.

    0
  • STATE Vs. PALAVESHAM @ RANJITH & ORS.

    Court:MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Sections 304B, 498A, 34 — Benefit of Doubt — Suicide committed by deceased within 7 months of marriage — None of the letters written by deceased indicate even slightest doubt about alleged dowry demand and cruelty — Suicide note also shows she is taking such step only because of her health and she was not blaming anybody — In letters she has not mentioned about in-laws and cruelty met at their hands — Deceased has been treated for physical and mental illness — Possibility of committing suicide by deceased due to severe physical and mental illness cannot be ruled out — When two views are possible, one in favour of accused to be taken note of and accused should be given benefit of doubt — Trial Court rightly acquitted accused.

    0
  • MUKESH RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Sections 498-A, 406 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 113-A, 113-B — Quashing of Order : Cruelty, Criminal Breach of Trust : Sister and Brother-in-law of Accused Living Separately in Different Village : Presumption : Trial Court Rightly Discharged Respondents : No Ground to Interfere in Impugned Order.

    2
  • NEELIMA Vs. DHIRAJ SINGH

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Mental Cruelty — Wife lodged complaint under Section 498A, IPC against husband and his family members — They were arrested and subsequently acquitted — Conduct of wife amounts to mental cruelty against husband. Trial Court rightly held that appellant-wife caused mental cruelty to respondent-husband — There is also evidence that wife living separately from her husband without any reasonable ground — Trial Court rightly granted decree of divorce in favour of respondent.

    1
  • Khembai Vs. Kajindar

    Court:Karnataka High Court
    No substantial reasons to interfere with the order made by the Sessions Judge. The period of limitation of three months referred to in proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 126 has no application.

    0
  • BHAWANI DEVI & ANR. Vs. STATE

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Section 498A read with Section 34, Section 304B read with Section 34 — Cruelty, Dowry Death, Common Intention : No iota of evidence to show either mother-in-law or sister-in-law treated deceased with cruelty or had any hand in her death : Statements made before police; also supplementary statements do not lead to any inference with any petitioner involved in aforesaid offences : Trial Court had not applied its mind to requirements under Section 498A or 304B, IPC : No offence committed by petitioners and they are discharged of offences under Sections 498A/304B, IPC.

    0
  • CHANDER KANTA LAMBA & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS.

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Sections 498A, 34 — Cruelty, Common Intention — Charge against petitioners not prima facie made out nor any grave suspicion raised — It is highly improbable to assume that married sisters of husband who got married much prior to marriage of complainant and living in their own matrimonial homes would come down simultaneously to matrimonial home of complainant, and subject her to dowry demand and consequent cruelty. Petitioners are discharged.

    0
  • VIJAY VATHVI Vs. CHHAYA VATHVI

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Mental Cruelty — Wife left matrimonial home without any cause — Non-compliance of compromise under Section 9 of HMA — Mental cruelty with appellant-husband as not performing marriage obligation — Appellant-husband entitled to receive decree of divorce.

    2
  • SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH Vs. POONAM SINGH

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Mental Cruelty — Malicious and damaging letters — Adultery not proved — Humiliating words in complaint — Parties living separately for past 14 years — Marriage broken down irretrievably — Criminal cases lodged by respondent-wife to create problem for appellant-husband being an employee of Government Organization — This is fortified by statement of respondent-wife, opposing bail application of appellant-husband at District Court and High Court — Allegations of respondent-wife tantamounts to tarnishing his social reputation and respect and straining relationship beyond repair — Marriage became unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and broken down irretrievably — Appellant-husband entitled to decree of divorce — Observations made by Court regarding permanent alimony.

    1
  • ANU GILL Vs. STATE & ANR.

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Section 406 — Quashing of FIR : Criminal Breach of Trust : Absence of Allegation of Entrustment Regarding Istreedhan : Question of Misappropriation of Conversion to Her Use does not Arise — Most vital ingredient to constitute offence under Section 406, IPC missing — No case under Section 406, IPC made out.

    0
  • STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. DATTARAJ & ORS.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Sections 498A, 304B, 34-Allegation is inconsequential with respect to provisions under which accused were charged — High Court was fully justified in acquitting brother, father and mother of respondent-husband for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B r/w Section 34 of IPC as also for charges under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act — Impugned order passed by High Court does not justify any interference.

    0
  • Payal Mihirbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & 1

    Court:GUJARAT HIGH COURT
    Section 498A/114 – The petitioner is the sister in law of the complainant. except for vague allegations that the petitioner used to call her parents and instigate them there is no materila on record implicating the respondent with respect to commission of offence for which she is charge sheeted. The proceedings against her are quashed.

    0
  • BASISTH NARAYAN YADAV Vs. KAILASH RAI & ORS.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Section 304B — Dowry death within 2 years of marriage – Persons who are not member of the husband’s family had no reason to be present at the house of the accused when the decased died due to burn injuries. their acquittal in upheld.

    0
  • STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. TEG BAHADUR AND ORS.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Witnesses gave different versions regarding demand of dowry : Lack of evidence to prove demand of dowry : Evidence led by prosecution bristle with discrepancies and contradictions : It could not be proved accused made demand of dowry soon before death and deceased harassed due to this. High Court right in acquitting accused for offence under Section 304-B, IPC.

    0
  • Maya Ganguly Vs. The State

    Court:HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
    Even if the statements of the complainant and her parents are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety that the behavior and talks of the complainant was like that of a girl living in a slum or the parents of the complainant did give her proper education it did not make out any prima facie case in respect of the offences under Sections 498A/506/406/ 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

    0
  • Akula Ravinder and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Sections 498A, 302, 201 and 304B – In a case of this nature where the prosecution has failed to establish that it was an unnatural death it cannot be surmised that death must be due to unnatural circumstance.

    0
  • NAND KUMAR Vs. SMT. GAYATRI

    Court:RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Sections 126(2), 482 r/w Section 125(3), Proviso — Expression “shall” : Significance : Mandatory Duty upon Court to Record Evidence in Presence of Husband — If such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him and she refuses to live with him, Magistrate may consider grounds of refusal and make order not withstanding such offer on his satisfaction — Section 126(2), Cr.P.C. imposes mandatory duty upon Court to record evidence in presence of husband — CJM directed to recall both witnesses i.e. wife and her father for cross-examination in presence of petitioner on payment of costs.

