0

Bombay High Court: A child cannot be utilized as a toy, rather must be considered as a human being

Blog , , , , ,

Bombay High Court: A child cannot be utilized as a toy, rather must be considered as a human being

Background

The couple, who were both US citizens, was married in California. The infant was born in Paris in February of 2019. But shortly afterward, their relationship soured, and the father moved the child to Goa after receiving an ex-parte custody order from a Californian court. The mother then arrived in India, and the divorced couple proceeded to seek for custody before the family court in Mapusa.  In its ruling, the High Court stated that it had changed a family court’s June 2023 ruling in October 2023, giving the father visitation rights while maintaining the child’s mother’s custody.  However, because of the child’s illness, the father was unable to use his visitation rights. As a result, the father submitted a second application to the family court in Mapusa asking for custody of the child throughout the summer break from school. In an order issued on May 8 of this year, the family court stated that the child’s illness precluded the father from obtaining visitation rights. As a result, it gave him seven weeks of summer break custody of the child while giving the mother only five. In opposition, the mother then filed a move with the High Court.  The father was appropriately given extra time by the family court since the High Court rejected his argument that he may receive compensation for his lost visitation privileges.

Matter of concern

It is to be decided to whom the child should be attributed custody.

Court’s observation and decision

The father was appropriately given extra time by the family court since the High Court rejected his argument that he may receive compensation for his lost visitation privileges. The judge declared that it was not in the best interests of the five-year-old child for the family court to have granted the father seven weeks of custody of the youngster. A mother’s presence is extremely important for a child at this vulnerable age. But the father’s requirements must also be taken into account while determining custody and visitation privileges, the court stated. The solitary court stated that the child’s best interests must be taken into account and that he has the right to spend the holiday with both of his parents. The Court concluded that it would be reasonable to distribute the vacation time equally amongst parents. In order to preserve and strengthen the relationship between family members, parents and children have the right to use such vacation time to spend quality time with their respective mothers, fathers, and relatives. The order stated that the child should have the chance to get to know both the mother’s and father’s family. Therefore, the Court held that the vacation of 11 weeks could be divided equally between mother and father. It, therefore granted five weeks’ custody to each of the parents. The court observed that, in a child custody case that a child involved in a custody dispute cannot be utilised as a toy by his parents but rather must be considered as a human being and his interests must be given primary significance.

“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 fall into a category of 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.”

Written By- Shreyasi Ghatak

 

 

0

Legal harmony: The Karnataka High court quashes criminal proceedings through amicable settelement under section 482 of Crpc

Blog , , ,

Case Title: Ricky Vincent and others. V State of Karnataka and another

Case No.: CRL.P No. 2400/2024 (482)

Dated on: 2 May 2024

Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

FACTS OF THE CASE

Ricky Vincent and Smt. Dr. Neeraja S.J. got married on February 4, 2023 as per Christian rituals, but soon after there were serious differences in their matrimonial life leading to the complaint being filed u/s under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was registered in Crime No.38/2024 by the Varthur Police Station, Bangalore City on 18.01.2024. Subsequently The parties have settled the matter amicably. Marital tie has also come to an end by decree of divorce by the competent Court, and bringing the criminal case to a logical end was part of the compromise talks between the parties. Henceforth, this criminal petition was filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer before the high court to quash the FIR in Crime No.38/2024 registered by Varthur Police Station under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the interest of justice and equity.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)

 This section empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings if it is satisfied that the continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court or if the ends of justice would be served by quashing the proceedings.

Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition act

Section 3 prohibits the giving or taking of dowry. It states that if any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more.

Section 4 of Dowry prohibition Act

Section 4 prohibits the demanding of dowry. It states that if any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the criminal offense of cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

The petitioners argued that the parties had resolved their differences amicably, leading to the settlement and divorce. They contended that the continuation of the criminal proceedings was unnecessary and unjust since the dispute had been privately settled. The petitioners highlighted that the marital dispute was resolved through the intervention of elders and well-wishers. The complainant had agreed to the settlement terms, including ending the criminal case as part of the compromise.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The respondent (wife) appeared before the court via video conferencing and expressed no objection to quashing the FIR. She confirmed that the criminal complaint’s quashing was part of the settlement agreement.

