0

Wife Can’t Claim Maintenance From In Laws When She Is Capable Of Maintaining Herself: High Court Of Chhattisgarh

Blog , , ,

Title: Dhanna Sahu v Smt. Sitabai Sahu

Citation: 2023:CGHC:28158-DB

Coram: Justice Shri Goutam Bhaduri & Justice Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Decided On: 08/11/2023

Introduction:

The present Appeal is against the judgment dated 8.2.2023 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bemetara in Civil MJC No.5/2022 wherein the application filed by the daughter-in-law against her father-in-law claiming maintenance was allowed and an amount of Rs.1500/- was directed to be paid. The father-in-law is in Appeal before this Court.

Facts:

Sitabai Sahu is the daughter-in- law of the appellant. She was married to Virendra Sahu, son of the appellant and 2 children were born. Said Virendra Sahu died in harness on 28.8.2021. Thereafter dispute arose in between the parties and the children were kept in the custody of the father-in-law i.e. the appellant. It was stated that the appellant has affluent means. He has 6 acres of land. Apart from that, he was in the avocation of doctorship, whereas the daughter-in-law was unable to maintain herself. Stating various grounds, maintenance was claimed.

The father-in-law opposed the application for maintenance and stated that his daughter-in-law has sufficient means to survive. However, no document has been placed before the Court to show that she is unable to maintain herself from the estate of her husband or father or mother. The learned family Court after evaluating the material placed before it has directed to pay an amount of Rs.1500/- as maintenance to the daughter- in-law.

Daughter-in-law has filed the application prior to this litigation for custody of the children wherein she has deposed that she has enough earning and would be able to maintain her children, apart from the property. Bare reading of the statement would show that the order itself is bad and no justification can be attached to it.

Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the said argument on submission that the statement made in the prior proceeding cannot be agitated time and again in the subsequent proceeding and position of the parties is to be evaluated in the subsequent adjudication and as such, the findings arrived at by the family Court are well merited, which do not call for any interference.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

In her statement, she has stated that she wants to keep the children with her, as she is doing the private job and she has sufficient income and her parental part i.e. father and mother have also sufficient means. This statement when was confronted in the cross-examination of the respondent, she admitted to have made such statement in a proceeding under Section 25 of the Act, while the proceeding was drawn before the family Court for custody of the children. She has stated that she was working in a private company and was earning enough and mother and father were also financially well.

Therefore, the statement itself made by the respondent cut across the requirement which is mandatory under Section 19 of the Act of 1956. There is no answer to the aforesaid issue as to under what circumstances, the statement was made in a judicial proceeding in earlier round of litigation and the statement having been confronted and admitted by the appellant would hold the field to adjudicate the issue. Hence the order dated 8.2.2023 was set aside by the court.

“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- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

0

Merely Because Some Of The Witnesses Are Interested Or Inimical Witnesses, Their Evidence Cannot Be Totally Discarded: Supreme Court Of India

Blog , , ,

Title:  Madan v State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1790 Of 2017

Coram: Justice B.R. Gavai

 Decided On: November 09, 2023.

Introduction:

These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 22nd February 2017, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Capital Case Nos. 3359 and 3520 of 2015 with Reference No. 9 of 2015 and Criminal Appeal No. 3519 of 2015, thereby dismissing the appeals filed by appellant Madan and another accused Ishwar; whereas, it allowed in part, the appeal filed by appellant Sudesh Pal. By the said judgment, the High Court confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31st July 2015 passed by the trial court in Sessions Case No. 09/2005 with Sessions Case No. 838 of 2005 and 10/2005, in respect of appellant – Madan, while commuting the sentence of capital punishment to life imprisonment in respect of appellant – Sudesh Pal.