    0
  • G. KESAVAN Vs. P. VISALAKSHI

    Court:MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Section 13(1)(ia) — Mental Cruelty — Denial of conjugal relationship and insistence for setting up separate home will amount to cruelty to husband — No strong reason adduced by respondent/wife to establish harassment or torture by mother-in-law — These pleadings made only to stay away from husband — Continuous separation show no chance of reunion between parties — Marriage has become dead and there is no purpose in continuing legal bond between parties — Divorce granted to appellant/husband.

    0
  • UMAKANT BHASKARAO NAWARKHELE Vs. SOU. SNEHA UMAKANT NAWARKHELE & ORS.

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Section 125 — Maintenance — Ex parte order — Absence of respondent not wilful or deliberate — Family Judge automatically proceeded with matter by simply noting absence of respondent — Impugned order not in accordance with law and set aside.

    0
  • STATE OF ODISHA Vs. KUMUDA CHANDRA CHINARA & ORS.

    Court:ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Sections 304B, 498A, 34 — Appeal against acquittal — Dowry death — Cruelty — Common intention — No direct evidence on record to show respondents were subjecting deceased to cruelty demanding dowry — No mention regarding this in letters written by deceased — Trial Court committed no illegality in acquitting respondents of all charges.

    0
  • RENU SINGH @ REENU SINGH Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    DNA Test — Paternity of child — Directions given in mechanical manner — Evidence led by parties not examined by Family Court — Any order or direction for DNA test can be given by Court only when strong prima facie case is made out for such a course — Legal position relating to DNA test, allegations levelled by parties, welfare of child, stage for conducting DNA test not reached in this case — Principal Judge, Family Court erred in directing for DNA test of child without applying its mind on evidence led by parties in respect of their rival assertions — Impugned order unsustainable and set aside.

    0
  • SOMA RAMCHANDRAM Vs. SOMA ANITHA & ANR.

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Cruelty — Illicit intimacy — Allegedly first respondent was living in adultery with second respondent — They have a child also — As per DNA Test, appellant-husband has been held to be not biological father of child gave birth by first respondent— Neither of respondents is present to controvert averments — Divorce granted on ground of cruelty.

    2
  • SEEMA MAHATO (MINOR) Vs. ALOK MAHATO & ANR.

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Section 125 — Maintenance — Paternity of child — DNA test — Opposite party No. 1 has denied his parentage of minor child — It would be difficult on part of minor petitioner to prove that she is the offspring of opposite party No. 1 — DNA test result would provide a definite and certain clue to decide application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. — Directions issued to opposite party No. 1 to undergo DNA test and DNA mapping with that of petitioner to ascertain parentage of petitioner.

    0
  • PRASANTA KUMAR MISHRA Vs. SURYAMANI MISHRA

    Court:ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Section 13 (1)(ia) — Cruelty — Five months after marriage respondent-wife insisted husband for staying separate — When husband refused, she threatened to commit suicide — Even attempted to commit suicide — Confession of respondent-wife that she had conceived before marriage and repeated threats to commit suicide constitute mental cruelty — Findings of Courts below are perverse — Set aside — Marriage between parties dissolved.

    1
  • JAYARAM THAKRA @ JHAGARA Vs. SABITRI THAKRA & ORS.

    Court:ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Section 125 — Interim Maintenance — Application for maintenance by Wife — Opp. parties application for interim maintenance — Trial Court allowing interim maintenance, failure to comply, Husband would not be allowed to contest — Petitioner proceeded ex-parte — Whether correct ? (No).

    0
  • Ravindra Haribhau Karmarkar Vs. Shaila Ravindra Karmarkar and Ors.

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – whether Judicial Magistrate First Class trying application under Section 125 obliged to stay proceedings on ground that Civil Court of competent jurisdiction has seized matter in suit in which pleadings, reliefs and parties are same and Magistrate already awarded interim maintenance – non-applicants not allowed to file two simultaneous proceedings in two different Courts – judgment of Civil Courts prevails over judgment of Criminal Courts – natural justice demands that parallel proceedings cannot be allowed to continue in different Courts.

    0
  • SANTHINI Vs. VIJAYA VENKETESH

      Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Bench: JUSTICES Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar, J. Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud SANTHINI Vs. VIJAYA VENKETESH On 9 October 2017 Law Point: Family Courts Act, 1984 — Section 11 — Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 22, 23 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 25 — Supreme Court Rules, 2013 — Order XLI Rule 2

    0
  • Krishan Kumar and Ors. vs. Navneet and Ors.

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Right to reside – Section 2(s) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act – House being exclusively belonging to father-in-law, it could not be called as a shared household within ambit of Section 2(s) of Act.

    0
  • SUJOY GHOSH DASTIDAR Vs. DAYITA GHOSH DASTIDAR

    Court:JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    Cruelty — Desertion – Continuous desertion on part of respondent-wife is reflective of her indifference or total departure from normal standard of conjugal relationship — Appellant-husband is compelled to live with marriage in which other spouse is no longer interested. Conduct of respondent-wife in withdrawing from matrimonial obligation i.e. by not permitting and facilitating co-habitation between parties without any reasonable cause would also be equivalent to mental cruelty.

    0
  • D.N. Manimanjari Vs. S. Virupaksheswara Rao

    Court:Andhra Pradesh High Court
    Visitation Rights – Boy underwent treatment under Psychiatrist at Counselling Centre – Even if custody remained with mother, right of father to see children at intervals cannot be ignored – Order of permitting father to see and interact with children for spending few hours before Legal Service Authority does not require interference.

    0
  • ASHOK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Section 498A – Proof of offence – Proximity Test – Stale incident cannot be pressed into service by prosecution to prove cruelty.

    0
  • RAJESH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Sections 498A, 304-B — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 113-B — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 2 — Cruelty — Dowry Death — Evidence of witnesses examined to prove cruelty is inconsistent — Marred by contradictions — PW 2/father of deceased does not even allege that accused harassed or ill-treated deceased — PW 2 vaguely states that deceased disclosed that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law harassed and ill-treated — Admits that he gifted cot, sofa set and tea table in marriage — Appellant did not take them — Guilt of accused not proved beyond reasonable doubt — Acquittal granted.