COURT’S JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

After reviewing the material on record and the factual circumstances, the court noted that the parties had resolved their differences amicably, with the intervention of elders and well-wishers, leading to a mutual settlement and divorce. The complainant explicitly stated her lack of objection to quashing the FIR, indicating that this was part of their compromise agreement. The court concluded that the issues between the parties were trivial and had been amicably resolved. It decided that continuing the criminal proceedings would be unnecessary and unjust, given the settlement between the parties. The court recognized that the complaint involved offenses under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which are typically non-compoundable. However, in situations where disputes are private and do not affect public interest, the court can exercise these powers to prevent misuse of the legal process. The court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Ramgopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) 14 SCC 531, which supports the quashing of criminal proceedings when parties have amicably settled their dispute. Hence the court allowed the Petition quashing of the criminal proceedings in Crime No. 38/2024 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District.

“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 fall into a category of 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 – PRATYASA MISHRA

click here to view judgement

0

SC Affirms Summoning of Wife in ‘Cheating’ Complaint by Husband: Prima Facie Case Established

blog , , , , , , ,

Case title: Aniruddha Khanwalkar v. Sharmila Das and Ors.

Case no: Criminal appeal no of 2024 (arising out of SLP. (CRL.) No. 10746 of 2023)

Dated on: April 26th ,2024

Quorum: Justice Rajesh Bhindal

Facts of the case:
The appellant’s marriage was officiated with the respondent no.1 on 28.04.2018 in the presence of the respondents no.2 and no.3. The appellant on that date realized that the respondent was already married and had not obtained divorce from her first husband. The appellant then filed a petition under Section 11 of the 1955 Act (The Hindu Marriage Act), to seek nullification of marriage between the appellant and the respondent no.1. The appellant then filed a case against the respondents no. 1,2, and 3 to the magistrate. The magistrate then booked the respondent no.1 under Section 494 and 420 and, against the respondents no.2 and 3 under Section 420 read with section 120-B , IPC. The above order was then challenged by the respondents no.1 to 3 by filing a revision petition. On 16.06.2018, when Respondent no.1 visited the doctor for a checkup, she was found to be pregnant and wanted to undergo an abortion, but when confronted by the appellant, the Respondent informed that she has not yet obtained divorce from her previous marriage. It was revealed then the document shown to the Appellant was forged which revealed that the consent for marriage was obtained dishonestly. The Appellant felt cheated and then filed a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 07.07.2018 and then to the Station in-Charge, on 08.07.2018. However, as no action was taken, a complaint was filed in the court before the Magistrate on 20.07.2018. The Trial Court after recording the preliminary evidence summoned the Respondent no.1 to face trial under Sections 494 and 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC and the respondent nos.2 and 3 to face trial under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondents before the Additional Sessions Judge. The Sessions Court held that no offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC was made out as the factum of earlier marriage of the Respondent no.1 was clearly disclosed to the Appellant. The said Order was challenged by the Appellant before the High Court, which was in turn dismissed by the High Court without assigning any reasons.
Contentions of the appellant:
The appellant contended that the Court failed to appreciate the facts of the case. A prima facie case has been made out which shows that the Appellant has been dishonestly induced by Respondents number 1, 2 and 3 in believing that the Respondent no. 1 had obtained divorce, by showing a forged order, knowing very well that the marriage had not yet been dissolved as on the date of marriage with the Appellant and therefore the Order is liable to be set aside. The Respondents are therefore liable to face trial under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC for the reason that they had conspired with each other and dishonestly induced the Appellant into marrying Respondent no.1 and parting with huge expenses towards fare for travel from Vishakapatanam to Gwalior and vice versa along with expenditure to be incurred for the marriage.

