Select a page

Useful Judgements

  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    2
  • 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.

    2
  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    1
  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    4
  • 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.

    0
  • 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’.

    0
  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    1
  • 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.

    1
  • 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.

    0
  • 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.

    1
  • 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
  • Rajendra Rajoriya Vs. Jagat Narain Thapak

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Magistrate while taking cognizance has to satisfy himself about satisfactory grounds to procced with complaint.

    0
  • STATE Vs. SUDESH GULATI & ORS.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Material contradictions in evidence of material witnesses – Unexplained delay in lodging FIR – Even missing complaint lodged by father of deceased on instance of Husband. Husband Acquitted.

    0
  • BHOLA RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304B — Dowry Death — Merely making a demand for dowry is not enough to bring about conviction under Section 304-B, IPC — Dowry death victim should also have been treated with cruelty or harassed for dowry either by her husband or a relative.

    0
  • AS Vs. SNS

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Cruelty — Desertion — Appellant-wife failed to lead cogent evidence to establish respondent-husband created such circumstances that it was not possible for her to reside in matrimonial home — Wife made reckless allegations against husband of being womanizer and corrupt — It would have caused such pain and suffering to respondent as to lead to apprehension that it would not be conducive to his physical and mental well-being to live with wife. Marriage dissolved.

    4
  • DASRATH SAO & ORS. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

    Court:JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    Sections 306, 498-A — Abetment of Suicide, Cruelty : Abetment, Absence of Essential Ingredient : No Charge under Section 306, I.P.C. Framed : Section 306, I.P.C. cannot be Said to be Minor Offence in Relation to Section 304-B, I.P.C. : Trial Court Erred in Convicting Appellants under Sections 306 and 498-A, I.P.C. — Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside.

    0
  • Aniket Subhash Tupe Vs. Piyusha Aniket Tupe and Ors.

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Domestic Violence – Petition u/s 12 of the Act – Court in its discretion can allow evidence on affidavit and permit croos-examination to test veracity of evidence – Court can deviate from procedure which include prmitting evidence by way of affidavit.

    0
  • Ajay Bhaichandbhai Vora vs. Rupalben Ajaybhai Vora and Ors.

    Court:GUJARAT HIGH COURT
    Maintenance does not include the provision or the right to seek lump sum amount for residential accomodation though the word ‘maintenance’ includes all benefits towards food, lodging, boarding, medicines, clothes, transportation, education, entertainment, etc.

    0
  • Bhagwat Pitambar Borse Vs. Anusayabai Bhagwat Borse

    Court:Bombay High Court
    Cancellation of maintenance order – Divorce on ground of adultery passed in favour of Husband after passing of order of maintenance – Order of cvil court granting divorce on th ground of adultery attained finaliy – It is not necessary for husabnd to lead evidence again in the proceeding before Magistrate to prove adultery on the part of wife – Application for cancellation of order of maintenance allowed.

    0
  • Santosh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr

    Court:Patna High Court
    Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Complaint under the act not maintainable under the act at the instance of ex wife after divorce.

    0
  • SAVITABEN SOMABHAI BHATIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Legally-wedded wife only and not woman who is treated like one, is entitled to get maintenance from her husband.

    2
  • OM PRAKASH PODDAR Vs. RINA KUMARI

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Respondent/wife did not care to cause appearance or any point of time expressed her willingness to live with appellant-husband as his wife — Wife is residing separately with her parents from petitioner. Ground of desertion stood established in this case — No ray of hope that parties have any intention to give another trial to their marriage. A decree of divorce is passed dissolving marriage of appellant with respondent with immediate effect.

    0
  • AMARENDRA KUMAR PAUL Vs. MAYA PAUL & ORS.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Maintenance — Grant of, to children — Application for grant of maintenance to children is maintainable till they had attained majority.

    0
  • KRISHAN GOPAL Vs. USHA RANI

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Code of Criminal Procedure, S. 125(1) Explanation (b) and Hindu Marriage Act, Ss. 11, 12, 13 and 25 — Explanation to S. 125(1), Cr.P.C. applies only to divorced wife and not whose marriage is annulled.

    0
  • SAWARANJIT KAUR—Appellant versus LT. COL. AVTAR SINGH & ORS.

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Void Marriage — Wife contracted second marriage when first husband very much alive — Such a marriage patently illegal and is null and void.

    0
  • SMT. RENU Vs. HIRALAL @ HARISH

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Interim Maintenance : Husband filed Sufficient Material i.e. Decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights and Execution Proceedings : In all Proceedings Wife did not Appear and Allege that Decree was Obtained by Fraud : Non-applicant Husband made Serious and Conscious Effort for Reconciliation and Keeping and Maintaining Wife but She Denied Flatly. Revisional Court Committed no Error of Law and Fact while Setting Aside Order of Grant of Interim Maintenance.