    0
  • MANJU KUMARI SINGH @ SMT. MANJU SINGH Vs. AVINASH KUMAR SINGH

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Dissolution of Marriage — Power of Supreme Court — Enforcement of order — Parties have been living separately for more than decade — All attempts of reconciliation through mediation have failed — No chance of both living together to continue their marital life — In order to ensure that parties may live peacefully in future and their daughter would be settled properly in her life, quietus must be given to all litigations between parties — All proceedings pending in various Courts, if any, shall stand disposed of — Appropriate to exercise power under Article 142 of Constitution to do substantial justice to parties — Marriage dissolved subject to fulfillment of conditions.

    0
  • AWADHESH AWASTHI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Sections 304B, 498A — Prosecution could not prove that deceased was ever subjected to cruelty or harassment by accused appellant which resulted in her death — In absence of proof of such ingredients presumption for committing offence under Section 304B could also not be raised — Injuries consequent to hanging found on body of deceased but this fact alone not sufficient to raise presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act — Trial Court’s finding on holding accused guilty for offence under Sections 304B, 498A and Sections 3/4, DP Act is not in accordance with evidence and law — Same is not sustainable and set aside.

    0
  • HEMANT KUMAR PATEL Vs. UMA PATEL @ TOSHIKA PATEL

    Court:CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
    Section 13(1)(ia) — Cruelty — Cruelty is an act committed with intention to cause sufferings to opposite party and it has become intolerable for other to suffer any longer and to live together is impossible — This is to be judged not from solitary incident — But on overall consideration of all relevant circumstances — Austerity of temper, rudeness of language, occasional outburst of anger may not amount to cruelty, though it may amount to misconduct.

    0
  • RAMESH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Quashing of Charge-sheet : Territorial Jurisdiction : Cruelty, Criminal Breach of Trust : Alleged acts which according to petitioner constitute offences under Sections 498A, 406, IPC.

    2
  • RAMAIAH @ RAMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Sections 304B, 498A – No explanation for delay in lodging FIR — No suitable justification given by High Court for overturning verdict of acquittal of trial Court — Judgment of High Court set aside holding appellant not guilty of charges foisted against him.

    0
  • ASHA & ANR. Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    No convincing and cogent evidence produced — Courts below failed to consider relevant fact, viz., appellants were not in house at the time of incident — Judgment and order of High Court for convicting accused under Section 304-B, IPC set aside — Appellants are acquitted of all the charges.

    0
  • Rajashri Subhash Kamble Vs. Subhash Babanrao Kamble and Ors.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
    “The Court cannot convert an order of acquittal into an order of conviction except in exceptional cases particularly when the State has not preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal.”

    0
  • VIPIN JAISWAL (A-I) Vs. STATE OF A.P. REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Sections 304B, 498A — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 2 — Dowry Death — Cruelty — Demand of dowry — To hold accused guilty of offences under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC, prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by accused.

    0
  • DAYA WATI Vs. RAJ SINGH

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Cold indifference like not visiting the hospitalized husband amounts to cruelty.

    1
  • RIYASATBI SHAIKH JANI AND ANOTHER Vs. SHAIKH JANI SHAIKH KASAM AND ANOTHER

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Wife not entitled to maintenance as she has not led any evidence to show that husband refused or neglected to maintain her.

    3
  • KUNTIBAI Vs. ALAKHRAM

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Section 125 — Maintenance : Refusal : Wife had Sufficient Means to Maintain Herself — Besides long delay in filing application, Courts below found petitioner/wife had no justification for living separately from her husband — She had sufficient means to maintain herself — Circumstances negative her claim to seek maintenance.

    2
  • MALKIAT SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE & ANR.

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Section 406 – Jurisdiction will lie with Police Station having jurisdiction over matrimonial home or some other place where respondent No. 2 lived along with her husband.

    0
  • RANI Vs. AMAR NATH

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Section 13(1)(ia) –– Cruelty — Acts of wife proving her incorrigible conduct –– Amounts to cruelty towards her husband –– Wife can’t be allowed to take advantage of her own wrong.

    0
  • Kavita Vs. State of Uttarakhand

    Court:HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
    Section 125(4)–Maintenance of wife–Denied–Legality–Held–As wife is living separately without any ground is not entitle to maintenance–No interference–Petition is dismissed.

    1
  • Benumadhab Padhi Mohapatra Vs. State

    Court:HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
    Prosecution has completely failed to adduce any iota of evidence that the deceased was at any time subjected to harassment by the appellants on demand of dowry – Ingredients of Sec. 498-A not satisfied – Order of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding ‘torture’ or ‘harassment’ to the victim woman vis-a-vis demand of dowry. demand of dowry – Prosecution must prove that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment.

    1
  • MONJU ROY & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Sections 304B, 306, 498A — Dowry Death — Abetment of Suicide — Cruelty — Benefit of Doubt — Omnibus allegations against family members of husband. Conviction and sentence of appellants under Section 304B set aside, without interfering with conviction and sentence under other heads.

    0
  • SHASHI LATA SHARMA Vs. CHETAN SARUP

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Section 13(1)(ia) and 20(2) — Husband’s petition for divorce on ground of wife’s cruelty granted by Trial Court — Appeal against by wife — Appellate Court finding wife leaving matrimonial home 12 days after marriage with jwellery and dowry articles — Thereafter followed series of offensive and defensives — Evidence and pleadings of wife’s cruelty.

    3
  • KARODIBEN & ORS. Vs. RAJUBHAI MAHENDRA SINGH & ORS.

    Court:GUJARAT HIGH COURT
    Section 125 — Maintenance — Claim against or by brothers or sisters — Not maintainable.

    0
  • SHAIK CHINA BUDA Vs. STATE OF A.P.

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Section 498-A — Cruelty : No Corroboration in Evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 on Material Aspects : All Co-accused Acquitted of Offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A, I.P.C. : No Specific Evidence Against A1 for Offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. : Appellant A1 Entitled to Benefit of Doubt — Conviction and sentence against appellant for offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. set aside.