Facts:

The incident took place at 5.30 PM and the FIR came to be registered on the same day at 7.40 PM. According to the FIR, Smt. Vimla Devi, who was the mother of Ram Kishan, cousin of Lokendra (PW-1), was a candidate in the election for Gram Pradhan; whereas the wife of one Arshad was the opposing candidate. On the one hand, Lokendra (PW-1) supported the candidature of Vimla Devi; whereas, the family of appellant Madan and Ram Bhajan supported the candidature of the wife of Arshad. When Vimla Devi came to be elected as Gram Pradhan along with Lokendra (PW-1), who also came to be elected as a member of the Gram Panchayat, appellant Madan and his family members bore a grudge with Lokendra (PW-1) and others on account of the feeling of jealousy.

The FIR states that on 14th October 2003, at about 5.30 PM, when Satendra, the real brother of Lokendra, his nephew Sunil, cousin Ram Kishan s, Sukhpal Singh and his father Jai Singh were going to the house. and had reached the house of Rashid s/o Mustafa, appellant Madan along with Rajveer, Ram Bhajan, Ramveer, and Kanwar Pal who were the sons of Ishwar along with Ishwar himself, who was the brother-in-law (sala) of appellant Madan, also known as Pahalwan, appellant Sudesh Pal, who was the real brother-in-law (sadu) of appellant Madan along with Neetu, who was the nephew of appellant Madan, armed with licensed guns, rifles and country-made pistols came from behind and started firing indiscriminately. As a result of the said firing, Satendra and Sunil fell down on ‘Khadanja’.

Rizwan, Rihan and Masooq Ali succumbed to their injuries and died on the way and their bodies were accordingly kept in their houses. Lokendram1) also reached the place of the incident and witnessed the incident with his own eyes and requested to register the report and take legal action.

Court’s Judgement and Analysis:

It can thus be seen that merely because some of the witnesses are interested or inimical witnesses, their evidence cannot be totally discarded. The only requirement is that their evidence has to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection. In the present case, both the High Court and the trial court have meticulously scrutinized the evidence and found the testimony of the eye witnesses trustworthy and reliable. Court found that merely because there are certain inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded.

Court found that the present case is not a case wherein it can be held that imposition of death penalty is the only alternative. The evidence of witnesses would show that the role attributed is that all the accused persons including both the appellants herein had fired shots and indiscriminately indulged in the said firing.

The trial court imposed capital sentence on appellants Madan and Sudesh Pal. However, insofar as accused Ishwar is concerned, though the evidence against him is on similar lines, he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court, on the basis of the same evidence, though confirmed the death penalty insofar as appellant Madan is concerned, partly allowed the appeal of Sudesh Pal and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.

“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- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

0

In Absence Of This Relevant Material Offence Under Section 11 Of P.C. Act Can’t Be Established: High Court Of Bombay

Blog , , ,

Title: Anil Goel v Union of India & Anr.

Citation: Criminal Revision Application No.183 Of 2023

Coram: Justice Bharati Dangre

Decided On: 25th OCTOBER, 2023

Introduction:

F.I.R.No.RC/18(A)/2015 dated 18/12/2015 is lodged by the CBI, ACB, Cochin for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, & 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A primary charge-sheet was fled against the other accused persons named in the F.I.R. , leaving out the Applicant and even during the course of investigation from 2015 to 2019, he was never arrested. On 31/07/2019, C.B.I. fled the supplementary charge- sheet against the Applicant, accusing of committing an offence under Section 11 of the P.C. Act.

Facts:

The allegation levelled against him is that, while functioning as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) from the period between 01/01/2014 to 31/12/2015, he occupied a flat (guesthouse) belonging to M/s Heera Constructions, without payment of any rent. t is a claim of the C.B.I. that as M/s Heera Constructions fell within the assessment jurisdiction of the Applicant, the act of staying in the flat, without payment of rent, constitutes the offence under Section 11 of the P.C. Act.

The investigation had revealed that Heera Constructions had taken the subject flat used by it as guesthouse on lease from another private person. On being taken on lease, the lease rent was paid by it. The Applicant is alleged to have stayed in the Apartment, free of cost, by abusing the offcial position, as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram. It is alleged that rent of Rs.4,40,000/- was paid by M/s Heera Constructions Pvt. Ltd. to the owner of the Apartment.

