Select a page

Useful Judgements

  • Shail Kumari Devi & Anr. Vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B.Pathak

    Court:Supreme Court of India

    Family Court granted maintenance to appellants wife as well as daughter @ of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively. Before amendment of 2001, ceiling was Rs. 500/-. Family Court could not have granted maintenance exceeding Rs. 500/- p.m. either to appellant No. 1 or 2 from date of application. Appellant No. 1 was living in house belonging to respondent-husband and receiving income from land in her possession. She inherited some land from her father. To meet ends of justice both appellants entitled to amount of Rs. 1,000/- each p.m. as maintenance from date Amendment Act, 2001 came into force. No interference required in order of payment of interim maintenance.

    0
  • State Of Maharashtra Vs. Hanmant & Ors.

    Court:Bombay High Court

    Cruelty. Dowry Death. Abetment of Suicide. Common Intention. Presumption. Appeal against acquittal. No case of interference made out. Case of prosecution that after 1 year of marriage, demand was made and continued till end, does not appear to be probable in nature. Reasons given for alleged ill-treatment does not appear to be true. Conduct of accused No. 1 not consistent with his guilt. He was giving her treatment for infertility. No wilful conduct on part of accused No. 1 or his relatives which can be defined in Section 498A, IPC. Presumption under Sections 113A, 113B of Evidence Act cannot be drawn. Impugned order upheld.

    0
  • Seema Vs. Rajesh Dua

    Court:Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Cruelty by wife. Grant of divorce. Husband proved that wife was indulging in indecent manner with her Jija. Her behaviour towards husband and his family members was cruelsome. She also used to threaten his family members and husband to lodge false report against them and sending them to jail. Husband cannot be reasonably expected to live with wife. Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court affirmed.

    0
  • State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr.

    Court:Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Cruelty. Attempt to Murder. Dowry demand. Appeal against acquittal. Respondents neither poured kerosene on victim nor set her ablaze and deceased never subjected to any cruelty on account of dowry demand. Acquittal by Trial Court confirmed. Respondent No. 6 victim has not implicated any of the respondents for setting her ablaze . Reasoning given by Trial Court for acquittal not contrary to settled principles of law and upheld.

    0
  • Pradeep Kumar Kapoor Vs. Shailja Kapoor

    Court: Delhi High Court

    Wife granted maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 600/- p.m. Expenses of proceedings declined. Husband challanged impugned order. No finding by trial court about the insufficiency of the income of wife for her support. Husband earning Rs. 200/- p.m. from sale of paintings not based on any evidence. Husband net income from salary Rs. 1890.00 p.m. Wife net income Rs. 1269.00 p.m. Wife contested. Demand for separate residence. Court awarded maintenance pendente lite over and above her income which was not sufficient for her support. She justified impugned order. Perusal of record.

    0
  • Rajiv Thapar & Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor

    Court:Supreme Court Of India

    Dowry Death. Cruelty. High Court had before it an exhaustive and detailed order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, it ought to have examined controversy, while keeping in mind inherent power vested in it under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. specially because Additional Sessions Judge had concluded, on basis of material relied upon by accused, that no case was made out against accused. Death of deceased was not caused by poisoning. Merely because her body had turned blue, is not a sufficient basis to infer that she had been poisoned to death. Material relied upon by appellants is sufficient to condemn factual basis of accusation as false. Judicial conscience of High Court ought to have persuaded it, on the basis of material examined by it, to quash criminal proceedings initiated against appellant-accused. Proceedings quashed.

    0
  • Anurag Bajpai Vs. Indira Bajpai

    Court: Allahabad High Court

    Cruelty. Desertion. Permanent alimony. Marriage completely broken down. Parties living separately for past 13 years out of 21 years of marriage. It would be inflicting further cruelty upon both parties to force them to stay together. Threats extended by defendant for committing suicide would amount to mental cruelty. It would be extremely difficult for any spouse or its family members to live in constant threat of suicide. Filing of false cases falls within the ambit of cruelty. Matrimonial bond has ruptured beyond repair because of mental cruelty caused by defendant. By her act of leaving the house of plaintiff without there being any apparent reason, would also amount to desertion particularly in view of fact that since 2000 till date she is living separately. In interest of justice defendant is allowed permanent one time alimony of Rs. 3 lacs to be given by appellant in favour of defendant-OP. Marriage between parties stands dissolved.

    0
  • State Vs. Naresh & Ors.

    Court: Delhi High Court

    Cruelty. Dowry Death. Appeal against acquittal. Benefit of doubt. Considerable delay in lodging of FIR. Major improvements and embellishments in prosecution case which cannot be brushed aside as substratum of prosecution version has been shaken. No explanation has been given for delay in lodging FIR, let alone a satisfactory one. Nowhere near date of death demand for dowry was made. There is not even an allegation that there was any demand for dowry “soon before” the death. Respondents have been rightly given benefit of doubt . Impugned judgment of Trial Court upheld.

    0
  • Subhash @ Prakash Vs. Priyanka Subhash Dewangan

    Court:Chhattisgarh High Court

    Cruelty & Desertion. Improper Inquiry. Family Court has only taken for determination ground of desertion and ground of cruelty not taken by Family Court. No opportunity granted to appellant-husband to cross-examine 3 witnesses of respondent-wife who has filed their affidavits in support of pleadings of respondent. Proper inquiry not conducted by Family Court to settle dispute between parties — Impugned judgment passed without considering all grounds raised by parties. Impugned judgment and decree passed by Family Court set aside.