    1
  • BISWAJIT HALDER @ BABU HALDER & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Section 304B – No evidence to show any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry — This deficiency in evidence proves fatal for prosecution case.

    0
  • ALAMURI LALITHA DEVI & ORS. Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Section 498-A — Cruelty — No evidence that death is homicidal or suicide — Evidence suggest, might be natural death — A reasonable nexus has to be established between cruelty and the suicide.

    0
  • M. SRINIVASULU Vs. STATE OF A.P.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Dowry Death — Presumption — Essentials to be proved to raise presumption — Meaning of expression “soon before” is present with idea of proximity test — No definite period indicated and said expression not defined.

    0
  • SANYOGTA VERMA Vs. VINOD VERMA

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Husband’s petition for divorce on ground of wife’s desertion––Period of desertion established––Onus to prove that desertion was not intended or that there was reasonable cause to desert––It is on the deserting spouse––No plausible and convincing reason proved by deserting spouse for leaving matrimonial home––Divorce on ground of desertion granted.

    1
  • Md. Jahangir Khan Vs. Manoara Bibi

    Court:HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
    “Court has jurisdiction to decide matter if there is provision to do so.”

    0
  • SOPAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Section 498A — Cruelty — Benefit of doubt — Complaint an afterthought action of complainant, as filed after 2 years of living separate from husband due to some family dispute — Evidence given by complainant and close relatives is doubtful — These circumstances not considered by trial Court and first appellate Court — Judgment and order delivered by JMFC convicting and sentencing petitioner for offence punishable under Section 498A, IPC set aside.

    0
  • SUNIL BAJAJ Vs. STATE OF M.P.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Dowry Death, Abetment of Suicide : Necessary Ingredient of Deceased being Subjected to Cruelty or Harassment by Appealant soon before her Death for or in Connection with Demand of Dowry not Established — Acquittal of accused.

    0
  • KASHMIR KAUR Vs. PREM SINGH

    PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Section 13 — Marriage dissolved by decree of divorce on ground of desertion and cruelty — Appeal by wife — Husband a widower having a son from first wife — Appeared that wife is not ablet to reconcile that she has to look after the son from first wife — Presence of son causing heart burning — Document of return of dowry executed in presence of respectables — Wife not willing to return to matrimonial house — Decree of divorce affirmed.

    2
  • LEKHRAJ CHUNILAL JAISINGH Vs. KOMAL @ ANITA & ORS.

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Secs. 482, 125 — Quashing Proceedings — Maintenance proceedings — Husband directed lo deposited 75,000/ — Full and final settlement — Whether proceedings liable to be quashed ? — (Yes).

    0
  • VIDHYA VISWANATHAN Vs. KARTIK BALAKRISHNAN

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Section 13(1)(ia) — Mental Cruelty — Sexual deprivation by wife — Non-consummation of marriage on part of appellant- wife — Respondent-husband, in his evidence has narrated in detail incidents of alleged cruelty suffered by him — Appellant admits that marriage was not consummated — Not allowing a spouse for a long time to have sexual intercourse by his or her partner without sufficient reason, itself amounts mental cruelty to such spouse — No ground to interfere with decree of divorce passed by High Court on ground of cruelty.

    0
  • RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. SMT. SUNITA & ANR.

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Sections 125(4), 482 — Maintenance : Adultery : Wife Living in Adultery not Entitled to Receive any Allowance from her Husband : Order Passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Quashed.

    3
  • Richhpal Kaur Vs. The State of Haryana

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    With respect to charge under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, the allegations made in the complaint do not make out an offence.

    0
  • State of Haryana Vs. Inder Singh and Ors.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304B and 498A–Dowry death–Conviction and sentence by trial court–But acquittal by High Court–Validity–Conviction based on sole testimony of P.W. 4, father of deceased–P.W. 4 stood contradicted in material particulars–Son and brother of P.W. 4 and cousin of deceased not supporting P.W. 4–Hence, not safe to rely on sole testimony of P.W. 4–View taken by High Court sound and reasonable–No interference called for.

    0
  • ANUPAMA PANDEY Vs. ASHUTOSH PANDEY

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Family Courts Act, 1984 — Section 19 — Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13 — Divorce — Cruelty — Appellant married and two children were born out of wedlock — Incidents of cruelty proved by PW 1 which are corroborated from statement of PWs 3 and 4 — Cruelty includes insulting husband and other members of his family in presence of guests — Foul language also used against husband and in-laws — Husband was not allowed to talk to his children on phone when he was in Holland — Reassessment of evidence on record proves case for divorce on ground of cruelty — Trial Court’s judgment upheld — No force in appeal.

    1
  • ASIT KUMAR BARMAN Vs. RADHA BARMAN @ BAURI

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Section 125 — Sessions Judge granted maintenance after revising the order of Judicial Magistrate — Discrepancy between evidence and original case about time and place — Difference between social and educational level of parties — Whether order of maintenance is just and proper ? (No).

    4
  • SUDESH KUMARI Vs. STATE & ORS.

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Sections 328, 498A, 406, 34 — Causing hurt by means of poison with intent to commit offence, Cruelty, Criminal Breach of Trust, Common Intention : Defence taken by accused more probable and all accused acquitted by Trial Court by giving them benefit of doubt : Counsel for petitioner merely reagitated grounds raised before Trial Court : He has not been able to point out any error of law or procedure which has occasioned failure of justice : Not proper for this Court to interfere where petitioner merely re-argues case without showing any error of jurisdiction or of procedure, nor shows any perversity in judgment under challenge : No grounds to interfere in judgment under challenge.

    1
  • Sham Lal Vs. State of Haryana

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Criminal – dowry death – Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – wife of appellant died of burning injury – no proof to show that wife subjected to cruelty soon before death – ingredients of Section 304-B not fulfilled.

    0
  • Uma Soni Vs. Suresh Soni

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Divorce on ground of cruelty – Appeal – Appealant wife misbehaved not only with husband and in-laws but also with guests and visitors – Appealant also filed criminal cases against respondent husband. Appeal dismissed.

