0

Courts Must Accept Duly Sworn Affidavits And Should Not Raise Objections Regarding Residential Proof of Child/ Wife: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that family courts shall accept the affidavit by aggrieved parties indicating their place of residence away from the matrimonial home and not raise the issue of jurisdiction while hearing an application seeking maintenance from the husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This was seen in the case of SANGEETA W/O BAPU LAMANI & Others v. BAPU S/O SOMAPPA LAMANI (REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100043 OF 2020) and the judgment was presided over by the Coram of Justice E.S. Indiresh.

Facts of the case-

In the present case, a petition was filed by Sangeeta and her minor children in Crl. Misc. No.145/2020 on the file of the Family Court, Dharwad, challenging the order dated 05.11.2020 on the file of the Family Court, Dharwad declined to accept the petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

Judgement-

The High Court had noted the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Jagir Kaur & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh and said, “Since Section 125 of Cr.P.C is a social measure providing immediate relief to the destitute wife and children, prima-facie, accepting the duly affidavit by aggrieved parties that they are residing away from the matrimonial home and the address shown in the affidavit is to be accepted.

Finally, the bench said, “Objecting concerning residential proof of the petitioners at that juncture itself would defeat the very purpose of the scope of Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

Further, the court allowed the petition and remanded the matter back to the family court for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity to the petitioners to prove their residential status. If such satisfactory proof is provided by the petitioners, the Family Court is requested to dispose of the petition at the earliest, within an outer limit of eight months.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of the best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement reviewed by Alaina Fatima.

Click here to view your judgement

 

 

 

 

 

0

NO OUTER AGE LIMIT DETERMINED BY “OSSIFICATION TEST” – ODISHA HIGH COURT

The Odisha High Court passed a judgment on 5th July 2022. In the case of Gobardhan Gadaba @ Gadava v. State of Odisha ( CRLREV No. 247 of 2007). The Orissa High Court has held that there is no law that two years mandatorily be added to the outer limit of age as determined by ossification test’. While rejecting an argument to that effect, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra.

FACTS

The petitioner accused herein was convicted for the offence under Sections 363/376, IPC by the IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Jeypore by a judgment passed on 03.02.2006. The said judgment of conviction and sentence was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Jeypore through a judgment dated 21.11.2006. Challenging such judgment of conviction and sentence and the order of its confirmation in appeal, the petitioner approached the High Court in the present revision.

JUDGMENT

The Court reiterated that the law requires iit to deal with cases of rape with utmost sensitivity by examining the broader probabilities of a case and not to get swayed away by minor or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecution which are not of a fatal nature. Reference was made to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh. The Court further observed With regard to the argument that the victim’s version is difficult to believe as the vehicle in question was at a distance of 200 meters from her house and there were other houses in between and yet the victim did not raise any shout, the Court noted that it was brought out in cross-examination that while dragging her, the accused was throttling her. Further, no question was put to the victim at the time of trial as to whether she had raised any shout. Therefore, the Court held, even assuming that the victim was throttled by the accused while being dragged to the vehicle, no question having been put by the defense as to if she had raised any shout in protest, the contention raised before the High Court at this belated stage cannot be accepted. But the Court rejected such contention by holding that there is no law which mandates that in each and every case two years have to be added to the outer age limit determined by the ossification test. Rather, it deemed it proper to accept the higher range of the age determined by the ossification report which, in the instant matter, was 16 years.

JUDGMENT REVIEWD BY KUNMUN DAS

Click here to view judgment

0

Delay In Disposal Of Case Not Ground To Grant Interim Compensation U/S 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that the issuance of multiple notices by the investigating agency to a person while carrying out a preliminary enquiry into a case cannot be a ground for faltering the enquiry.

This was seen in the case of PADMANABHA T G v. M/S RADICAL WORKS PVT. LTD (CRIMINAL PETITION No.524/2022) and the judgment was presided over by the Coram of Justice M Nagaprasanna.

Facts of the case-

In the present case, the petitioner was before the Court calling in question the entire proceedings and also the order dated 09.11.2021, directing the petitioner to pay 10% of the Cheque amount involved in the transaction.

Judgement-               

The bench referring to the judgment of the High Court in Crl.P.No.632/2022 said, “This Court in the aforesaid order has held that the conduct of the accused would be the driving force for granting an interim compensation under Section 143A of the Amendment Act and such reasons should be recorded in the order, then such an order will become an order bearing application of mind.”

Against this backdrop, the High Court noted, “If the order passed by the learned Magistrate is considered in the light of the order passed by this Court, it would undoubtedly fall foul of Section 143A of the Amendment Act. The only reason rendered in the impugned order is that the disposal of the case would take considerable time. There is not even a mention of the conduct of the accused as a reason for granting of compensation.”