    0
  • Raghubir Yadav Vs. Purnima Kharga (Yadav)

    Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court

    The income of Husband Fixed on Conjectures: Fact that Wife Worked in Television Serials and Stage Plays and Earned Some Income from said Sources, not Considered by A.D.J.: Trial Judge’s Order does not Withstand Close Scrutiny: Directed to Decide Afresh Application under Section 24 of Act. Parties to disclose their income honestly before Court below.

    0
  • S. Abboy Naidu & Anr. Vs. R. Sundara Rajan

    Court: Madras High Court

    Father filed petition to take back custody of child aged one year from maternal Grand-parents of minor. Petitioner apprehends danger to life of minor. Child given to maternal Grand-parents under agreement at the death of petitioner’s wife. Perusal of record and circumstances. Held Petitioner who is natural father is the fit and proper person to have the custody of the minor child and allowed the petition.

    0
  • Seshnarayan & Ors. Vs. State Of M.P.

    Court:Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Demand of Rs. 50,000 for purchase of expenditure to get Government service of appellant No. 1. Such demand could not necessarily come under definition of demand of dowry . Trial Court committed illegality in recording conviction under Sections 304B, 498A, IPC. Conviction and sentence recorded against appellants under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC set aside and they are acquitted from these charges.

    0
  • Malaya Das (Nee) Ghosh Vs. Basudeb Das

    Court:Calcutta High Court

    Section 115 Revision, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 Interim order –– Ex-parte decree — Revisional Court Does not retain its jurisdiction to increase the maintenance.

    0
  • U. Sree Vs. U. Srinivas

      Court:Supreme Court Bench: JUSTICE K.S. Radhakrishnan & Dipak Misra U. Sree Vs. U.Srinivas On 11 December 2012 Law Point: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(ia) — Divorce — Cruelty by wife — Permanent alimony of Rs. 5 lakh awarded by Family Judge — Husband clearly deposed about constant and consistent ill-treatment meted out to him by wife —

    0
  • Chetankumar Amratlal Naik Vs. Geetaben Kantilal Naik

    Court:Gujarat High Court

    Parties got married in 1997 and stayed together for approximately 6 months . Thereafter they had been living separately. No chance of reconciliation and no justification of passing a decree for judicial separation instead of divorce available to husband under law. Decree of judicial separation passed by Family Court converted into one of divorce, subject to payment of permanent alimony @ Rs. 3 lacs to wife.

    0
  • Dhananjoy Samanta Vs. Sabitri Samanta

    Court:Calcutta High Court

    Wife and Other Dependent Shall Not be Entitled to More Than 1/5th Each From Gross Amount. Petitioner receiving Rs. 5,700/- p.m. as salary as Assistant Teacher. Petitioner liable to pay @ Rs. 1,150/- to opposite party as maintenance per month and Rs. 1,000/- to female child month by month.

    1
  • Deoki Panjhiyara Vs. Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad & Anr.

    Court:Supreme Court

    Alleged suppression of earlier marriage by appellant-wife. Acting solely on basis of marriage certificate, trial Court as well as High Court proceeded to determine validity of marriage between parties though both Courts were exercising jurisdiction in a proceeding for maintenance. Till date, marriage between parties is yet to be annulled by a competent Court. If under law, marriage between parties still subsists appellant would continue to be legally married wife of respondent so as to be entitled to claim maintenance and other benefits under Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Mere production of a marriage certificate issued under Section 13 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 was not sufficient for any of the Courts, including High Court, to render a complete and effective decision with regard to marital status of parties and that too in a collateral proceeding for maintenance.

    0
  • Savita Soni Vs. Sanjay Soni & Ors.

    Court:Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Appeal against acquittal. No illegality or perversity. Complainant left the matrimonial house after 2 months of marriage. No possibility of any cruelty meted out to her. mother of complainant wanted that all her sons-in-law should reside with her as “Gharjamai”. Respondent No. 1 left the house, false FIR was lodged against him and his family members to pressurize him.

    1
  • Ranbir Singh Vs. Balbir Kaur

    Court:Punjab And Haryana High Court

    Wife Living apart & depriving husband of co-habitation is an act of cruelty. No reasonable ground given by wife for living separately. Sudden rudeness in behaviour of husband not obvious. Wife deserted husband without plausible excuse. Failed to adduce cogent evidence of alleged beating by husband. Rather admitted that she was left at her parental home by her husband. Joint living impossible. Considering evidence on record, status, educational qualifications & public opinion , Held, it would be proper to grant decree for judicial separation & not divorce.

    0
  • Tarakanatha Kar Vs. Lipika Kar

    Court:Supreme Court

    Dispute whether ‘C’ or respondent ‘L’ legally married wife of Husband or was it case of bigamy. Direction for initiation of departmental proceedings by High Court.
    Improper and invalid Marriage. High Court while dealing with application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. essentially adjudicated that offence under Section 494, IPC is made out. Suit filed in Durgapur Civil Court is pending where prayer was made for declaration that respondent was not his wife. Whether there was second marriage as contended and whether ‘L’ was his wife as claimed or ‘C’ was wife of Husband as claimed by him is yet to be decided. Not open to High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction to give direction for initiation of departmental proceedings. Directions given in this regard both in original order and subsequent order quashed.