    0
  • NARESH CHANDRA Vs. MST. RESHMABAI & ANR.

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Interim maintenance — Applicant accepted the non-applicant as a result of pressure tactics — But, deserted the non-applicant — Application for interim maintenance — Rejected.

    0
  • VINAY JUDE DIAS Vs. RENAJEET KAUR

    Court:Delhi HIGH COURT
    Personal appearance of party not necessary — Power of attorney can also act in matrimonial cases as per instructions of their principal — Where parties are living far away from jurisdiction of Court competent to dissolve marriage, parties after filing their affidavits can appoint attorneys to act on their behalf.

    1
  • INDU Vs. SUMANBAI KADU PAWAR & ORS.

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Prime facie marriage appears to be void. No maintenance to wife.

    0
  • PRASSANNA VENKARDARI AGRAHAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Anticipatory Bail — Grant of — Death of wife in suspicious circumstances — Appellant-accused is a doctor by profession — He has co-operated with police during investigation — Parents of deceased have not lodged any complaint against accused — Father-in-law of appellant has sworn to affidavit that she was living happy married life with appellant and that she had died a natural death — He has no objection for her funeral without post-mortem — Appellant has no criminal antecedents — Anticipatory Bail granted.

    0
  • ALOK KUMAR JAIN Vs. PURNIMA JAIN

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 24 — Interim Maintenance — Factors to be kept in mind while awarding interim maintenance — Discussed.

    0
  • SADHANA SRIVASTAVA Vs. ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Mental and Physical Cruelty : Allegations of having illicit relationship and extra marital affairs made by wife against husband amounted to cruelty : Various criminal proceedings initiated against husband found to be false and final report submitted. Husband entitled to divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of Act.

    0
  • YASHIKA MEHNDIRATTA Vs. AMIT MEHNDIRATTA

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Maintenance — Non-grant of — Petitioner wife though always willing to join company of her husband and stay in matrimonial home but pressurized by her parents to live with them at her parental house — Husband-respondent cannot be blamed for living separately from his wife as he was always ready and willing to live with her .

    0
  • Dattatrey S/O Champatgir Giri Vs. The State Of Maharashtra

    Court:Bombay High Court
    Grant of maintenance – Where wife has no justification for withdrawal from the company of her husband, grant of maintenance liable to be set aside.

    1
  • SA Vs. AA

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Mental Cruelty — Wife taunted Husband for not being able to satiate her sexual desire on account of his being heavy weight — Calling of names and hurling of abuses. Incidents are grave and weighty matrimonial offences by wife — Events not relating to normal wear and tear of a marriage.

    0
  • Venubai Vs. Laxman Lahanuji Rambhad and Ors.

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Daughter in law has no right over self acquired property of Father in Law.

    0
  • JASHOLAL AGRAWALA @ JAIN Vs. PUSPABATI AGRAWALA

    Court: ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Section 125 — Maintenance — Maintainability — Decree by Civil Court — Divorce on the ground of wife’s desertion — Dismissal of the suit filed by the wife — Whether proceedings claiming maintenance maintainable ? (No).

    0
  • SHASHI BALA Vs. RAJIV ARORA

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Denial of sexual intercourse after marriage — Refusal to perform customary rituals — Sex is the foundation of marriage and marriage without sex is an anathema — Wilful denial of sexual intercourse without reasonable cause would amount to cruelty.

    0
  • TRIVENI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Annulment of Marriage — Husband alleged to be H.I.V. positive — There is nothing in Section 5 to annul marriage on ground of HIV infection or any other disease — Parties were major at the time of marriage — There was no need for consent of guardians — No evidence to show that petitioner was HIV positive before marriage, no question of concealment arose — On ground of any disease except mental disease, no marriage can be declared null and void as provided under Sections 5 and 12 of Act — Matrimonial petition in abuse of process of law — Proceedings quashed.

    0
  • BANSHI DAS Vs. JITNI DEBI

    Court:PATNA HIGH COURT
    Section 125(1) and 125(3) — Compromise on application for maintenance — Wife to go to live with husband — Should husband neglect again to maintain her she would be entitled to Rs. 200/- p.m. as maintenance — Wife’s subsequent application for maintenance, alleging husband’s refusal to maintain her — Husband filing counter refuting the allegations — Court allowing fixed maintenance of Rs. 200/- p.m. to wife on perusal of affidavits of the parties — No evidence recorded — Order whether legal and in terms of Section 125(1) or 125(3) of Cr.P.C. ? (No) — Result — Revision allowed — Case remanded for decision after recording evidence.