    0
  • Shibsankar Samanta Vs. Sobhana Samanta

    Court:HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
    Maintenance – Reversal of order – Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Sessions Judge reversed findings of Magistrate and held that there was marriage between parties and they resided together as husband and wife and child was born to them in wedlock and accordingly granted maintenance – Whether, Sessions Judge rightly reversed findings of Magistrate – Held, Sessions Judge did not make any critical study of evidence at all and rather mechanically picked up some statements of PWs in support of case of Petitioner totally shutting his eyes to discrepancies – Therefore, judgment of Sessions Judge setting aside judgment of Magistrate without making any critical study of evidence and without adverting his attention to analysis of evidence could not be sustained and so Sessions Judge was not justified in setting aside same – Revisional Petition allowed.

    0
  • Manmatha Kumar Jena and Ors. vs. Smt. Sanjukta Jena

    Court:HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
    Quashing of order – Cognizance of offences under Secs. 498-A/506/34, IPC and Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – No FIR lodged at any police station – Complainant-opp. party conceived at the time of her marriage with petitioner No. 1 – Held, matrimonial dispute – Dispute of a civil nature which needs determination by a Civil Court or a Matrimonial Court – Filing of complaint petition without informing the police at a belated stage appears to be after-thought and an attempt to coerce or put the petitioner to harassment – Continuance of the complaint case would amount to abuse of the process of Court – Proceeding quashed.

    1
  • CHHOTAN SAO & ANR. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Section 304B — Dowry Death — Unnatural death of deceased by consuming poison — Acquittal of accused — Conclusion recorded by Courts below is not based on any legal material on record — Statement in FIR by PW 8 is based on hearsay evidence — Non-examination of doctor who conducted post-mortem coupled with failure to produce Forensic Laboratory Report regarding examination of viscera of deceased leaves gaping hole in case of prosecution regarding nature of death of deceased — Acquittal rightly granted to surviving appellant.

    0
  • Kishore Kumar Trivedi Vs. Kiran

    CourtHIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
    Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 18- When marital status affected or disrupted by decree under one law-Respondent, cannot got ancillary or incidental relief by way of subsequent suit or proceeding under different law.

    1
  • Ramesh Chand vs. State of U.P. and Anr.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
    Section 498-A Complaint could succeed only if it can be proved that there was an “unlawful demand” by the husband of some money. Assuming that the husband had asked the wife to bring some jewellery this by itself could not be unlawful demand as no law would punish a mere demand without settlement of dowry at the time of marriage.

    0
  • PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Section 304B — Dowry Death — Benefit of doubt — Ingredients of dowry death not fulfilled — No allegation of harassment or torture of deceased on account of dowry demand — No complaint prior to death about conduct of accused, but after death of deceased, complainant-father of deceased has levelled allegation of demand of dowry by accused, which is unbelievable — Unnatural death of deceased cannot be said to be dowry death — Suicidal death cannot be said to be due to any illegal act or illegal omission or instigation by anybody else — Impugned order set aside.

    1
  • SUBAL CHANDRA SAHA Vs. PRITIKANA SAHA

    Court:GAUHATI HIGH COURT
    Section 125(4) — Maintenance : Adultery : Wife-respondent living together with another man in rented house as husband and wife till they were apprehended by police from that house : Their intention to continue in living with sex with each other cannot be brushed aside : It construed “living in adultery” within meaning of Section 125(4), Cr.P.C.

    1
  • Darshana Devi Vs. Anil Kumar Saini

    Court:HIGH COURT OF DELHI
    Section 13(1)(ia) — Cruelty — Prima facie case made out — Trial Court rightly held respondent wife along with her father caused mental cruelty upon petitioner husband in deserting his matrimonial home, after birth of child and by involving petitioner and his family in proceedings under Sections 313, 498A, 341, 324, 34, IPC.

    2
  • Sri Santi Ram Sarma vs. Smt. Kanaklata Devi

    Court:HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
    Section 125 – Held, records of the case including the judgment does not show that the petitioner had an opportunity of being heard on the question of enhancement of maintenance allowance – Therefore, the order of enhancement made by the Sessions Judge was illegal and hereby quashed.

    0
  • Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
    Section 498-A – Acquittal – Held, it did not appear that applicant had conclusively established that the beating and harassment was with a view to force her to commit suicide or to fulfil the illegal demands of the non-applicants.

    1
  • ANIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Sections 304-B, 498-A – Cause of death of victim undoubtedly is on account of consumption of poison but no circumstances available on record to conclude that it was a case that someone forcibly administered poison — Appellant’s employment with a manufacturer of medicine has no bearing on his knowledge in manufacture of poison. Appellant Husband is acquitted of all charges.

    0
  • PASHAURA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Section 498A — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Cruelty — Not even a word about demand of dowry or harassment on account of dowry by appellant — FIR lodged by B is manifestly attended with mala fides and actuated with ulterior motive — Prosecution of appellant is frivolous, vexatious, unwarranted and abuse of process — FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed.

    0
  • ARULVELU & ANOTHER Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR & ANOTHER

    Court:Supreme Court of India .
    Sections 304B, 498A — Dowry Death, Cruelty — Testimony of PWs not reliable — High Court not justified in setting aside order of acquittal passed by trial Court — There are some material and vital aspects which clearly demonstrate that Trial Court has carefully analysed entire evidence on record.

    0
  • GURVINDER SINGH Vs. MURTI AND OTHERS

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Nonpayment of Interim Maintenance — Defence struck off — Order challenged — Contention that trial Court has not followed the proper procedure for recovery of maintenance as specifically provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 125 and Section 421 — Not permissible for Criminal Court acting under Section 125 to struck off the defence.

    0
  • VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Maintenance : Territorial jurisdiction – If son was practising at time of presentation of petition in Patna High Court, he could not have been physically present at Siman : Court at Siman has no jurisdiction to deal with petition : Case directed to be transferred to Sessions Division of Patna.

    0
  • Deokabai vs. Namdeo and Ors.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
    Acquittal – Sections 34, 107, 494, 498A and 498B of Indian Penal Code – Case regarding cruel treatment vague and general in nature – evidence of witnesses contradictory – held, revision application liable to be dismissed.