    0
  • Kripa Nath Ganguly & Dibanath Ganguly Vs. State Of West Bengal

    Court:Calcutta High Court

    Prosecution case not proved by sufficient reliable evidence beyond all reasonable doubt. Probability of defence that deceased committed suicide out of frustration and mental depression as psychiatric patient as she being married lady had no child. Trial Court was not correct and justified in convicting and sentencing appellants for offence under Sections 498A, 306 and 34, IPC. Conviction and sentence passed by ASJ set aside. Appellants are acquitted of offences and set at liberty.

    0
  • Avtar Singh Vs. Balbir Kaur

    Court:Delhi High Court

    Husband filed petition for divorce pleading cruelty and desertion since June, 1981 for a continuous period of three years. Trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that mere leaving by the wife of the matrimonial home did not prove desertion. Appeal against the judgment of trial court , Whether the respondent wife was guilty of desertion and cruelty — Yes.

    0
  • G.Balaji Vs. Mallamma & Anr.

    Court:Andhra Pradesh High Court

    Petition u/s. 127 for enhancement of maintenance granted u/s. 125. Nature of proceedings and where to be field. Held Section 127 Cr.P.C. is an independent proceeding and, therefore, Section 126 has no application thereto and that the petition for enhancement of maintenance will have to he filed before the same magistrate who had passed orders of maintenance in the first instance.

    0
  • Radheshyam Sharma Vs. Kusum Sharma

    Court:Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Husband’s petition for divorce on ground of wife’s cruelty and desertion dismissed by Trial Court. Wife lived for 5 days with husband did not allow sexual intercourse. Thereafter left the matrimonial home and did not return despite efforts. Wife absent. Ex-parte evidence of husband. No rebuttal on record.

    0
  • Nandkishor Shamrao Bhandare Vs. State of Maharashtra

    Court:Bombay High Court

    Allegations against husband that Wife committed suicide by jumping out of running Jeep because he quarrelled before incident and threatened her of dire consequences. Documentary evidence established that she had died in accident. Wife continued to serve as a teacher even after marriage. She was meeting her husband only on week-ends. She was residing with her parents seven months prior to the date of incident. It cannot be said that she had no other alternative but to commit suicide.

    0
  • Mohd. Akhtar Siddiqui @ Babar Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.

    Court:Allahabad High Court

    Amendment application amending amount claimed in proceedings under Section 125 is not permissible in law. Impugned order passed on amendment application unsustainable in eyes of law and set aside.

    2
  • Dinesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Court:Rajasthan High Court

    All acts and omissions were done at Gwalior. Cause of action arose in Gwalior and not in Jaipur. Courts at Jaipur do not have territorial jurisdiction to try case at Jaipur. Cognizance order passed by Judicial magistrate quashed and set aside. It consists of bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce legal inquiry for redress in Court of Law. It must include some act done by opponent since in absence of such act no cause of action would possibly accrue.

    0
  • Kamlesh Negi & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

    Court:Rajasthan High Court

    Wife’s marriage with Husband was solemnized at Noida. Husband and Wife had no occasion to interact at Jodhpur. In Wife’s testimony by way of her statements recorded under Section 200, Cr.P.C. she has not stated about any such act of cruelty committed on her by husband at Jodhpur to make them liable for offences under Sections 498A, 406, IPC at Jodhpur. Highest case of complainant in relation to incident at Jodhpur is that husand came to her father’s house and pressurized her to sign divorce papers after quarrelling with her. No offence of cruelty and criminal breach of trust committed at Jodhpur. Court at Jodhpur has no jurisdiction to try case.

    0
  • Jupally Veeraswamy Vs. Jupally Shantamma & Anr.

    Court:Andhra Pradesh High Court

    No revision against interlocutory order, second revision application not maintainable Exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of High Court u/Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. To correct abuse of process of Court, Not to convert this Court as Second Revisional Court. Quantum to be granted and given to respondent by lower Courts.

    0
  • Godambari Devi Vs. Devi Prasad & Ors.

    Court:Uttarakhand High Court

    Appeal  against grant of decree of divorce. Wife treated husband with cruelty and deserted him in May 1996 without any sufficient cause. Wife has no means to maintain herself while her husband is in Government job working as pharmacist. Decree of divorce confirmed subject to one time lumpsum alimony amounting to Rs. 5 lacs to wife.

    0
  • Prasanta Kumar Dey Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.

    Court:Supreme Court of India

    The Wife and Child were directed maintenance of Rs. 800 each by the husband. This order was an Ex-parte order. The husband moved an application under Section seeking setting aside of the ex-parte order and giving the appellant an opportunity of contesting the petition on merits.

    0
  • Rajna Choudhary Vs. Raghubir Singh

    Court:Himachal Pradesh High Court

    Wife alleged that husband was having illicit relations with his brother’s wife, which proved to be false. This allegation amounted to mental cruelty. Wife also alleged that husband got remarried but did not give particulars of lady whom he allegedly remarried. Another act of cruelty alleged by husband is that wife did not allow him sexual access. This conduct of wife amounts to mental cruelty on her part. Wife left matrimonial house on her own and not living with respondent since 1997. Wife refused to go with husband when he went to get wife back to the matrimonial house.

    1
  • State Of Gujarat Vs. Gajendrabhai Amrutlal Parmar

    Court: Gujarat High Court

    It is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband in connection with demand of dowry . When main offence is not proved, there would be no question of abetment as envisaged by Section 114, Evidence Act. Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order.