    0
  • GEETA PANDEY Vs. SHEKHAR PANDEY

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Threat to commit suicide by consuming acid — By said act, wife alleged to be pregnant created fear in the mind of husband and his family. Fear in the mind of husband and his family cannot be called unfounded. Acts of wife amount to mental cruelty.

    1
  • NANDLAL WASUDEO BADWAIK Vs. LATA NANDLAL BADWAIK & ANR.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Interest of justice is best served by ascertaining truth — Court should be furnished with best available science and may not be left to bank upon presumptions unless science has no answer to the facts in issue — When there is conflict between a conclusive proof envisaged under law and a proof based on scientific advancement accepted by world community to be correct, latter must prevail over former.

    0
  • RASHMI RAIKHY & ANR. Vs. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Sections 406, 498A, 34 — Quashing of Look Out Circular (LOC) — Criminal breach of Trust — Cruelty — Common Intention — Petitioner No. 1 is facing trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 406, IPC only — For offence under Section 406, IPC in matrimonial dispute, issuance of LOC against petitioners till disposal of case cannot be justified — Offence is not heinous in nature — No allegations that petitioner No. 1 ever absconded and did not participate in criminal proceedings — Petitioner No. 1 is married lady having two children — Main allegations are against complainant’s husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law — Continuance of LOC order against petitioner No. 1 not reasonable and justified — Authorities directed to withdraw LOC order issued against petitioners.

    4
  • INDU MISHRA Vs. KOVID KUMAR GAUR & ANR.

    Court:RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Totally false and baseless allegation leveled against Husband by Wife about having illicit relations with his Bhabhi, clearly tantamounts to cruelty on her part to respondent-husband — Respondent-husband entitled to decree of divorce on this ground.

    1
  • SAYYED JABBAR ALI Vs. MST. SAHEBA FATIMA

    Court: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Ill-treatment cannot be substantiated on basis of general allegations in absence of any details. Inspite of Decree for Conjugal Rights, Wife Without Justifiable Reason Did Not Join Husband and Cannot Claim Maintenance.

    0
  • BHEEKHA RAM Vs. GOMA DEVI & ORS.

    Court: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Wife not able to establish that she had been neglected by her husband — She is living with her parents of her own accord — Not entitled to maintenance .

    2
  • Jay Prakash and Ors. vs. State of M.P. and Ors.

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Allegation under section 498a against sister in law are peripheral and appear to have been leveled only to put pressure on husband. Quashed.

    0
  • NIRMALA Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

    Court: DELHI HIGH COURT
    Illicit relations — Baseless allegations by wife — Wife suffering from delusion and continuously under treatment — Appellant-wife living with her parents most of the time after her marriage and she had been under treatment — False and baseless allegations made by appellant-wife against her husband about illicit relations remain unproved — Such type of aspersions on character of respondent-husband even or on his ‘Bhabhi’ is worst form of cruelty.

    2
  • CHANDRA MOHAN MAJHI Vs. SMT. KAUSHALYA MAJHI

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Maintenance –– Without sufficient materials to prove fact — Second party cannot be saddled with responsibility of marriage and maintaining first party –– Party claiming maintenance to prove marriage as per religious rites and custom.

    0
  • Dr. Satheesh N.V. and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Cognizance of offence – Lack of territorial jurisdiction- Petition to quash proceedings.

    0
  • Eshan Joshi Vs. Suman

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Petitioner challenged that the complaint is without jurisdiction. High Court thus with its vast inherent powers would be able to entertain the petition for quashing to ensure there is no abuse of process of law.

    1
  • RITA BANDOPADHYAY Vs. ABHIK BANDOPADHYAY

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Unfounded allegations against husband not proved by wife — Holy relationship of brother and sister maligned by wife that it pricks to conscience of Court to accept that wife is guilty of treating Husband with mental cruelty.

    0
  • Mukesh vs Smt Sangeeta

    Court: Rajasthan High Court
    Wife willingly left Husband and living with some other person alleged to be her new husband. Material made available by husband enough to rebut claim of maintenance.

    2
  • Jagvati vs State Of Haryana

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Rape -Acquittal- Allegation that she was put under fear of terror and forced her to engage in sexual intercourse is not acceptable in view of the fact that there is no evidence at all to prove this allegation, except the bald statement of the prosecutrix.

    0
  • MADHU KUKSAL Vs. ANUP KUKSAL

    Court:UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT>
    Husband successfully proved he was treated with cruelty by his wife, by her acts of hurling abuses at him and beating members of his family : Alleged acts of violence on part of wife, committed by her, get corroborated from medical injury report : Allegations made by wife as to harassment on account of dowry, not established on record. Divorce granted.