    1
  • TARSEM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Nothing on record to show any demand of dowry made soon before her death — High Court failed to notice no evidence brought on record to show cruelty or harassment was meted out to deceased for bringing insufficient dowry, in absence whereof provisions of Section 304B, IPC, cannot be said to have been proved — Impugned judgment unsustainable and set aside.

    0
  • MOHD. ASLAM & ORS. Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Trial Court convicted all appellants on basis of conjectures and surmises without any proof of dowry demand, harassment of deceased by appellants on account of dowry demand. Appellants are acquitted of all charges.

    0
  • Vimla Bai Vs. Panchu Lal

    Court:HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
    Involvement of Appellant wife in a murder case amounts to cruelty and Family Court had rightly granted decree of divorce.

    0
  • Joseph @ Biju George Vs. Mary @ Priya Thomas & Anr.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF KERALA
    Family Courts Act, 1984 – Sec. 13–Family Court Rules, 1989 (Kerala)–Rule 35–Any arrangement by which dispute settled between parties can fall within the ambit of expression “settlement”–Is not restricted to agreement to reunite and resume co-habitation.

    0
  • T. ARUNTPERUNJOTHI Vs. STATE THROUGH S.H.O., PONDICHERRY

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Family members of deceased did not make any complaint themselves rather investigation commenced by FIR lodged by appellant — No reason to disbelieve defence version that cause of death was that deceased insisted to go to her mother’s house but not allowed — Demand of dowry or any harassment being cause for death of deceased, not established beyond all reasonable doubt — Impugned judgment unsustainable — Set aside — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-B.

    0
  • JASJIT SINGH BAKSHI & ORS. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Sections 406 and 498A — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 177, 482 — Cruelty, Criminal Breach of Trust — Territorial jurisdiction — Quashing of FIR — Complaint regarding misappropriation of dowry articles — Court where Istridhan is required to be returned would have jurisdiction.

    0
  • Daud Mohamad Aga and Ors. Vs. State

    Court:HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
    Sections 34, 100, 109 and 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – State instituted prosecution against petitioners at instance of complainant – on basis of complaint and on examination of witness Magistrate framed charged against petitioners under Section 498A read with Sections 34 and 100 – petitioner challenged Order of Magistrate – in order to come into ambit of cruelty husband harassment must be in furtherance to extract money unlawfully from woman by man – nowhere it has been alleged in complaint that said harassment meted out to extract money unlawfully from de facto complainant – petitioner stands discharged.

    0
  • D. Jayana Vs. State of Karnataka

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    For the purpose of Section 304B, the evidence provided by the prosecution is not sufficient. Only evidence relatable was that of a neighbour who was examined about two months from the date of occurrence.

    0
  • VIMLA DEVI Vs. RAM BABU

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Cruelty: What amounts to : False, scandalous, malicious, baseless and unproved allegations made by one spouse amounts to cruelty : Cruelty may consist of single act or series of acts.

    2
  • Bundoo vs Smt. Mahrul Nisa And Anr.

    Court:Allahabad High Court
    Maintenance-Revisional jurisdiction-Failure to prove factum of impotency of Husband-Dismissal of application.

    0
  • BOMMA ILAIAH Vs. STATE OF A.P.

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Section 498-A, Explanation Clauses (a) and (b) — Cruelty : Meaning of cruelty under Clauses (a) and (b) of Explanation to Section 498-A, I.P.C. : Evidence on record does not disclose there was cruelty on part of accused of such nature as likely to drive P.W. 1 to commit suicide and cause grave injury or danger to her life or limb or mental or physical health : Evidence on record discloses no demand of dowry by A1 or his parents : Clauses (a) and (b) not attracted.

    1
  • ROHTASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Sections 304B, 498A — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 161, 313 — Dowry Death, Cruelty — Benefit of doubt — Deceased alleged to have died by consuming poisonous tablets — Reports of FSL do not support case of prosecution, rather leans towards defence taken by appellant — Major improvements/embellishments in prosecution case and demand of Rs. 10,000/- by appellant does not find mention in statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. — Even if such demand was there, it may not necessarily be a demand of dowry — Chemical analysis report falsifies theory of suicide by deceased taking any pills — Defence taken by appellant in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. could be plausible — Appellant is given benefit of doubt and impugned judgment of High Court set aside.

    0
  • SMT. PARVATI Vs. PREM SINGH

    Court:RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Section 13 — Cruelty : Wife Practised Cruelty by Her Own Misbehaviour and by Making False Allegations Against Her Husband About His Having Illicit Relations with His Brother’s Wife : Family Court Justified in Passing Decree of Dissolution of Marriage.

    0
  • Ramdhani Sah vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
    Maximum period for which a person against whom realisation of arrears of maintenance amount is due, has been taken into custody can be for a period of one month and not beyond that.

    0
  • Bhushan Kumar Meen vs. State of Punjab and Ors.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    No FIR and proceedings taken there under can be sustained when no prima facie case and offence alleged in said FIR has been made out against Accused.”

    0
  • MANIKLAL JAIN & ORS. Vs. STATE OF M.P.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Sections 304B, 498A — Dowry Death, Cruelty — Only general demands for dowry had been made with respect to other accused and no serious allegations have been levelled against appellant ‘SJ’ — PW 5 admitted that no demands for dowry had been made by ‘SJ’ either before, during or after wedding — Benefit of doubt given to appellant ‘SJ’.

    0
  • Vijay Kumar and Anr. vs. Sunita and Ors.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
    Offence of criminal breach of trust might be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed.

    0
  • SMT. RUKMANI DEVI Vs. BADRI NARAYAN

    Court:RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Wife Refused to Cook Food and Insulted Husband in Presence of his Relations : She does not Want to Live with Husband : Decree of Divorce Confirmed.

    1
  • SMT. DHANI NAYAK & ORS. Vs. SANAKARA NAYAK

    Court:ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Section 125(3) Proviso — Maintenance : Quantum : Period of limitation : Commencement : Discussed.