    0
  • Bhaskar Ramappa Madar & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

    Court: Supreme Court Of India

    PWs 1, 2 and 5 i.e. father, mother and brother of deceased do not speak of any dowry demand. From evidence of PW 1 it is clear that there was no ill-treatment by accused Nos. 1 to 3 to deceased and ill-treatment if any, was only by accused Nos. 4 to 6. High Court’s reasoning that there was nothing to show that A-1 owned a truck is contrary to evidence on record. PW 1 has accepted position as noticed by Trial Court. There is no analysis of conclusions of Trial Court by High Court. Trial Court categorically held that so-called ill-treatment was not for bringing money and for not willing to part with her child in favour of accused No. 4.

    0
  • Sunil Chand Gupta & Ors. Vs. State

    Court: Delhi High Court

    victim is full of embellishments and exaggerations. Victim was 22 years of age. She had delivered a child just about one month prior to incident. When alleged act committed with such a force as described by PW 1, in normal course some kind of injury would have appeared on her body. MLC noted no injury mark. Allegations of dowry demands are also difficult to imbibe. No such demands have been made before and at the time of marriage. Appellants acquitted of charges levelled against them.

    0
  • Ramkaran vs. Gyarsi & Anr.

    Court:Supreme Court of India

    Maintenance rejected to wife as she separated from appellant-husband for no justifiable reason. Father of respondent was demanding sum of Rs. 30,000/- for sending her to house of appellant-husband. Revisional Court confirmed findings of fact recorded by trial Magistrate and dismissed revision.

    0
  • Sujata Uday Patil Vs. Uday Madhukar Patil

    Court:Supreme Court of India

    Matrimonial disputes to be decided by Courts in pragmatic manner keeping in view ground realities — Most important factor is whether marriage can be saved and husband and wife can live together happily and maintain proper atmosphere at home for upbringing of their offsprings.

    1
  • Rupali Devi Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

    Court: Supreme Court of India
    498a case can be filed at a place where a woman driven out of matrimonial home takes shelter.

    0
  • Amit Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. State Of Jharkhand & Anr.

    Court: Jharkhand High Court
    Territorial Jurisdiction — Cruelty, dowry demand — No part of occurrence as alleged took place within territorial jurisdiction of Latehar for institution of case — Prosecution of petitioner on basis of FIR which was lodged at Chandwa was liable to be quashed — FIR lodged against petitioner as also criminal proceedings arising out of such case quashed.

    0
  • Sunil Vs. Sakshi @ Shweta & Anr

    Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
    Dissolution of Marriage — Decree of divorce not obtained by playing fraud on Family Court by husband — High Court giving reference to plaint and written statement presumed that wife never appeared before Family Court — High Court failed to notice order dated 17.9.2012 which made it clear that wife was present in the Court and one Advocate filed Vakalatnama for wife with permission — Only after hearing both the parties ex parte order set aside against wife

    0
  • Amarendu Jyoti & Ors. Vs. State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

    Court: Supreme Court Of India
    All overt acts constituting cruelty allegedly taken place at ‘Delhi’ — Finding of High Court that mental cruelty inflicted upon respondent No. 2 “continued unabated” on account of no effort made by appellants to take her back to her matrimonial home and threats given by appellants over telephone — Court at ‘Ambikapur’ has no jurisdiction to try offence since appropriate Court at ‘Delhi’ would have jurisdiction to try said offence.

    0
  • Harikishan Vs. Shanti Devi

    Court: Rajasthan High Court
    If the wife is living in adultery or if she refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason or if the spouses are living separately by mutual consent, in these three situations the wife is not entitled to receive any maintenance from her husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

    1
  • Sarada Vs. V. Satyamurthy

    Court: Madras High Court
    When cruelty desertion alleged by wife NOT true, wife not caring, living away, she canNOT take advantage of own wrong Wife DENIED divorce.

    0
  • Sethi Singh Vs. Jass Kaur & Anr

    Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
    Crpc125. No arrest b4 execution proceedings on defaulter’s property. Court may collect arrears u/s 125 in a manner similar to collection of fines. Only IF amount remains unpaid after such effort, should defaulter be arrested !!

    0
  • Usharani Pradhan Vs. Brajakishore Pradhan

    Orissa High Court
    Conduct of wife in leaving company of her husband and their small children and living separately since 2007 for pursuing her political ambition — Clearly indicates she deserted respondent without reasonable cause and his consent and against his wish.

    0
  • Baijnath & Ors. Vs. State Of M.P.

    Supreme Court Of India
    Cruelty or harassment by husband or any relative of his for or in connection with any demand of dowry to reiterate is gravamen of two offences — Presumption as to dowry death would get activated only upon proof of fact that deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry by accused and that too in reasonable contiguity of death

    0
  • Gajendra Vs. Smt. Madhu Mati

    Madhya Pradesh High Court
    Forcing husband as Ghar Jamaee, deserting him on refusal, not attending to his ailments CRUELTY. Divorce decreed.

    0
  • Sudeep Chaudhary Vs. Radha Chaudhary

    Supreme Court Of India
    The amount awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance was adjustable against the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceedings and was not to be given over and above the same

    0
  • Gurjinder Kaur Vs. Pritpal Singh & Anr.

    Punjab And Haryana High Court
    Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 125 — Cruelty — Illicit relationship — Defence version improbable — Appellant-wife subjected respondent No. 1-husband to cruelty by maintaining illicit relations with respondent No. 2

    1
  • Lata Verma Vs. Jayant Verma

    Delhi High Court
    Sections 13(1)(ia), 28 — Cruelty — Dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of Act justified. Wife not able to establish her case — No infirmity or illegality in impugned judgment passed by Trial Court.