    1
  • HEM RAJ Vs. URMILA DEVI & ORS.

    Court: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Contested proceedings in Civil Court for restitution of conjugal rights — Court coming to a conclusion that wife had no just or reasonable cause to withdraw her society from husband — No subsequent event justifying her staying away — Not entitled to maintenance u/Section 125, Cr. P.C.

    0
  • Poonam Tanwar Vs. Sube Singh Tanwar

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    A house which is owned by Mother in Law or Father in Law is not the matrimonial house and the right to residence is available against Husband.

    2
  • MANISHA SANDEEP GADE Vs. SANDEEP VINAYAK GADE

    Court: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Allegations made by wife baseless and false and constituted cruelty : Learned Judge right in granting decree of divorce on that ground and rejecting her petition for maintenance under Section 18 of Hindu Marriage Act.

    1
  • SHARIF AHMED Vs. IMAMAN BI

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Wife has no excuse that her salary was not sufficient for her expenses. Maintenance denied to wife.

    0
  • SWAPNIL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF M.P.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Allegations are vague and bereft of details as to place and time of incident — Second respondent-wife living separately since April, 2011 — No question of any beating by appellants as alleged by her.

    3
  • CHRISTINE LAZARUS MENEZES Vs. LAZARUS PETER MENEZES

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Marriage between parties irretrievably broken down — Parties cannot be reasonably expected to live together — Wife has made wild unsubstantiated allegations against husband — Applicant-husband subjected to mental cruelty at the hands of respondent-wife — Family Court rightly allowed petition of husband for dissolution of marriage under Section 10(1)(x) of Act on ground of cruelty.

    0
  • K. SIVARAMA KRISHNA PRASAD Vs. K. BHARATH AND ANOTHER

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Section 125(1) and Explanation (b) — Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 11, 12 and 16 — At wife’s insistence a decree of annulment of marriage was passed u/s 12 of Hindu Marriage Act — Such wife whether entitled to maintenance u/s, 125 Cr.P.C. ? (No).

    0
  • KALA AGGARWAL Vs. SURAJ PRAKASH AGGARWAL AND OTHERS

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Petition filed under Art. 32 before Supreme Court—Transferred—Petitioner divorced from Resp. 1 by decree passed by Court of U.S.A.—Being appointed managing conservator of children—Resp. as possessory conservator—Res. brought children to India—Petition for custody––Children not wanted to live with petitioner mother—Custody granted to Father.

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

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    No clear allegations have been leveled by Wife against any of her sister in laws. Visits by sister in laws cannot be treated as occasions where they harassed the wife.

    0
  • SMT. SUNITA SINGH Vs. RAJ BAHADUR SINGH & ANR.

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Letters written by wife showed her deep love for other man. She ran away and FIR was lodged. In matrimonial matters direct evidence of adultery is not possible, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove conduct of wife. The wife is guilty of cruelty to her husband.

    2
  • MUNNA KURAISHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

    Court:PATNA HIGH COURT
    Financial condition and income of petitioner also required to be properly assessed.

    0
  • SHERISH HARDENIA & ORS., AMRISH HARDENIA Vs. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Offence of cruelty – Pleas founded on limitation have to be viewed with great circumspection.

    0
  • NARENDRA Vs. K. MEENA

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Constant persuasion by wife for getting separated from family members of husband — Wife wanted husband to leave his parents — Persistent effort of respondent-wife to constrain the appellant-husband to be separated from family would be torturous for husband.

    0
  • RAM PRASAD Vs. GEETA MEHRA

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Maintenance — Non-entitlement — Perverse orders passed in favour of respondent-wife — Respondent left matrimonial home without any justifiable ground and she refused to come back — Orders passed by Courts below reversed and set aside — Applicant not entitled to get maintenance amount back already paid to respondent in compliance of orders passed by Court below.

    1
  • GIRDHAR SHANKAR TAWADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    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.

    1
  • NARENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. MRS. MAMTA GUPTA

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Cruelty, Adultery : Wife made scandalous statement against appellant/husband about his illicit relation with his elder brother’s wife : Trial Court wrongly held that allegations made by respondent/wife in her written statement and her deposition on oath cannot be taken into consideration while deciding this petition : Trial Court erred in directing husband to file separate petition for getting required relief on basis of allegations made by wife : Approach of Court contrary to settled principles of law which lay down Court’s power to take into consideration events subsequent to filing of petition.

