Select a page

Useful Judgements

  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    0
  • Somnath Roy And Anr. Vs. State Of West Bengal

    Court:Calcutta High Court
    Section 498A – “Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.” FIR quashed.

    0
  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    1
  • 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.

    0
  • 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).

    1
  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    0
  • Darshana Devi Vs. Anil Kumar Saini

      Court:HIGH COURT OF DELHI Bench: JUSTICE S. Muralidhar Darshana Devi Vs. Anil Kumar Saini On 13 June 2007 Law Point: 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

    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.

    1
  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    4
  • 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
  • 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.

    1
  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    4
  • 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.

    0
  • 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

    0
  • 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
  • Manjula Sinha Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Offences under Sections 498A and 406, I.P.C. –No allegations against appellant in respect of offence under Section 498A–No allegation of torture for demand of dowry against appellant. Proceeding relating to offence under Section 498A quashed.

    0
  • SAVITRI BALCHANDANI Vs. MULCHAND BALCHANDANI

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Section 13(1)(ib) — Wife’s desertion since 28.9.79 — Wife leaving matrimonial home as her own — Allegation that she was driven out not believable — Whether husband is also entitled to decree of divorce on ground of desertion by wife ? (Yes).

    1
  • Man Mohan and Ors. Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi)

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Relationship between prosecutrix and Appellant was a consent relationship – Victim was an adult – There was no pressure or coercion upon victim – She had several opportunities to disclose facts – She did not do so – Fact that she was pregnant and she did not abort child was also an admitted position – Offence of rape was not made out.

    0
  • HARISH KUMAR Vs. MANJU

    Court: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Adjustment of Amount : Amount paid by petitioner husband to respondent wife towards her maintenance in pursuance of order passed by ADJ under Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act liable to be adjusted against amount payable under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code towards her maintenance.

    0
  • Kamini Gupta Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Charges of immorality levelled by wife against husband were reckless and entirely baseless. Further, wife’s own evidence before Court led credence to husband’s case that wife insulted and humiliated him by false accusations and injurious reproaches. Wife’s charges were deliberate, willful, injurious and persistent – Thus, it was clear that re-establishment of matrimonial relationship was not possible. Decree of divorce in favour of husband on ground of cruelty.

    0
  • LINDA EASTWOOD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    The employer is expected to develop clear and precise procedure to deal with complaints. of sexual harassment in an effective manner – Procedure should be fair and unbiased – It has to be ensured that there is no undue pressure or influence from the senior level.

    0
  • Ajay Kumar Sonar Vs. State

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    The prosecutrix was a consenting party and she and her mother opted to exonerate him in their cross-examination, the Sentence Order is modified .

    1
  • Ekta Arora Vs. Ajay Arora and Ors.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF DELHI
    It is clear that during the lifetime of respondent No. 2 (Mother in Law), she is the absolute owner of the property in question and till then, said property cannot be held as a ‘shared household’.

    3
  • RAJ KISHORE @ RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Wrongful Confinement — Outraging modesty of woman — Rape. No external injuries found on body of prosecutrix ruling out ‘force’ used by accused to ravish her — FSL reports absolve accused of commission of rape — Case of prosecution suffers from inherent inconsistencies and flaws and statement of prosecutrix cannot be taken on its face value to base conviction.

    6
  • MAYA DEVI & ANR. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    To attract provisions of Section 304B, one of the main ingredients of offence which is required to be established is that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry.

    0
  • Eugene Fredrick Felix Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi)

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Waiver of condition that applicant/accused will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

    0
  • DILSHAD HAJI RISAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Section 125 — Maintenance — Sentence of jail to husband is no susbstitute for recovery of amount of monthly allowance fallen in arrears.

    3
  • URMILA DEVI Vs. DEVINDER KUMAR PARCHA

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Husband’s petition for dissolution of Marriage owing to wife’s cruelty — Wife asking husband to live separately due to ill-treatment of her mother-in-law — Wife writing letters to husband threatening him to insult in his office and in front of his superiors that be would not forget it for the rest of his life — Intemperate language used — Referring to a husband as the incarnation of “Havana” — Calling him a person of mean mentality and cheap character — Making unsubstantiated allegations regarding illicit relationship. Wife guilty of the matrimonial offence of cruelty.