    0
  • Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V. Sarma

    Court: Supreme Court Of India
    Law has distinguished between married and unmarried people, which cannot be held unfair looking at rights and obligations which flow out of legally wedded marriage.

    0
  • Bhura Ram & Ors. Vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr

    Supreme Court Of India
    Court at Rajasthan does not have jurisdiction to deal with matter — Magistrate concerned has no jurisdiction to deal with matter — Proceedings before ACJM, Sri Ganganagar quashed — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 406, 498A.

    3
  • P.S. Kher Vs Kamal Nainjit Kaur

    Punjab And Haryana High Court
    Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (as amended in 1976) — Section 13 — Whether allegation of the wife/respondent regarding the relations of her husband with a lady (whom she knew was related to the husband but pretended that she didn’t know their relation) amount to mental cruelty.

    0
  • Rajesh Gutta Vs State Of A.p. & Ors.

    Andhra Pradesh High Court
    Investigation — Includes examination of witnesses, confronting witnesses on basis of materials — Collected by Investigating Officer and also version of person who is aggrieved because of said complaint — Mere reproduction of complaint without proper examination cannot be called as statement recorded during investigation.

    0
  • Ram Parkash @ Bittoo Vs State

    Delhi High Court
    Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 113B — Presumption as to dowry death — Scope and application.

    0
  • Jayanti Pradhan Vs Kunjabehari Pradhan

    Orissa High Court
    Restitution of conjugal rights — Maintenance pendente-lite. Husband filed a petition under Section 9. Wife claimed maintenance. petition of the husband was dismissed. Husband pleaded that appeal was not maintainable, whether appeal by the wife was maintainable.

    0
  • Rani Sethi Vs. Sunil Sethi

    Delhi High Court
    Section 24 — Maintenance — Wife entitled to maintain husband as per their standard of living — Purpose of Section 24 of Act is to provide support to a spouse who has no independent source of income and is incapable of maintaining himself/herself

    0
  • Tomy Joseph Vs Smitha Tomy

    Kerala High Court
    Divorce by Mutual Consent – Beneficiaries under given provisions of different statutes are persons who want divorce by mutual consent and file joint petition for relief — There can be no discrimination among them on ground of religion — Divorce by mutual consent is secular concept — Parties living separately for more than two years — Order passed by Family Court cannot be sustained in law — Directions.

    4
  • Thota Venkateswarlu Vs. State Of A.P. Tr. Princl. Sec. & Anr.

    Supreme Court of India
    Under Sections 498A, Ill-treatment — Offence committed outside India. No sanction in terms of Section 188 is required up to the stage of taking cognizance — Trial cannot proceed beyond cognizance stage without previous sanction of Central Government. No reason to interfere with High Court’s decision to reject husband’s prayer for quashing of proceedings.

    0
  • Sunil Kumar Vs State & Anr

    Delhi High Court
    Sections 498A, 406 — Quashing of Order Issuing Proclamation: Cruelty, Criminal Breach of Trust : Court did not Record Satisfaction that Warrants against Petitioner cannot be Served or he is Concealing himself : No Effort made to Serve Petitioner at the Address given in FIR itself : Impugned Order Issuing Proclamation and Order Declaring Petitioner as Proclaimed Offender Set Aside.

    0
  • Kundan Kumar Mukherjee Vs Mausmi Mukherjee @ Bubun

    Jharkhand High Court
    Dissolution of Marriage — Joint compromise petition — It incorporates terms and conditions of compromise — It is signed by both parties and affidavit of both parties also enclosed — Parties on their free will and volition agreed to live together.

    0
  • Vinod Chandra Sharma Vs Smt. Rajesh Pathak

    Allahabad High Court
    Section 25 — Permanent alimony — Petition for divorce dismissed — Permanent alimony to respondent granted — Appeal against the grant of maintenance — Whether the Trial Court correctly granted permanent alimony – NO.

    0
  • Swapnil Kolhe & Ors Vs Kirti Kolhe

    Madhya Pradesh High Court
    Sections 498A, 34, 506 — Domestic Violence — Cruelty — Common Intention — Quashing of proceedings — No limitation prescribed for filing application except reasonable time — Similar allegations in complaint under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act as in FIR lodged under IPC — Fit case for quashing of complaint — No finding can be arrived insofar as contention regarding no domestic relationship between wife and husband is concerned.

    2
  • Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs Anita Devi

    Jharkhand High Court
    Wife lodged case under Section 498A, IPC and Sections 3 and 4, DP Act against him and his parents and acquitted by Appellate Court. Husband successfully established offence of cruelty in marriage as against respondent

    0
  • Paritosh Das Vs Kalyani Das & Ors

    Calcutta High Court
    Section 125 — Maintenance — Magistrate allowed interim maintenance ex-parte — Husband moved application for re-consideration of interim maintenance — Refused — Whether refusal arbitrary ? (Yes).

    3
  • Rani Bai @ Shakuntla Verma Vs Chandrashekhar Verma

    Chhattisgarh High Court
    Mental Cruelty, Desertion — Proof of — Appellant wife deserted her husband without any proper and sufficient reason — Cruelty on her part towards respondent is made out — Appellant refused to live with respondent’s mother and two sisters.

    0
  • A.P. Ranga Rao Vs Vijayalakshmi

    Madras High Court
    Section 13(1)(ia) — Cruelty Meaning of — Several attempts by wife to commit suicide — Acts or ‘conduct of the party charged must be cruel according to the ordinary sense of the word — Intention to cause such cruelty not a necessary element — Whether the party who was charged himself is responsible for that ? (No).