 Finally, the HC allowed the petition filed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of the best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement reviewed by Alaina Fatima.

Click here to view your Judgement

0

PENDING CASES CHALLENGING PURI JAGANNATH TEMPLE CORIDOR PRJECT ARE TO BE DISPOSED – ODISHA HIGH COURT

The Odisha High Court passed an Order on 22nd June 2022. In the case of  Dillip Kumar Baral v. State of Odisha & Ors.(W.P.(C) No. 6257 of 2022 ) The Orissa High Court has disposed of the pending writ petition challenging Puri Shree Jagannath Temple Corridor Project, in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court in Ardhendu Kumar Das v. State of Odisha. Notably, in that case, the Supreme Court dismissed two petitions filed against some construction works undertaken by the Odisha Government in the adjacent area of the centuries-old holy shrine. Not only those petitions were dismissed, but heavy costs of one lakh each were imposed on both the petitioners. While disposing of the case, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik.

FACTS

The Government of Odisha had convened a project to re-develop the adjacent areas of Shree Jagannath Temple so as to establish a heritage corridor. The petitioners challenged the said project through a writ petition in the High Court. They had alleged that the Government of Odisha was doing unauthorized construction works, which were posing serious threats to the structure of the ancient Temple of Lord Mahaprabhu Shree Jagannath. According to them, the State Government was trying to make some constructions by excavating through heavy excavators more than 30 feet depth from the ground level, exactly adjacent to the western side of Meghanad Pacheri (the boundary wall of the temple), which is an integral part of the Temple. Further, it was alleged that cracks were found in the temple and its wall due to such excavations. On 9 May 2022, during hearing of the case before the High Court, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) had submitted that it had not granted any valid permission to the Government for the construction works near the Temple, Then, the Advocate General of Odisha had assured that the State Government will work in cooperation with the ASI for all works undertaken at the Parikrama site Accordingly, the Court had directed that the State Government will keep in view the observations of the ASI when it undertakes any further works at the site. It required the State Government to file affidavit in response to the affidavit of the ASI before 20th June, 2022 and listed the matter to 22nd June for further hearing. However, in the meantime, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed before the Supreme Court against the above order of the High Court refusing to stay the construction works at the site.

JUDGMENT

In the Apex Court, the petitioners had submitted that Shree Jagannath Temple, Purl has been declared a monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act), through a Gazette Notification dated 3rd February 1975 and under Section 19(1) of the AMASR Act, no person including the owner-occupier can construct any building within the protected area. It was argued that Section 20A of AMASR Act is clear about the fact that there cannot be any construction within the 100 meters distance of the prohibited area. However, terming the petitions as frivolous and contrary to public interest, the Supreme Court dismissed them with cost of Rupees one lakh each. It also made strong remarks against the petitioners.

JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY KUNMUN DAS.

Click here to view judgment

0

Employee Who Obtained Compassionate Appointment By Concealing Criminal Cases Pending Against Him Terminated from employment: Rajasthan High Court

In the case of Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union Of India & Ors.( D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9402/2022), Justice Pankaj Bandari and Justice Sameer Jain upheld termination of an employee who obtained compassionate appointment by concealment of facts. The petitioner was not able to give details of criminal cases pending against him allegedly on account of paucity of space in attestation form.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The petitioner was given appointment on the post of LDC on compassionate grounds on 24.12.2012. As per him, under Clause-13 of the Attestation form, He had disclosed all information, except Clause-13(J), wherein on account of paucity of space, he was not able to give details of criminal cases pending against him. On account of said concealment, respondents issued show cause notice which reflected that two criminal cases were pending against the petitioner. The petitioner’s representation was also rejected and termination order was passed. Later, CAT, Jaipur Bench upheld the termination order holding that it was not against the Rules, that there is no allegation of mala-fides and natural justice was adhered to by the respondent. Being aggrieved against the same, present petition was filed.

JUDGEMENT:

The petition was dismissed by the division bench and they refused to interfere with the order of CAT. The learned bench relied upon the judgement of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471 in which, the Apex Court had observed, “Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or or false mention of required information” and held “In the prescribed form in Clause-13, details were specifically asked for. Petitioner failed to give due details and therefore, violated Clause-2(n) of the appointment letter and also suppressed the information. The learned tribunal has duly considered said violations and suppression on the part of the petitioner.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ANAGHA K BHARADWAJ

CLICK HERE TO VIEW JUDGEMENT

1 2 3 1,037
Open chat