    0
  • Chetan Kapoor @ Vikas Vs. State

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Proceedings under Secs. 498A/406 IPC are not meant for recovery of stridhan. Applicant cannot be denied bail.

    2
  • State of Karnataka Vs. F. Nataraj

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    The gaps in the evidences of the prosecutrix and the medical officer make it highly improbable that sexual intercourse took place. It would be erroneous to rely upon such discrepant testimonies and convict the accused. It can thus be stated with certitude that the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix, in absence of any corroboration by the medical evidence, is not of such quality which can be relied upon. The accused-Respondent is, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt.

    0
  • SAIBAL DEY Vs. CHAITALI DEY & ANR.

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Even in ex parte order it is duty of Court to give proper reasoning as to why such fabulous amount of maintenance as well as litigation cost awarded in favour of wife although there is no substantive evidence in support of claim of income of husband.

    1
  • MONIKA HOM ROY Vs. SMARAN ROY

    Court: GAUHATI HIGH COURT
    Wife neither having any tolerant attitude nor ready to make even a small sacrifice. Misbehavior of wife at public places and resiling from settlement. Cruelty of wife established.

    1
  • RAGHUVINDER HARNA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Physical relations were outcome of free consent of appellant and prosecutrix and she was willing and consenting party — It did not attract Section 376, IPC.

    0
  • Ramesh Singh vs State ( Nct Of Delhi)

    Court:Delhi High Court
    No allegation of demand of dowry related to SDM concerned – Five witnesses have already been examined, who are related to the deceased – Petitioner is entitled to bail.

    0
  • KIRTIKANT D. VADODARIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Maintenance of stepmother –– Object and purpose of Section 125 –– Wife, child and parents should not be left in helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation — Childless step-mother may claim maintenance from her step-son –– If she is widow or husband, if living, incapable of maintaining her –– Where mother has her natural son/sons and husband capable of maintaining her –– She cannot proceed against her step-son to claim maintenance.

    0
  • MEENAKSHI MEHTA Vs. MAJOR ATUL MEHTA

    Court: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Cruelty : Legal : False Allegations of Harassment, Physical Assault, Not Providing Maintenance : Amounts to Cruelty — Allegations made by Wife against Husband in application are unfounded, baseless and false — Amounts to legal cruelty.

    0
  • SMT. S. VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. S. BHEEM REDDY

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    On complaint lodged by wife, husband arrested and sent to judicial custody — Kept under suspension by his employer — Matter reached point of no return — Any amount of persuasion to keep matrimonial home in good stead is of no use — Marriage dissolved by granting decree of divorce.

    1
  • BAJIRAO RAGHOBA TAMBAR Vs. TOLANBAI AND ANOTHER

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Criminal Procedure Code, S. 125 and Hindu Marriage Act, Ss. 5, 11 and 25 — Second Marriage null and void and parties have no status of husband and — wife though not declared to be nullity under S. 11 — Such woman cannot claim maintenance under S. 125 Cr.P.C.

    0
  • Shaukat and Ors. Vs. State

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Error free CDRs with data like IMEI number give an equanimous assurance that the mobile phone instrument was used with the particular SIM card. CDRs with IMEI number, when authentic, would conclusively establish the calls made to and from the SIM card inserted and used in the mobile instrument for making or receiving calls.

    0
  • NAVEEN RANA Vs. STATE

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Anticipatory Bail – Pre-arrest bail under Secs. 498A/406/34 IPC – Applicant has joined investigation and cooperating with the police – Proceedings under sec. 498A/406 IPC are not meant to for recovery of jewellery and dowry articles. Applicant granted bail.

    0
  • Vikul Bakshi Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi)

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Section 376- Anticipatory bail S. 438-The petitioner has joined investigation. The parties were acquainted with each other before the incident. Physical relation between the two took place allegedly on pretext of marriage. Petitioner is granted anticipatory bail.