Contentions of the respondent:
On the basis of the pleaded facts and the material produced by the Appellant before the Magistrate, no offence under Section 420, IPC could be made out. The Appellant could not make any case of criminal conspiracy and offence of cheating against the Respondents. There is no error in the orders passed by the Sessions Court or the High Court. There was no concealment or cheating as the Respondents had clearly disclosed all the facts to the Appellant before marriage and hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Issues:
Whether the High court and the trial court was right in setting aside the summoning order passed by the trial court?

Legal provisions:
Sections 494 IPC- Punishment for bigamy.

Section 420 IPC-Punishment for cheating.

Section 120-B, IPC-Punishment for criminal conspiracy.

Courts judgement and analysis:
The Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the fact that certain events had taken place such as apprising the appellant about the decree of divorce having been passed and showing the forged copy of the same on mobile. The Learned Sessions Court has considered the revision against the summoning order as if, after trial, the findings of conviction/ acquittal was to be recorded. The matter was only at a preliminary stage of summoning and for summoning an accused, prima facie case needs to be made out on the basis of allegations and the pre-summoning evidence given by the Complainant. The High Court, further, has dismissed the petition without recording any reasons. The Learned Sessions Court and the High Court Order in setting aside the summoning order against the accused persons is not legally sustainable. On the basis of the facts pleaded and evidence adduced by the Appellant, prima facie case is made out for issuing process against the respondents to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC, for which they were summoned. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Sessions Court are thus set aside and that of the Magistrate is restored.

“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 fall into a category of 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- Parvathy P.V.

Click here to read the judgement

0

“Supporting Such Relationships Will Bring Chaos To Society”: Allahabad High Court Denies Live-In Couple’s Request For Protection Involving Married Adults

Blog , , ,

Case Title:- Raksha And Another Versus State Of Up And 4 Others

Case No :- WRIT – C No. – 1546 of 2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Mrs. Renu Agarwal

Facts of the case:

Renu Agarwal, J. stated that petitioner 1 is living with petitioner 2 in a live-in relationship after having a legally wedded husband without filing for divorce from a court of competent jurisdiction. This was stated in a writ petition filed to direct the police authorities to provide police protection to petitioners against the husband and parents of petitioner 1. Petitioners stated that petitioner 1’s parents had married her off while she was a minor, 13 years old. Because petitioner 1’s marriage is null and void, she freely chooses to live in union with petitioner 2 against her will. The state has argued that petitioner 1 is already married, that her marriage has not been ruled unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, and that the court cannot accept a live-in relationship between her and petitioner 2.

Contentions:

The petitioners sought police protection against interference in their live-in relationship and from the family of one petitioner. They also requested direction for the family not to interfere in their relationship. The petitioners argued that one petitioner was married at a young age, but the marriage was invalid, and she was voluntarily in a live-in relationship with the other petitioner

The respondent argued that one of the petitioners was already legally married and living in a live-in relationship with the other petitioner, which the court cannot support. The respondent cited a previous court decision disapproving of such relationships and emphasized that protecting illegal relationships would disrupt societal norms. The court dismissed the petition, stating that endorsing illicit relations through protection would be detrimental to societal values and clarified its stance against illegal relationships while not opposing live-in relationships in general.

Court Analysis and Judgement:

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking police protection for a couple in a live-in relationship, if they protect illegal relationships then it will create chaos in the society .If court grant permission for protection it indirectly supports illegal relationships. The court does not deem it proper to permit the parties to such illegality as tomorrow petitioners may convey that this court sanctified their illicit relations. Living in live in relationship cannot be at the cost of social fabric of this country. It is clarified that this court has not been against live in relationship but us it is against illegal relations. Granting protection might indirectly approve of unlawful relationships, which the court cannot be done. The court clarified its sentence against illegal relationships while not being opposed to live-in relationships in general. The petitioners, one of whom was legally married, had not sought a divorce, making their live-in arrangement unlawful under Hindu Law, highlighting the importance of upholding legal relationships and the sanctity of marriage.

“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 fall into a category Of 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 Analysis Written by – K. Immey Grace

Click here to view the judgement

 

 

 

1 2 3