    0
  • JEEVAN SINGH Vs. SANGEETA BAI

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Applicant was neither valid wife of non-applicant, nor she had any reason to live away from her husband, to get any maintenance from her husband — She was not ousted but she herself left house of her husband — ACJM rightly held that applicant was not entitled to get any maintenance, without living with non-applicant — ASJ committed an error in considering overt act of appellant when she was residing with her husband — Order passed by revisionary Court for maintenance set aside.

    1
  • MOHAN KUMAR RAYANA Vs. KOMAL MOHAN RAYANA

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Challenge against interim order passed by High Court, denying visitation right to appellant-father — This Court met appellant, respondent and also minor child separately, to ascertain what each had to say regarding interim arrangements to allow appellant to have access to his minor child — Considering views of parties and minor girl, this Court is of view that appellant should not be denied complete access to his minor child even if there is default in complying with directions of High Court — Pending disposal of appeals appellant allowed to have access to his minor child to some extent.

    0
  • BASANT KAUR & ORS. Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Section 498A — Cruelty : Manifest Abuse and Misuse of Provisions of Section 498A, IPC : Woman Lived with Her Husband for about 24 Years and had Grown Up Children and Tolerated Cruelty from Hands of Her Husband : Though Offence of Matrimonial Cruelty Viewed as Continuing Offence but by no Stretch of Imagination such Acts Committed for 25 Years can be Treated as Continuing Acts : Charges against Petitioners Framed by MM and Affirmed by ASJ Wholly Mis-conceived and Result of Non-appreciation of facts : Both Orders Set Aside.

    0
  • JAGWATI Vs. GAJENDER KUMAR

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Mental Cruelty — Desertion — Restitution of Conjugal Rights — Cruelty committed on respondent-husband and his family by appellant-wife — Animus deserendi proved by respondent-husband to seek divorce on ground of desertion — Appellant-wife is breathing hot and cold in same breath — On the one hand she is projecting herself to be victim of harassment on account of dowry demand, being treated with cruelty by her husband and in-laws on account of dowry demands not fulfilled, on the other hand, even today she claims she is ready to join her husband and she never had any intention to bring an end to cohabitation or waiting for her husband to take her back — No ground to interfere with impugned order dissolving the marriage.

    0
  • MANDEEP Vs. KAVITA

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    As sufficient evidence regarding income of petitioner not produced, maintenance reduced.

    0
  • HARKANWALPREET SINGH Vs. HARSHPREET KAUR

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Void Marriage — Bigamy — Declaration — Respondent had spouse living at the time of her marriage with appellant — Contravention of Section 5(i) of Act — Merely because they have been married for considerable time, it cannot be per se said that they are acting in collusion with each other — Marriage between parties declared void as it contravenes Section 5(i) of Act.

    0
  • JAIDEEP SHAH Vs. RASHMI SHAH

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Adultery — Addition of party — In a petition seeking dissolution of marriage on ground of adultery, the date and place of the adultery and the name and address of the person with whom the adultery was committed by the respondent is required to be stated — Duty of Court to issue notice to respondent and co-respondent is in consonance with the principles of natural justice as the finding recorded in suit would adversely affect the reputation of concerned person and such a person should have an opportunity to defend his reputation before such a finding is recorded.

    0
  • NARINDER KAUR Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

    Court: Delhi High Court
    Sections 498A, 406 — Bail — Cruelty, Criminal Breach of Trust — Grant of bail subject to condition of payment of Rs. 50,000/- by petitioner mother-in-law — Setting aside of condition in interest of justice — Court cannot view exercise of such powers in isolation of all attendant facts — It is unclear as to when complainant picked up quarrel with petitioner and did not receive articles, when offered to her.

    1
  • VITTHAL HIRAJI JADHAV Vs. HARNABAI VITTHAL JADHAV & ANR.

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Section 125(4) — Maintenance : Husband and wife living separately by mutual consent : Wife loses right to claim alimony from such husband.

    0
  • SONAL SHARMA & ANR., ARUN SHARMA, POOJA SHARMA Vs. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Section 406 — Criminal Breach of Trust — Criminal intent on part of accused to retain entrusted property — Mere one line at the end of complaint that Istridhan articles are lying with in-laws would not by itself be sufficient to frame charge for offence under Section 406, IPC.

    0
  • RAJENDER KUMAR Vs. NANDINI & ANR.