    0
  • Mohit Yadav Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Status report reveals that the petitioner and and the prosecitrix were acquainted with each other – Physical relations were established on several occasions between them. The prosecutrix is married and a major lady. Bail granted to petitioner.

    0
  • Reeta and Ors. vs. State

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    The petitioners were not on Delhi at relevant time. The petitioner and her husband came to residing in the matrimonial home of deceased for some days and thereafter harassment started to deceased. Even as per the allegations harassment was on petty things and not for demand of dowry. Bail granted to petitioner.

    0
  • S.S. Manickam Vs. Arputha Bhavani Rajam

    Wife loses her right to obtain maintenance as per strict letters of Section 125 of Cr.P.C, when she was leading adulterous life.

    1
  • ALKA Vs. DR. R.K. GAUTAM

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Indifferent behaviour with the husband and his relations––Trying to jump from balcony on the event of marriage in family––Not permitting normal sex to respondent—Indifference to the ailing father-in-law––Cruelty.

    3
  • Sadhuram Udhvani and Ors. vs. State of M.P. and Ors.

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Quashing of Proceedings – Abetment of suicide – Nothing on record to show that anything was done by accused from which an inference can be drawn that they had abetted deceased to commit suicide. Proceedings against accused quashed.

    0
  • PUSHPA RAJAI Vs. JAI PRAKASH LALWANI

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Divorce — Cruelty by wife — Allegation of illicit relationship with his sister-in-law and niece of respondent itself constitutes cruelty — Respondent was subjected to cruelty after settlement agreement and it continued till impugned judgment was passed — Decree for divorce affirmed.

    0
  • KAMLA Vs. RATI RAM

    Interim Maintenance – Order of Magistrate modified granting interim maintenance to wife from date of filing of application to date of service of respondent husband.

    0
  • Abdulmunaf Vs. Salima

    Court:Karnataka High Court
    Wife is capable of earning in view of her being a normal healthy person and educated upto SSLC. Refusal to earning by such wife may be taken into consideration while considering quantum of maintenance.

    5
  • Smt. Bichitra Bharali Kalita Vs. Dipak Chandra Kalita

    Court: Gauhati High Court
    Wife lodged false criminal proceeding and threatened to commit suicide. Leveling such serious allegations, in absence of any proof thereof, itself amounts to cruelty. Divorce granted on ground of cruelty.

    0
  • Smt Sadhna Pandey And Another

    Court: Uttaranchal High Court
    Quashing of proceedings – abetment of suicide – Deceased committed suicide being disturbed by family feud and pending cases relating to matrimonial dispute – FIR was lodged by father of deceased – No material available on record to show that applicants abetted commission of suicide by deceased.

    0
  • URMILA Vs. RAMESH CHANDER

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Sections 12, 19 — Right of residence — House owned by grandfather of husband — No material on record to prove that house is joint Hindu family coparcenery property — House owned by grandfather of husband is his self-acquired property — Husband has no right in that property — Wife cannot claim right of residence.

    1
  • Baiju Radhakrishnan Nair vs Unknown

    Court:Calcutta High Court
    Quashing of proceedings – Police report – Documents do not form part of police report cannot be looked into by High Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings.

    0
  • Archana Sharma Vs. Mukesh Kumar Sharma

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Divorce on ground of cruelty – Appeal – Cruelty includes not only physical cruelty but also mental cruelty. Sufficient material on record to prove that wife had treated husband with mental cruelty and it had become impossible for husband to live with wife.

    2
  • Smt. Darshan Kaur Vs. Smt Sangeeta

    Court:Uttaranchal High Court
    Mother-in-law and married sister- in-law of Wife did not come within the definition of ‘shared household’ and, therefore, do not come in the ‘domestic relationship’.

    0
  • Chirag M. Pathak Vs. Dollyben Kantilal

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Only when on reading the FIR, a sheer absurdity in the allegations is noticed and when no prima facie cognizable case is made out on its mere reading due to absurdity in the allegations or when facts disclose prima facie cognizable case and also disclose remarkable identity between the two FIRs as if the first FIR is filed second time with no change in allegations then the Court may, in appropriate case, consider it proper to quash the second FIR.