    1
  • MANIKLAL JAIN & ORS. Vs. STATE OF M.P.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Dowry Death, Cruelty — Only general demands for dowry had been made with respect to other accused and no serious allegations have been levelled against appellant ‘SJ’ — PW 5 admitted that no demands for dowry had been made by ‘SJ’ either before, during or after wedding — Benefit of doubt given to appellant ‘SJ’.

    0
  • AMARJIT KAUR Vs. CHAIN SINGH

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Petition by husband for decree of divorce — Appellant writing letter to respondent stating that he was rascal and his mother, sister and brother’s wife had given birth to bastards — She disowned her own writings — She also had pungent tongue — Levelling false allegations could reasonably cause mental cruelty to respondent giving him justifiable ground for divorce.

    1
  • YAMUNABAI ANANTRAO ADHAV Vs. ANANTRAO SHIVRAM ADHAV AND ANOTHER

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Conditions for valid marriage — Void and voidable marriages — Appellant married respondent who was already married — The first marriage was subsisting and the first was alive — Appellant claimed maintenance pleading illtreatment — Petition rejected by Magistrate and then by High Court — S.L.P. pleading that second marriage was recognised by customs hence it was not void but voidable marriage — Whether second marriage void in view of Section 11 of H.M.A. — Yes.

    1
  • PRADIPTA BASU ROY CHOWDHURY Vs. SMT. BABITA BASU ROY CHOWDHURY & ORS.

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Entrustment with two in-laws and not petitioner-husband –– FIR does not make out prima facie case against petitioner u/Sec. 403 or 406, LP.C. –– Continuance of proceedings –– Abuse of process of Court.

    0
  • Ashutosh Pandey & Ors vs. Smt. Anupama Pandey & Ors.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
    Criminal – Section 406- Quashing of proceedings – Prayer sought to quash entire proceedings of criminal complaint case pending before Court – Held, in view of discussion, Court was of view that impugned complaint aims just to sheer harassment of Husband and his parents and thus, same deserved to be quashed – Petition allowed.

    0
  • LAJWANTI CHANDHOK Vs. O.N. CHANDHOK

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Cruelty — Defamatory complaints to employer or other authorities constitute worse type of cruelty — Cruelty consists not in conduct complained of but in its impact upon spouse.

    0
  • Shashi alias Mala vs. State and Anr.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
    In case a wife is divorced on the ground of mutual consent, then she is disentitled from claiming any maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings from the husband. Hence petition dismissed.

    5
  • GIRDHAR SHANKAR TAWADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Cruelty : Maintainability of Charge under Section 498-A, by Reason of Order of Acquittal under Section 306, IPC i.e. Abetment of Suicide : Acquittal of Charge under Section 306, Though not by itself Ground for Acquittal under Section 498-A, IPC but some Cogent Evidence Required to Bring Home Charge under Section 498-A, IPC as well without which Charge cannot be Maintained : Absence of Evidence on Record : Conviction Recorded by Trial Court and High Court Unsustainable, Set aside — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498-A, 306.

    0
  • NARAYANAMURTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Mere evidence of cruelty and harassment not sufficient to bring in application of Section 304B, IPC — It is to be established that “soon before death” deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband for, or ‘in connection with demand for dowry’ — Provisions of Section 304B, IPC and Section 113B of Evidence Act could not be attracted to hold A1 guilty of offence of dowry death and/or cruelty in terms of Section 498A, IPC.

    0
  • PAWNA DEVI Vs. CHUNI LAL

    Court:HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Section 13(1)(ia) — Cruelty — Not defined under H.M. Act — No strait-jacket formula — Depend upon number of circumstances and facts of case — Factors constituting cruelty — Making false allegation that too unproved — Tantamounts to cruelty.

    0
  • Sharadchandra Chandrashekhar Satbhai Vs. Indubai Sharad Satbhai

    Court: HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
    The fact that a decree for judicial separation has been passed in favour of the husband on the ground of desertion means that the wife is guilty of refusing to live with her husband without any sufficient reason. Such a wife is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 as she has no reasonable ground not to live with her husband.

    1
  • GURUCHARAN KUMAR & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Dowry Death : Abetment of Suicide : Evidence on Record does not Suggest Deceased was Subjected to Cruelty or Harassment by her Husband or by her Father-in-law and Mother-in-law for or in Connection with Dowry Demand : Letters Written by Deceased Rather than Supporting Case of Prosecution, Support Case of Defence that her in-laws Showered Love and Affection on Deceased and not Subjected her to Cruelty or Harassment in Connection with any Demand for Dowry : Prosecution Failed to Prove its Case beyond Reasonable Doubt : Appellants Entitled to Acquittal — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304B, 306.

    0
  • State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Criminal – Cruelty – Acquittal by HC- Delay in filing FIR – Trial Court found Accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year – On appeal – High Court set aside the conviction – Whether the High Court is justified in acquitting the Respondent – Held, delay in lodging the First Information Report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought – A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity – Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained – No interference needed – Appeal dismissed.

    2
  • DURGA PRASAD & ANR. Vs. STATE OF M.P.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Sections 304B, 498A — Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 113A, 113B — Dowry Death, Cruelty — Presumption — Benefit of doubt — It will not be sufficient to only lead evidence showing that cruelty or harassment meted out to victim, but that such treatment was in connection with demand for dowry — Prosecution failed to fully satisfy requirements of both Section 113B of Evidence Act and Section 304B, IPC.

    0
  • JAGDISH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Mere demand of dowry at one or two instances may not attract provisions of Section 304B IPC. No material to show there was persistent demand of dowry by appellant — He is acquitted of charge under Section 304B, IPC.

    0
  • POPAT KASHINATH BODKE Vs. KAMALABAI POPAT BODKE & ORS.

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Maintenance : Parties residing separately by mutual consent by relinquishment deed : In view of Section 125(4), Cr.P.C. wife would not be having right to claim alimony from husband after date of execution of said agreement if that agreement acted upon and appropriate provision for maintenance made.

    0
  • D. MANGA @ MANGAMMA Vs. D. VENKATA RAMANA

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Cruelty : Sufficient Material Against Wife : Marriage Irretrievably Broken Down — Behaviour of respondent-wife such that it is impossible for petitioner-husband to share marital life with her — Even in her evidence she admitted that she gave police complaints against petitioner and sent petitions against him to High Court only with a view to create problems to petitioner —Respondent-wife is bent upon wreaking vengeance against petitioner — Cumulative effect — Marital relationship of parties irretrievably broken down.