    Court: DELHI HIGH COURT
    Mental Cruelty — Illicit relationship — Threat to commit suicide — Appellant-husband suggested divorce by mutual consent in the backdrop of respondent-wife’s illicit relationship, but she preferred not to even respond to that suggestion — Their daughter is being brought up by her father and grandmother for last 4 years — Version of appellant-husband that telephonically respondent-wife communicated her intention to live with her lover only — Accusations against wife specific as well the efforts made by husband to find peaceful solution to problem — Appellant-husband knows if wife attempts to commit suicide or commit suicide he and his entire family would be entangled in criminal case — Legal consequences that may ensue on threat being extended by wife to commit suicide or attempted suicide, impact on his life is to the extent that his entire family starts living under shadow of fear of being implicated in case under Sections 498A, 306, 304B, IPC — Threat to commit suicide constitutes Cruelty for purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) of Act — Decree of divorce granted in favour of appellant-husband.

    0
  • PENDIYALA SURESH KUMAR RAMARAO Vs. SOMPALLY ARUNBINDU & ANR.

    Court: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
    Petitioner should be given an opportunity to prove his say in the written reply submitted before the learned JMFC and parties should be relegated to the Trial Court for the purpose.

    1
  • JITENDER ARORA & ORS. Vs. SUKRITI ARORA & ORS.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Child ‘V’ is mature girl of 15 years of age — At this age, she can fully understand what is in her best interest — She is competent to take a decision for herself — She has unequivocally and without any reservations expressed her desire to be with her father — She has developed her personality and formed her opinion after considering all the attendant circumstances — Her intellectual characteristics are adequately developed — She is able to solve problems, think about her future and understands long term effects of decision which she has taken — In spite of giving ample chances to Mother by giving temporary custody of child to her, she has not been able to win confidence of child — Custody of child needs to be with father — She is already 15 years of age and within 3 years, she would be major and all this custody battle between her parents would come to an end — She would have complete freedom to decide course of action she would like to adopt in her life.

    0
  • KANTILAL MARTAJI PANDOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Section 498A Explanations (a), (b) — Cruelty — Scope and ambit of provision — Clause (b) is not attracted as there was no harassment by husband with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her to meet such demand — Appellant cannot be held guilty of any wilful conduct which was of such a nature as is likely to drive deceased to commit suicide — First limb of Clause (a) to Explanation under Section 498A not attracted — Permitting first wife to enter house of deceased with new born child does not amount to cruelty within meaning of second limb of Clause (a) to Explanation of Section 498A, IPC.

    0
  • SATYAWAN Vs. REKHA

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Lodging false criminal case — Contracting second marriage — Respondent-wife lodged false criminal case against appellant-husband and his family — No material to frame charges against appellant and his family members — They were acquitted — Respondent-wife married one and living happily with him — Contracting second marriage during subsistence of first marriage would also amount to cruelty — Appellant-husband established that respondent wife is guilty of cruelty and entitled to get decree of divorce.

    0
  • MANIK CHOPRA Vs. PRIYANKA CHOPRA

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Sections 125, 482 — Interim Maintenance — Quantum — Court to take prima facie view and not conduct roving inquiry.

    1
  • JAGRAJ SINGH Vs. BIRPAL KAUR

    Court: Supreme Court of India
    Once Court holds it has no jurisdiction in matter, it should not consider merits of matter — Though issue of jurisdiction of Court decided against wife, without following procedure under Section 23(2), Hindu Marriage Act, Court dismissed petition on merits which could not have been done.

    1
  • SHAKUNTALA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Complainant Wife thought of using Sections 406 and 498A, IPC against family members to teach lesson to every body — Court cannot be swayed by feelings of hatred of complainant. Fair and just investigation is hallmark of any investigation — It is not duty of Investigating Officer to strengthen case of prosecution by withholding evidence collected by him — Fair investigation is right of accused and this right can be exercised by accused at time of charge — Accused can insist upon Court to consider evidence collected by Investigating Officer but not made part of charge-sheet.

    0
  • BALARAM DASH Vs. SMT. GIJANJALI DASH & ANR.

    Court: ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Wife Refusing to Comply with Decree to Restitution of Conjugal Rights, Will Amount to Refusal on Part of Wife to Live with Husband Without Sufficient Cause: Wife not Entitled to Interim Maintenance.

    2
  • KOPPISETTI SUBBHARAO @ SUBRAMANIAM Vs. STATE OF A.P.

    Court: Supreme Court of India
    Complainant not a legally wedded wife of appellant, Section 498A, IPC has no application.

    0
  • RUBI & ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Cruelty, Dowry Demand — Summoning of younger members of family, unjustified. At stage of summoning it is not law that even younger members of family be also summoned to stand trial along with elders even though no specific allegation made against them and their complicity in crime prima facie mala fide and purposive — Levelling general allegations against all family members including unmarried younger girls and boys without specification is practice to be curbed because it will amount to great injustice to ask unmarried younger daughters and brothers to stand trial only because of their relationship with husband.