    0
  • Veerashetty and Ors. vs. Suresh

    Court:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    SECTION 125-Claim for maintenance by an aged father against his two sons-Order passed by the Family Court directing the petitioners/sons to pay maintenance to the respondent/father-Revision against-Sacrosanct duty of children to maintain their parents.

    0
  • Mohd. Aslam and Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Recently tendency had developed for roping in all relations of in-laws as accused persons and this appears to be case here too – Prosecution had failed to prove either any dowry demand by Appellants or deceased being harassed by Appellants in connection with any such dowry demand so as to prove that it was case of dowry death – Appeal allowed.

    0
  • RITA DEY (SAHA) Vs. ASHIT KUMAR SAHA

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Voidable Marriage — Fraud — Appellant-wife suffering from malignant cancer prior to her marriage with respondent-husband — Appellant-wife failed to prove that disease and its nature disclosed to respondent-husband prior to their marriage.

    0
  • MOHAMMED SHARIF Vs. RAISA BEGUM AND ANOTHER

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Wife not entitled to maintenance as she was in wrong as all efforts to reconcile proved futile by the husband.

    2
  • Sindhu Paul and Ors. vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Abetment to suicide – In order to convict person u/s 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence and that there ought to be active or direct act leading deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option.

    0
  • Tula Ram Rai Vs. State of Sikkim

    Court:SIKKIM HIGH COURT
    Existence of preponderance of probability – Not sufficient to establish prosecution case, which must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, which prosecution failed – Accused Acquitted.

    0
  • PRADEEP KUMAR JUYAL Vs. KANTI DEVI

    Court: UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
    Divorce, Cruelty, Desertion — Husband and wife not living together. Testimony of husband reliable. Cruelty committed by wife fully proved on record. Divorce granted on ground of cruelty.

    2
  • KAMAL Vs. KM. AHILYA AND OTHERS

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Application for maintenance of minor children u/Sec. 125 Cr. P.C. — Allowed by Family Court — Challenged on ground that he is not father of the children and denial of marriage relationship — Report and evidence of Doctor not considered by Family Court — Whether Correct ? (No).

    0
  • UNNIKRISHNAN @ CHANDU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Section 498A — Cruelty — Live in relationship – Accused acquitted as parties had not undergone some sort of ceremonies with the object of getting married and they just started living as man and wife.

    0
  • State Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Ram Gopal

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Cruelty – Dowry Death – It is necessary to establish offence u/s 498-A IPC to prove charges u/s 304-B IPC.

    0
  • NITABEN DINESHKUMAR OZA Vs. DINESHKUMAR ISHWARLAL OZA & ANR.

    Court:GUJARAT HIGH COURT
    If a child whether legitimate or illegitimate has attained majority as per Majority Act, 1975 and not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality or injury, thereby unable to maintain itself would not be entitled to receive maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C.

    0
  • Kapil Dev vs State Of H.P.

    Court: Himachal Pradesh High Court
    Abduction and Rape – Sexual intercourse on pretext of marriage – Charge stands belied when prosecutrix permitted accused to sexually access her even when accused resiled from his promise and there is delay in lodging FIR – Accused acquitted.

    0
  • Mohammed Abdulla Khan Vs. Prakash K.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Defamation – Essence of publication in the context of S.499 IPC is communication of defamatory imputation to persons other than persons against whom imputation is made.

    0
  • SMT. SONA Vs. KARAMBIR

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    By wife’s abnormal behaviour impossible for Husband to reside with Wife — Wife failed to discharge her marital obligations — Treated Husband with mental cruelty. Decree of Divorce granted.

    0
  • SHABNAM PARVEEN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Interim maintenance — Widow daughter-in-law not entitled to any maintenance from her father-in-law.