    0
  • Saraswathy Vs Babu

    Supreme Court Of India
    Husband is a poor tourist taxi driver, wife refuses to join him, tries DV case, wants to live in his MOTHER’S house, wife also all sorts of petitions including this contempt petition which is dismissed by the Honorable HC of Madras.

    0
  • Rabindra Nath Roy Vs Anjana Roy

    Calcutta High Court
    Maintenance Revision – Whether it would be open to wife to claim maintenance, after the marriage is dissolved by decree of divorce following her refusal to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights ?

    0
  • Vinod Kumar Subbiah Vs Saraswathi Palaniappan

    Supreme Court Of India
    Mental Cruelty — Desertion — Husband had duly pleaded instances of mental cruelty which he proved in evidence and documents — Various allegations of cruelty were made out and a number of incidents were mentioned in a divorce petition .

    0
  • Sarada Vs V. Satyamurthi

    Madras High Court
    This is the sad case of a 56 year old woman and 58 year old male fighting in courts. The lady is seeking divorce and alleging that her husband has been cruel and has deserted her. The lower court dismisses her case. The matter moves to HC. The HC appreciates the arguments and states

    0
  • Ranjana Gupta Vs Rajnesh Gupta & Ors

    Delhi High Court
    In this case a woman earning approximately 40,000 p.m. tries to get more money from her husband. courts reject maintenance and also residence order. It is also found that the complainant / wife is a government servant Government servant is also entitled to HRA which should be equivalent to HRA earned by the respondent (husband) and therefore the said relief is also declined. The Hon Del HC also denies maintenance. The HC goes further to call the appeal an abuse of the process of law

    1
  • Kalidas Vs Parvatibai And Another

    Court:Bombay High Court
    Wife claims maintenance as a divorcee is entitled to maintenance u/s 125. Bombay High Court clarifies that deserting women against whom divorce decree is passed are NOT entitled to maintenance.

    0
  • Sanjiv Kumar Jindal Vs Anil Kumari @ Neelam

    Delhi High Court
    Sections 13(1)(ia), 13(1)(ib)— Mental cruelty — Desertion — Depression — Suppression of disease — Leaving matrimonial home without informing — Unilateral termination of pregnancy — Respondent-wife left her matrimonial home without informing her husband — Evidence was led evincing that respondent-wife was under psychiatric treatment

    0
  • Lalit Kumar Mehta Vs Sanjeeta

    Rajasthan High Court
    Section 13(1)(ia) — Mental Cruelty — Appreciation of evidence — Marriage never took off — Rash actions of respondent wife under trivial matters — Since childhood respondent-wife was obstinate

    0
  • Sushma Vs Satish Chander

    Delhi High Court
    Sections 13 and 25 – Husband’s petition for divorce dismissed. Whether wife entitled to permanent alimony thereafter?

    0
  • Sandhya Kumari Vs Manish Kumar

    Delhi High Court
    Cruelty — Allegations and counter allegations concerning abortion, dowry demand. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage — Marriage dissolved by decree of divorce.

    0
  • Manohar Lal Vs State Of Haryana

    Supreme Court Of India
    Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304B — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 113B — Dowry Death — Presumption — Proof of essentials — Discussed.

    0
  • Indu Kukreja Vs Deepak Kukreja

    Uttarakhand High Court
    Mental Cruelty — Appellant-wife indulged in character assassination of respondent-husband in presence of PWs. Acts of appellant caused mental and physical cruelty to respondent — It was not possible to live with wife under same roof by respondent — Custody of child cannot be handed over to appellant.

    0
  • D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal

    Supreme Court of India
    Section 125 — Maintenance — Divorced wife is treated as a wife for purpose of Section 125, Cr.P.C. but if a person has not even been married obviously that person could not be divorced — Respondent cannot claim to be the wife of appellant unless it is established that appellant was not married to L — Courts below erred in law in holding that L was not married to appellant (since notice was not issued to her and she was not heard) — It cannot be said at this stage that respondent herein is the wife of appellant.

    0
  • Saritha Vs R. Ramachandra

    Andhra Pradesh High Court
    Abuse of Beneficial Provision by Woman Implicating Husband and Their Family Members : It is for Law Commission and Parliament either to Continue that Provision in same Form or to make Offence Non-cognizable one and Bailable one so that Ill-educated Women of this Country and their Parents do not Misuse said Provision.

    0
  • Meena Chaudhary Vs Commissioner Of Delhi Police

    Supreme Court Of India
    Husband duly paid arrears of interim maintenance @ Rs. 25,000/- p.m. as ordered by Division Bench — It will not be appropriate to delve deep into claim of wife that her marriage continues to subsist

    1
  • Shyamlal Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

    Chhattisgarh High Court
    Nothing on record to show that appellant committed any cruelty with deceased — PW4 doctor stated that deceased was suffering from some sickness and under treatment — No case is made out against appellant under Section 306, IPC — Conviction and sentence imposed upon appellant set aside.

    0
  • Gobinda Das Vs State Of West Bengal

    Calcutta High Court
    No allegations of torture arising out of demand of dowry — Suicide committed by deceased at her matrimonial home ten/twelve years after marriage — Prosecution cannot take advantage of statutory presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act to prove its case — Prosecution evidence with regard to torture on victim is too vague and non-specific and does not fall within ambit of Section 498A, IPC

    0
  • Ranganatham Vs Shyamala

    Madras High Court
    Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 25 and 12 — Petition for decree of nullity of marriage — Dismissal — Whether under Section 25 of H.M.A. permanent alimony can be granted to wife where a decree for divorce is refused.? (No).