    0
  • PRAVEENA TANK Vs. ARVIND KUMAR TANK

    Court: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Cruelty — Character assassination — According to husband, wife was having illicit relations with a distant relative before marriage and that persisted thereafter — Parties living separately for more than 14 years — Wild allegations made by wife against husband in reply to petition were sufficient to cause mental agony to husband — It is nothing than to injure reputation which amounts to mental cruelty — There is irretrievable breakdown of marriage of parties considering serious allegations made by wife throwing mud on the character of husband that her real sister has walked into life of her husband, which was not even prima facie established — It is difficult for both of them to live together as a happily married couple —Divorce granted.

    0
  • AJAY BHARDWAJ Vs. JYOTSNA & ORS.

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Maintenance — Live-in relationship — No valid marriage between parties. Children born out of this relationship entitled to receive maintenance.

    0
  • HAZARILAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Conviction based merely on surmises and conjectures. There is no other material to show how deceased was being harassed or subjected to cruelty, conclusion of High Court that because deceased committed suicide there must be some harassment and cruelty is insupportable and indefensible — There is vast difference between “could have been”, “must have been” and “has been” — In absence of any material, case falls to first category — Conviction impermissible in such case.

    0
  • AMARENDRA NATH BAGUI Vs. GOURI RANI BAGUI AND ANOTHER

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    When a wife lives separately by mutual consent can she still claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. ? (No).

    0
  • B.T. JAYARAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

    Court: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Prayer made to reduce sentence to period already undergone under Section 498A. Sentence of appellant reduced to period already undergone — Impugned judgment of High Court modified.

    0
  • SANTOSH Vs. HORI LAL

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Appellant wife failed to substantiate allegations leveled against respondent-husband even on yardstick of preponderance of evidence — Allegations of such a nature that would have lowered image of respondent in eyes of his superiors, subordinates and peers — This act would certainly constitute cruelty.

    0
  • MURLIDHAR CHINTAMAN WAGHMARE Vs. PRATIBHA MURLIDHAR WAGHMARE AND ANOTHER

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Wife’s suit for maintenance under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act was dismissed on merits. Her subsequent application under Section 125 Cr.PC liable to be dismissed.

    0
  • VIKAS AGARWAL Vs. GEETI MATHUR

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Within six months of custody being with mother, attitude of child turned not only cold but positively hostile towards her father — An attempt ought to have been made to unravel truth whether mother poisoned mind of child — Observations made and directions issued by Court.

    0
  • RAM PRASANNA DASH Vs. BHABANI DEVI

    Court: ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Wife not entitled to maintenance under section 125 of Crpc when Civil Court has granted a decree declaring the marriage to be null and void.

    0
  • SURENDER TOKAS Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    No acceptable material or legal evidence in support of prosecution story about cruelty or cruel acts of such nature meted out by petitioner, resulting in death of deceased — Charge framed under Section 498A, IPC againsit petitioner quashed.

    0
  • SANGHAMITRA GHOSH Vs. KAJAL KUMAR GHOSH

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Obligation of Court that marriage status should, as far as possible, as long as possible and whenever possible, be maintained — However when marriage is totally dead, in that event, nothing gained by trying to keep parties tied for ever to marriage which in fact has ceased to exist.

    0
  • HARI GOPAL WADHWA & ANR. Vs. STATE

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Entire extended family of in-laws of deceased implicated — It is unfortunate police continues to encourage naming of all and sundry while recording statements — Job of SDM was to record statement voluntarily made and not to lead maker of statement into giving pre-determined and designed statements.

    0
  • S. MAHENDER Vs. SHALINI

    Court: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Suppression of an item of information cannot be treated as ground under Section 12(1)(c) of Act — Section 12(1)(c) gets attracted only when consent obtained by fraud or through force — Respondent has not made out case under Section 12(1)(c) of Act.

    0
  • SAROJ BALA @ GEETA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR KALYAN

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Divorce by mutual consent — Wife residing separately by mutual consent and accepted lump sum amount of maintenance as full and final settlement as paid — Wife not entitled to maintenance.

    0
  • SONI KASHYAP @ LALLI KASHYAP Vs. PAWAN KASHYAP @ SONI KRISHNA KUMAR KASHYAP & ORS.

    Court: CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
    Welfare and proper custody of children is paramount issue for consideration — Mother having no source of income. Custody of children be given to Father.

    0
  • SMT. SUMANGALA Vs. LAXMINARAYAN ANANT HEGDE & ANR.

    Court:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    Father of minor taking away his child from custody of mother even without informing her and who is legally entitled for custody of child : That act does not amount to cruelty to her under Section 498-A I.P.C.