    0
  • RAJ RANI Vs. STATE

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Sections 304B, 498A — Bail — Dowry Death, Cruelty — Grant of bail to appellant mother-in-law — If role of two accused persons is same in a crime and Court considers one fit for granting bail, other accused on ground of parity is also entitled for grant of bail — Parents of girl have assigned same role to everyone in family of in-laws, whether they were living in same house or not — Husband and wife were living on a separate floor separate from her parents — Other relatives were living at far off places, still allegations against everyone were same — Bail cannot be denied to mother-in-law despite allegations qua her and other accused persons being same simply because she is mother-in-law — Being mother in law is not a crime in itself — Bail granted to applicant.

    0
  • State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Sham Lal

    Court: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Glaring inconsistencies found in statement of prosecutrix and her mother about occurence of alleged incident, which has not satisfactorily explained by by prosecution. There are major contradictions in the statements of mother and father of the prosecutrix. Accused rightly acquitted.

    0
  • Mohd Babu@Sameer vs Shakila

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Settlement is comprehensive. It clearly stipulated that parties will not initiate any action against each other. Maintenance denied to wife.

    7
  • ANANDI DEVI Vs. KOMAL KUMAR

    Court: UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
    Wife made no attempt to come back to her husband’s house nor tried to contact him over phone — Husband has sufficiently proved on record that he was subjected to cruelty by wife and entitled to divorce.

    0
  • Bipul Ranjan Paul vs State Of West Bengal

    Court:Calcutta High Court
    Criminal- Dowry- Homicidal death- Section 498A, 304B and 306 of Indian penal Code, 18660- Appellant convicted for setting ablaze his wife over demand of dowry- Hence the instant appeal- Whether the conviction order is sustainable in law- Held, from the evidence of three doctors examined by prosecution prove that the victim housewife caught fire from a biri smoked by her husband- The housewife suffered either homicidal death or accidental death- In this particular case when charge sheet was not submitted for homicidal death and charge was not framed for homicidal death and no evidence was placed supporting such homicidal death, the learned Judge had no evidence before him to come to a conclusion that the housewife suffered a homicidal death and this part of the observation of the learned Judge appears to be completely his personal observation without having any nexus with fact and evidence on record- Impugned conviction order set aside- Appeal allowed.

    0
  • VIDYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Section 482 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 406, 498-A — Quashing of FIR : Criminal breach of trust, Cruelty : Wife facing criminal prosecution of killing her own husband : FIR lodged against husband under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC against mother of deceased husband : Is counter-blast to FIR registered against wife : FIR lodged by wife quashed.

    2
  • Mrs. Anil Singh vs Dr. Narender Singh

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Divorce on ground of cruelty – Allegations of adultery – Burden of Proof – Allegations of adultery made by wife. Allegations of adultery have a consequence of damaging one’s reputation, taking away the dignity of that person in the eyes of his family, friends and society. Burden of proving adultery is placed in wife.

    0
  • Maruthi vs. State of Kerala

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Presumption – In a criminal presumption case can arise only when prosecution has adduced facts forming foundation of case – Thus, it is illegal to convict accused on basis of presumption u/s 29 of the Act alone.

    0
  • SARDARA RAM & ANR. Vs. PARAMJIT KAUR & ANR.

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Shared Household” — Daughter-in-law cannot claim protection from dispossession on ground that property exclusively owned by father-in-law is ’shared household’.

    1
  • Sudhakar @ Sudharasan Vs. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Contradictory statement of witness – On reaching the hospital directly approaching doctor without going to emergency ward and that doctor at hospital did not inform police when it was medico legal case. Conviction set. aside.

    0
  • Suman Ghosh vs Unknown

    Court:Calcutta High Court
    Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act – Adequate compensation in lieu of alternate accommodation in addition to monetary relief is appropriate.

    0
  • Smt. Darshan Kaur vs Smt Sangeeta

    Court: Uttaranchal High Court
    Applicants, mother in law and sister in law of wife do not come within the definition of shared household and therefore, does not come in domestic relationship. Proceedings quashed.

    2
  • JASMEET KAUR Vs. NAVTEJ SINGH

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Section 9 — Jurisdiction — Guardianship — Requirement of Section 9 — Minor must reside within jurisdiction of said Court.