    0
  • Panchanand Mandal @ Pachan Mandal & Anr Vs State Of Jharkhand

    Court: Supreme Court Of India
    Sections 304B, 34, Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 – Dowry Death – Common Intention – Dying declaration. Prosecution miserably failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt

    0
  • Darshan Singh Vs Mst. Daso

    Rajasthan High Court
    Hindu Marriage Act, Ss. 9 & 25 — Husband marrying second wife and applying for restitution of conjugal rights against first wife — Court dismissing husband’s application due to his second marriage — Court cannot grant alimony to wife under S. 25 — Decree in S. 25 does not include dismissal of petition under S. 9.

    0
  • Madhusudan Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs Mamta Bhardwaj

    Madhya Pradesh High Court
    Two things required before passing an order in favour of aggrieved person, viz., opportunity of hearing to parties and prima facie satisfaction with regard to happening of domestic violence or likely to happen thereof — Procedure prescribed followed by Magistrate — Impugned order set aside.

    1
  • Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors.

    Delhi High Court
    Sections 498A, 406 — Misappropriation of dowry articles, Cruelty : Misuse and exploitation of provisions to such an extent that it is hitting at foundation of marriage itself and proved to be not so good for the health of society at large

    0
  • Gurjit Singh Sandhu Vs Rupinder Kaur

    Punjab And Haryana High Court
    Divorce — Ground — Cruelty — Appeal by husband against order of trial Court declining relief of divorce — Wife left matrimonial borne and two minor children — Perusal of material on record — Established—Attempts made by husband by taking Panchayat proved a futile exercise

    0
  • Bhagwant Kishore Vs. Sheela Devi

    Punjab And Haryana High Court
    Section 13 (1)(ia), (ib) — Cruelty — Desertion, Petition for divorce by appellant pleading desertion and cruelty. Appeal by wife — Decree again set aside — Case remanded — Appellant allowed to amend petition to plead specifically instances of cruelty — Petition dismissed — Appeal by husband — Whether the amendment when allowed relates back to the date of petition

    0
  • Ramgopal Vs State Of M.P. & Ors

    Madhya Pradesh High Court
    Sections 306, 304-B and 498-A — Abetment of Suicide, Dowry Death, Cruelty — Revision against acquittal — Court would interfere where there is miscarriage of justice and not mere error of appreciation of evidence

    1
  • Gurdeep Singh Vs. Daljit Kaur

    Punjab & Haryana High Court
    Under Section 25 — Permanent Alimony and Maintenance — Permanent alimony can be granted only when “decree” is passed.

    1
  • Kans Raj Vs State Of Punjab & Ors

    Court:Supreme Court of India

    Dowry Death: Death of Deceased Wife by Suicide Within 7 years of Her Marriage : Sufficient Proof — Continuous harassment connected with demand of dowry

    0
  • Kiran Kriplani Vs Jethanand Jethwani

    Delhi High Court
    Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Domestic Relationship — Shared Accommodation – Petitioner is misusing provisions of law with some extraneous consideration — This cannot be permitted to be done.

    0
  • Subhash Vs Laxmibai

    Madhya Pradesh High Court
    Under Section 13(1)(ia) — Divorce petition of husband on account of wife’s mental cruelty and desertion — Wife not allowing cohabitation. Wife threatened to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on herself on two occasions

    0
  • State Of Orissa Vs Niranjan Mohapatra & Ors

    Supreme Court of India
    Under Section 304B, no evidence to suggest soon before occurrence deceased subjected to torture and harassment : Conviction under Section 304B unsustainable in absence of such evidence.

    0
  • Harbhajan Singh Monga Vs Amarjeet Kaur

    Court:Madhya Pradesh High Court
    Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13 — Cruelty — Married Feb., 1979 lived together upto September 1979, respondent left for her parents house and rejoined appellant in July

    0
  • Nageshwar Prasad Mishra Vs State Of U.p. & Ors.

    Court:Allahabad High Court
    Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Sections 2(f), 2(g), 2(q), 2(s), 3, 18, 12, 22 — Domestic Violence — Aggrieved Person — Defamation and malicious prosecution alleged by daughter against her father

    0
  • Rakesh Chand & Anr Vs State Of Punjab

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Sections 302, 304B, 201, 34 — Murder, Dowry Death, Disappearance of Evidence, Common Intention — Benefit of doubt — Demand for Rs. 50,000/- has been confined only to A, husband of deceased and not appellants.

    0
  • Shindo @ Sawinder Kaur & Anr Vs State Of Punjab

    Supreme Court of India
    Dowry Death, Cruelty — Presumption — Dying declarations — Death of deceased sustaining 100% burn injuries within seven years of her marriage but no dowry demand made soon before death of deceased

    0
  • Mahendra Kumar Sharma Vs Sunita Sharma

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Mental Cruelty — Grant of divorce — Reckless allegations against appellant husband of having extra-marital affairs with lady living in same locality.

    0
  • Vijay Verma Vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Domestic Violence Act – Purpose of Act is to give remedy to aggrieved persons against domestic violence — Domestic violence can take place only when one is living in shared household with respondents.