    1
  • ANITA Vs. RATI RAM CHAUHAN

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Maintenance — Marriage dissolved on ground of cruelty — Finding of civil Court in matrimonial proceeding is binding on criminal Court — Criminal Court is not entitled to question the correctness or validity of civil Court decision — From statements of witnesses, it is clear that claim of petitioner that respondents failed to maintain her and wilfully neglected is not substantiated — Respondent bore the expenses of petitioner’s treatment in hospital and he was not negligent in his responsibilities towards petitioner — Petitioner is paying Rs. 3,000/- p.m. regularly as per directions of civil Court — No infirmity in judgment.

    1
  • NISHI Vs. JAGDISH RAM

    Court: DELHI HIGH COURT
    False accusation by wife — Acts of cruelty included constant threat by wife to have the husband arrested which caused stress to the husband and his family with the result that it was not possible for him to continue with the marriage — False accusations had adversely affected mind and health of husband causing great embarrassment to him and his family leading them to be looked down upon by relatives, friends and neighbours. Family Court fully justified in dissolving the marriage of parties by decree of divorce.

    0
  • MRINAL KANTI ROY BARMAN & ANR. Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

    Court: GAUHATI HIGH COURT
    Section 498a – Insufficient evidence to prove cruelty and demand of dowry — Conviction unsustainable. Mere allegation not enough to prove guilt in criminal case.

    1
  • KAMLA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

    Court: UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
    Applicant failed to prove she is legally wedded wife. She might be living with him as man and woman, her status is that of concubine or having a live-in relationship. Not granted maintenance.

    0
  • AVIRAL MITTAL Vs. STATE & ANR.

    Court: Delhi High Court
    In matters relating to matrimony and custody, law of place which has closest connection with well-being of spouses and welfare of offspring of marriage must govern said disputes.

    0
  • CHINNAMMAL & ORS. Vs. ELUMALAI & ORS.

    Court:MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Second Marriage During Subsistence of First Marriage Totally Void, Illegal and Opposed to Public Policy .

    0
  • MANOJ KISKU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

    Court: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    Article 226 — Extraordinary jurisdiction — Exercise of — Quashing of FIR — Justified if allegations made in FIR do not constitute any offence.

    0
  • V.K.V. SARMA Vs. INDRA SARMA

    Court: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    ‘Relationship in nature of marriage’ and ‘Domestic relationship’ defined. Maintenance not allowed.

    0
  • SHEELU Vs. AMAR SINGH & ANR.

    Court:RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Cruelty — Desertion — Adultery — Grounds well established by Husband — Divorce decree sustained. Not fit case of making efforts through mediation for restoration of matrimonial home.

    0
  • AMARENDRA NATH BAGUI Vs. GOURI RANI BAGUI AND ANOTHER

    Court: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    When a wife lives separately by mutual consent she cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

    0
  • SANDEEP SINGH BAIS @ ANSHU & ORS. Vs. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    General, vague and omnibus allegations cannot be treated as sufficient material to send other relatives of husband who otherwise, do not have anything to do with family affairs of complainant — Complainant has not only made vague allegations against Applicants, but she went to extent of assassinating character.

    0
  • STATE Vs. SRIKANTH & ORS.

    Court: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    Charges Against Accused not Established : Acquittal Justified : In Many Cases where Matrimonial Offences Alleged, Police Indiscriminately Roping in whole of Family Including Brothers, Sisters, In-Laws : Unless there is Specific Material against these Persons it is Wrong on Part of Investigating Officers to Include Whole of Family as Accused Persons : Steps would be Taken to Ensure this does not Happen.

    0
  • L. SRINIVASULU REDDY Vs. L. RAMALAKSHUMMA & ANR.

    Court: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Determination of quantum of maintenance.

    0
  • K.V. PRABAKARAN Vs. MAHESWARAN

    Court: MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Art. 226 — Habeas Corpus — Custody — Girl aged 17 years — Kidnapped by the second respondent from the school — Denied by the girl — Marriage — Husband, natural guardian of minor married girl u/Sec. 6. Hindu (Minority and Guardianship) Act — Whether the Court would be right in taking away the girl from the custody of the second respondent ? — (No).

    0
  • RAM KISHORE & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

    Court: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Maintenance : Perjury : False affidavit by wife : Cognizance of offence : Scope of Sections 195 and 340, Cr.P.C. : Magistrate before whom claim filed himself took cognizance of perjury : Order unsustainable : Order suffers from basic infirmity, illegality : Matter old one : Not proper to direct Magistrate to file complaint as per provisions of law : Impugned order quashed, set aside.

    0