    0
  • INDEPENDENT THOUGHT Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

      Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Bench: JUSTICE Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta INDEPENDENT THOUGHT Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. On 11 October 2017 Law Point: Child marriage — Minor — Sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years of age is rape regardless of whether she is married or not — Exception carved out in IPC creates an

    0
  • LALIT SINGH Vs. RAJ KUMARI

    Court: CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
    Irretrievable breakdown of marriages — Compromise between parties. Waiting for period of 6 months not mandatory — Divorce by mutual consent granted.

    1
  • K.M. MATHEW @ DAYEE Vs. GIJI MATHEW @ GIJI M.S. & ANR.

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Section 33(1) — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 85 — Power of Attorney — Validity — Burden of proof — Presumption — Rebuttal — Power of Attorney is seen attested in State of Illinois and authenticated by Notary Public which is enough for purpose of raising presumption under Section 85 of Evidence Act — When a person challenges Power of Attorney, it is for that person to rebut presumption available under Section 85 of Evidence Act.

    0
  • K.S. VIMALESWARAN Vs. C.P.S. CHARUMATHI

    Court:MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Section 24 — Maintenance pendente lite — Reduction in amount — Petitioner-husband living outside India and earning about Rs. 2.50 lacs to Rs. 3 lacs p.m. — He cannot be expected to part with entire amount to wife and child for maintenance — Petitioner-husband shall pay Rs. 50,000 p.m. to wife instead of Rs. 1 lac and Rs. 25,000 p.m. to minor child instead of Rs. 75,000 p.m.

    0
  • VIVEK Vs. MINAL

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Sufficient proof of allegation of cruelty by husband on part of wife — No reason to refuse decree of divorce.

    0
  • Mamta Bhardwaj vs. Madhusudan Bhardwaj

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Wife made allegations on her sister-in-law to create situation where relationship between parties comes to worst. Wife was guilty of inflicting cruelty upon Husband including mental cruelty of worst kind. Marriage dissolved.

    0
  • Vinay Gupta Vs. Saveri Nayak

    Court: Orissa High Court
    Magistrate is empowered to pass an ex parte order order in granting interim/temporary custody of any child or children to aggrieved party even basing on the affidavit filed by such aggrieved party without notice to respondent.

    1
  • State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Prem Chand and Ors.

    Court: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Abetment of suicide – No evidence on record that deceased was subjected to cruelty by accused prior to her death and cruelty was to such an extent which forced the deceased to commit suicide – Accused rightly acquitted.

    0
  • State of H.P. vs. Muni Lal

    Court: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Medical evidence shows prosecutrix habitual of sexual intercourse. Delay of one day in reporting the matter to police not explained by prosecution – Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused – Accused rightly Acquitted.

    0
  • Mangat Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    In the absence of any cruelty, dying declaration itself cannot be made basis for conviction-Accused acquitted.

    0
  • AMIT KUMAR & ORS. Vs. CHARU MAKIN

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    To avoid any harm to interest of child, Court under Section 21 of DV Act can pass order granting temporary custody of child and/or make necessary arrangement for visit of child — DV Act is not final remedy for custody and guardianship issues of minor child — Section 7(g) of Family Courts Act vests jurisdiction in Family Court to decide suits or proceedings in relation to guardianship of person or custody or access to any minor.

    0
  • Sangeeta Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr

    Court: Jharkhand High Court
    Order of maintenance both u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and S.24 of Hindu Marriage Act – Claimant entitles to get only higher amount of maintenance out of both the provisions.

    2
  • Varinder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

    Court: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Abetment of suicide – Prosecution has is required to plead and prove that one person instigated another person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation, another person committed suicide.

    0
  • BIBI PARWANA KHATOON @ PARWANA KHATOON AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Sections 304B, 34 — Dowry death — Common intention — Circumstantial evidence — It is sufficiently shown on record that appellants used to live in a different village — Public documents (Residence Certificate, PAN and Service Book) read with oral testimony adduced before trial Court, create serious doubt in prosecution story so far it relates as against appellants — In view of evidence on record, it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellants who are sister-in-law and brother-in-law of deceased, tortured victim for any demand of dowry — It cannot be said that appellants had any common intention with husband of deceased in commission of crime — Courts below erred in law in holding that charge under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC stood proved as against present appellants — Conviction and sentence recorded as against present appellants set aside.