    0
  • Vijaya Vasant Sawant Vs Shubhangi Shivling Parab & Ors

    Court:Bombay High Court
    Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 12 — Domestic Violence — Right of residence — Delay and laches

    0
  • Sardar Malkiat Singh Vs Kanwaljit Kaur & Ors

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Suit for Possession, Recovery of Damages and Permanent Injunction

    0
  • Barun Kumar Nahar Vs Parul Nahar & Anr

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 — Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 17(1) — Injunction — Grant of — Eviction of daughter-in-law from self acquired property of her parents-in-law — Plaintiff by way of interim mandatory injunction is seeking direction to defendant (daughter-in-law) to vacate premises so that plaintiff and his wife are able to lead evenings of their lives peacefully without any stress or trauma — Grant of interim mandatory injunction does not only confine to restore status quo of last contested status — Plaintiff has been able to establish a very strong prima facie case in his favour — Defendant being a daughter-in-law has no right to reside in subject property which belongs to her father-in-law as said property is not covered by definition of ‘shared household’, same being neither a joint family property in which her husband is a member — Defendant being a daughter-in-law of plaintiff, has no right as against plaintiff father-in-law, to occupy any portion of the subject property which is his self-acquired property — Interim mandatory injunction is granted in favour of petitioner and against defendant — Concerned…

    0
  • Sudha Mishra Vs. Surya Chandra Mishra

    Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Shared household — Daughter-in-law has no right to occupy self-acquired property of her parents-in-law.

    0
  • Mungeshwar Prasad Chaurasia & Anr. Vs. State Of Bihar

    Sections 304-B, 498-A, 34, IPC: Appellants, Parents of Husband did not Harass Deceased or Demanded Dowry Soon Before Her Death.

    0
  • Baljinder Kaur Vs. State Of Punjab

    Sections 304B, 498A — Dowry Death — Cruelty — Alleged demand of gold Karra about two months after marriage — Cannot constitute proximate live link with death of deceased.

    0
  • State Of Karnataka Vs. K.S. Manjunathachari & Ors

    Sections 498-A, 304-B — Cruelty, Dowry Death : Conviction under Cruelty : Justified — Concept of cruelty is much wider than dowry harassment.

    0
  • Vinod Kumar Arora Vs. State

    Wife only stated that her father was not happy with the marriage, allegations of dowry demand not proved — Acquittal under Section 304B/498A

    1
  • United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Others

    Court: Delhi High Court Bench: JUSTICES B.A. Khan & M.S.A. Siddiqui UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PATRICIA JEAN MAHAJAN & OTHERS On 13 March 2001 Law Point: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 149, 170 — Rules of evidence not required to be followed to hilt in adjudication of accident claims — No scope to disturb Tribunal finding on

    0
  • Rajat Taneja Vs. Harmeeta Singh

      Court: Delhi High Court Bench: JUSTICE Pradeep Nandrajog Rajat Taneja Vs. Harmeeta Singh On 25 July 2007 Law Point: No opportunity granted to Husband to file reply to application filed by respondent under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act — Petitioner entitled to setting aside of order granting monthly maintenance to wife under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act.

    0
  • Nilu @ Pratap Kumar Mohaptra Vs. State Of Orissa

    Court:ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Sections 498-A, 304B, 201/34 — Quashing of Order : Cruelty, dowry death, disappearance of evidence, common intention : Appreciation of material on record : Involvement of petitioner in complicity of crime not reflected, neither his name finds place in FIR nor any of witnesses implicated him in his statement : Fit case to interfere with impugned order of cognizance.

    0
  • Shumita Didi Sandhu Vs. Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Ors.

    Court:Delhi High Court rotection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Sections 2(s), 17, 18, 19 — Right of Residence — ‘Matrimonial home’ — ‘Shared household’ — Right of daughter-in-law to claim right to stay in property belonging to father and mother-in-law — Husband has no share in property — Property which neither belongs to husband nor is taken on rent by him, nor is a joint family property in which husband is a member, cannot be regarded as a ‘shared household’.

    2
  • Prem Lata Vs. Murari Lal

    Under Section498A & 506, Wife’s conditions are very exhaustive. Evident that she has treated husband with cruelty. No error committed by Trial Court in decreeing respondent’s petition for divorce.

    1
  • M.k. Malhotra Vs. Kirti Malhotra

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Husband suffered mental cruelty during the period the complaint of the Wife against the Husband was being investigated and enquired into by the Govt. The Wife made accusation and imputation during the trial against the Husband and this caused more pain and misery than the physical beating. It appears to me that the Husband cannot be reasonably expected to live with the Wife and cohabitation between them is virtually impossible.

    1
  • Manita Khurana Vs. Indra Khurana

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Family Courts Act, 1984 — Sections 7, 8, 7 Explanation (d), 7(1), 4(3), 5, 9, 9(2), 11, 13, 14, 10(3), 15, 19 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Jurisdiction of Family Court — Transfer of Suit to Family Court.

    0
  • Lella Srinivasa Rao Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Abetment of Suicide, Cruelty : Inconsistency between two dying declarations : High Court gave acquittal under Section 306, IPC : Witnesses declared hostile by prosecution : Prosecution failed to prove commission of offence under Section 498-A, IPC : Appellants acquitted of charge under Section 498-A, IPC — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A.

    0
  • 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.

    1
  • 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.

    1
  • 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.

    4
  • 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.

    4
  • 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 .

    3
  • 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.

    1
  • 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.

    2
  • 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).

    6
  • 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.

    3
  • Smt. Swastika Sen Vs. State Of West Bengal & Anr

    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.

    2
  • 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.

    1
  • 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
  • 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.

    1
  • 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

    Sections 498A, 34 — Cruelty, Common Intention — Charge against petitioners not prima facie made out nor any grave suspicion raised — 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.

    2
  • 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