    1
  • Prabhakar Jha Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ashok Kumar

    Court:HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
    Even if the allegations made by the complainant was taken to be true on its face value then also the Appellate Court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case in view of Section 177 and 181(4) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) – Thus entire criminal proceeding against the Petitioners in connection with PCR Case was pending in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, was without jurisdiction.

    0
  • Shivanand Mallappa Koti Vs. The State of Karnataka

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Conviction for offence under Section 498 cannot be sustained in absence of unlawful demand for property and valuable articles.

    0
  • Mohandas Panicker P. Vs. K.K. Dakshayani and Another

    Court:HIGH COURT OF KERALA
    When wife is living in adultery, she is not entitled to get any amount towards maintenance.

    0
  • KRISHNA SARBADHIKARY Vs. ALOK RANJAN SARBADHIKARYALOK

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Husband’s petition for divorce on ground of wife’s cruelty — Wife frequently departing from matrimonial home without permission putting husband in constant fear and anxiety by leaving suicidal notes — Lodging complaint in police against husband and her in-laws — Writing, insulting and offensive letters to office of husband — Facts prove that wife treated the husband with cruelty.

    0
  • MALAYAIAH Vs. G.S. VASANTHA LAKSHMI & ORS.

    Court:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    No maintenance if separation by mutual consent –– Wife living separately from her husband by consent –– Cannot enforce her right and ask for maintenance u/Section 125, Cr.P.C.

    0
  • Jagdish Thakkar Vs. State of Delhi

    Court:HIGH COURT OF DELHI
    In a case under S. 498A and 406 bail cannot be denied only on the ground that jewelry and the dowry articles were not recovered.

    6
  • RAJESH CHANDER BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Section 438 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498A, 406, 34 — Anticipatory Bail — Cruelty, Criminal Breach of Trust, Common Intention — Complainant still residing in matrimonial house but in separate portion — Complainant and her children provided with maintenance by petitioner No. 1 — Petitioners entitled to be admitted to anticipatory bail.

    0
  • State of Maharashtra Vs. Ashok Narayan Dandalwar

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Section 498A – There is not a slightest assertion in any of the letters complaining against the husband either he was making any demand at any point of time or he has assaulted or treated the wife with cruelty or torture. Husband Acquitted.

    4
  • SHAKUNTALA Vs. SHIVJI

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    No material placed on record by petitioner/wife that salary of respondent/husband is much more or that father of respondent is not dependent upon him — Even salary certificate on record shows lesser income — Findings given in impugned order by Judge, Family Court are based on evidence on record — No illegality in same which calls for interference of High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

    0
  • KRISHNA RANI Vs. CHUNI LAL GULATI

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Question of condonation of cruelty of wife by husband — Husband specifying Acts of cruelty — Wife neither specifying which of the various acts of cruelty was condoned and when.

    1
  • Malti Chauhan Vs. State Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Ors.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF DELHI
    Attempt to rape. Star witness is the prosecutrix herself – MLC of the victim and the FSL report do not support the version of the prosecution – Testimony of the prosecutrix being full of inherent contractions – prosecutrix having taken conflicting stands she could not be termed as a witness of sterling quantity.

    0
  • MANJU RAM KALITA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Section 498A — Cruelty — Determination of — Factor to be considered, discussed — Petty quarrels cannot be termed as cruelty to attract provisions of Section 498A

    3
  • RAMPADA BISWAS Vs. DOLLY MITRA & ORS.

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Maintenance : West Bengal Amendment : Retrospective Recourse : Sufficient Ground to Be Given — Award of maintenance passed on 24.8.1994 — Such order to be prospective — If Trial Court intends to give retrospective effect reason to be assigned — No reason assigned while giving effect to award at enhanced rate.

    1
  • STATE Vs. BRIJ DEV TIWARI @ PANDIT

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Testimony of baby gives clear impression that she was coached and tutored before she gave statement — Medical evidence did not support commission of rape — Delay in lodging FIR has remained unexplained — Judgment of acquittal enhances presumption of innocence of accused.

    2
  • State of Haryana Vs. Jasvinder Singh and Ors.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Conviction cannot be based on infirm evidence. Husband Acquitted.

    0
  • TARUN @ GAUTAM MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Abetment of Suicide, Cruelty : Appreciation of Evidence : Charge Not Established — High Court on scrutiny of evidence held that offence under Section 306, I.P.C. not established. Evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 5 not of such nature to establish cruelty on part of husband to bring home offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C.

    0
  • PRADEEP @ BALLI Vs. STATE, NCT OF DELHI

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Prosecution failed to bring home any of the charges against appellant beyond reasonable doubt — Prosecutrix‘s post-event conduct is unnatural and unacceptable — Prosecutrix was consenting party — She was aware that she was being administered I-pill for prevention of pregnancy.

    0
  • Tilak Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

    Court: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Prosecutrix was an adult and mature lady aged around 40 years at the time of incident. She admitted that she was in relationship with Appellant for two years prior to incident and he used to stay overnight at her residence. Evidence as a whole including FIR, testimony of prosecutrix and report prepared by medical practitioner clearly indicate that the story of prosecutrix regarding sexual intercourse on false pretext of marrying her is concocted and not believable. Sexual acts between Appellant and prosecutrix seem to be consensual in nature. Case set up by prosecutrix seems to be highly unrealistic and unbelievable.

    0
  • SMT. CHANDAN AGARWAL Vs. MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Lodging of false criminal report by wife against her husband & his family — Leading to arrest of husband & harassment of his family — Refusal by wife to fulfill sexual desire of her husband & defaming husband to be impotent — Amounts cruelty to husband — Marriage deserves to be dissolved.

    0
  • RAM SARAN VARSHNEY AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Since investigation leading to closure report was clearly in violation of an express judicial order to the contrary, same is a nullity in law and cannot be accepted. Trial Court requested to take up and dispose of proceedings under Sections 498A and 506 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against husband and parents-in-law of complainant as expeditiously as possible.

    0