    0
  • Jaskaran Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Anticipatory Bail-Bigamy-Husband performed second marriage during subsistence of first marriage. There are no criminal antecedents against husband except present case- High Court not justified in dismissing application of Husband only on the basis of petition filed by second wife u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act which was withdrawn-order of High Court set aside-Anticipatory Bail granted.

    0
  • Praveen Vs. Sabitha

    Court:HIGH COURT OF KERALA
    Court can enforce order of maintenance or interim maintenance only as provided u/s 125(3) Cr.P.C. and not by striking off contentions of Husband.

    0
  • Priyanka Kulshrestha Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
    Section 498A – No evidence on record to prove that complainant suffered from any mental and physical cruelty in the hands of accused – Accused rightly acquitted.

    4
  • State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Pawan Kumar

    Court:HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
    It was un-believable that despite bitterness in relation and denial to marry her, prosecutrix had been enjoying company of Accused – It could be safely presumed that relationship as alleged was not being continued by prosecutrix for assurance of marriage but for other reasons, which did not constitute offence – Testimony of Prosecutrix was un-believable and was not of worth credence – It could not be said that Prosecution was able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt.

    0
  • HEERA LAL & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    There is no link or intention on part of in-laws to assist victim to commit suicide — In absence of this vital link, mere fact that there is a finding of harassment would not lead to conclusion that there is abetment of suicide — In view of fact that appellants have been acquitted for crime under Section 498A of IPC, abetment of suicide under Section 306 is not made out.

    0
  • State of U.P. vs. Sukhoo and Ors.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
    Abetment of suicide – In the absence of any specific avertments or evidence with regard to demand of dowry or treating deceased with cruelty, provision of S.113 of Evidence Act is not attracted. Accused rightly acquitted.

    0
  • Vijaychandra Prakash Shukla and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
    Second complaint – Flied by very same complainant before the same Police Statio, having direct effect on the first complaint and allegations forming part of main act and allegation levelled in the first complaint and steps alleged in the second complaint consequences of act alleged in the first FIR – Second complaint not maintainable and quashed.

    0
  • Nandkishor Pralhad Vyawahare vs Sau. Mangala W/O Pratap Bansar

    Court:Bombay High Court
    PWDVA – Nature of proceedings under the act are predominately of civil nature and it is only when ther is breach of protection order ad failure or refusal to discharge duty without any sufficient cause by protection officer, proceedings assume character of criminality.

    2
  • Yusuf Shah vs Rubi Bano @ Beby & Ors

    Court:Rajasthan High Court
    Sentence of imprisonment only a mode of enforcement of direction to pay amount of maintenance and not as punishment.

    0
  • Miss Khushi & Anr Vs. State & Anr.

    Court:Rajasthan High Court
    Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, S.12 – Application u/s 12 of the Act – Minor daughters – Petition against mother -Petition filed by grand father with whom minor daughters are living – Held, petition is maintainable.

    0
  • MOHIT NARULA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Rape — Consent — Fraud — False promise of marriage alleged — Relationship developed — During subsistence of earlier marriage there could have been no false promise to marry complainant by accused petitioner — In view of admitted position in FIR and supplementary statement of complainant recorded during course of investigation that complainant had not legally divorced from her husband, subsistance of earlier marriage, there could be no promise to marriage to respondent No. 2 — Allegations that fraud played on her for receiving consent for sex cannot be substantiated — FIR quashed.

    0
  • Babulal vs Smt Manglibai

    Court:Rajasthan High Court
    Earlier application dismissed – Subsequent application for maintenance is not maintainable.

    4
  • Ms. X vs The State Of Telangana

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on a supervening event, is made out.

    0
  • Jadeppa S/O Late Hanumanthappa Vs. The State Of Karnataka

    Court:Karnataka High Court
    Abetment of suicide – Reason for committing suicide always has to be assessed from an independent angel and not from angle of victim or from a person who is cause for it.

    0