It is alleged that Heera Builders paid rent of Rs.20,000/- per month for the period from February 2014 to January 2015 (12 months) and Rs.25,000/- per month from February 2015 to September 2015 (8 months) i.e. Heera Builders paid total rent of Rs.4.4 lakhs to Mrs.Nanma Jayan for the stay of the Applicant in the flat.

The Applicant moved an application for his release on bail, post fling of the charge-sheet on the ground that, he was never arrested during investigation and the same is allowed by the Special Court for C.B.I. at Greater Bombay on 19/09/2022.

The Applicant came to Thiruvananthapuram as CCIT and his sub-ordinate i.e. the ITO showed him the flat, which he was to occupy. Apparently, he did not make any inquiries, unaware about the ownership of the flat or it’s possession. Counsel contended that if it is the allegation that he continued to reside free of cost, then why no notice was ever issued and in fact, the charge-sheet disclose that the service charge, as directed to be paid, was borne by the Applicant from January 2014 to November 2015.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

From reading Section 11 of P.C. Act it is evident that the act of a public servant, accepting or obtaining or attempting to obtain, either for himself or for any other person, any “valuable thing”, without consideration or for an inadequate consideration, from any person whom he knows to have been or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by the public servant or has any connect with his offcial position, then such an act would amount to an offence under Section 11.

But, In absence of this relevant material in the charge-sheet, which would constitute as a ground for presuming that the Applicant has committed the offence, the charge must be considered to be groundless, which is a same thing as saying that there is no ground for framing the charge.

Applicant occupied the flat, but has failed to pay the rent and this act is sufficient to make out a prima facie offence under Section 11 read with Section 12 of the P.C. Act though Accused No.2-Sarath was refused sanction and he was not charge-sheeted and, hence, the offence under Sections 34 and 120-B of the IPC is not made out. In absence of establishing that the flat has been enjoyed free of cost and it has a connect with the duty to be discharged by the Applicant in relation to the assessee, merely because a assessee fall within his jurisdiction, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 11 are made out. Hence the order dated 13/02/2023 was set aside by the court and the Applicant is discharged from Special Case No.751 of 2022.

“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- Sushant Kumar

Click here to view judgement

0

Doctrine Of Forum Conveniens Is To Be Invoked To Determine The Most Appropriate Forum For Adjudication Of A Dispute: High Court Of Delhi

Uncategorized , , , ,

Title: Riddhima Singh V Central Board Of Secondary Education & Ors.

Citation: LPA 729/2023

Coram: Hon’ble The Chief Justice And Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Decided On: 01.11.2023

Introduction:

The present LPA arises out of judgement dated 12.09.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 8383/2023 whereby the Ld. Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant herein on grounds of forum non-conveniens without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter.

Facts:

Appellant was a student in Respondent School (the „Respondent School‟). However, on 02.04.2018, the Appellant‟s father received a message from the Respondent School that due to non-payment of fees for the academic year 2017-2018, the Appellant was debarred from attending the Respondent School. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred W.P.(C) 6007/2019 (the „First Writ Petition‟) before this Court seeking issuance of directions against Respondent No. 1 („CBSE‟) to permit the Appellant to appear for Class X and Class XII examinations. During the pendency of the aforenoted writ proceedings, this Court, through interlocutory orders, directed the Respondent School to readmit the Appellant and directed the school to conduct Grade VII and Grade VIII examinations for the benefit of the Appellant. Both the examinations were conducted by the Respondent School and was cleared by the Appellant. It is pertinent to note that the Grade VIII examinations were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Vide judgement dated 04.06.2021, the First Writ Petition was dismissed by the Ld. Single Judge on grounds that this Court was not the most appropriate forum to adjudicate the dispute. The Court considered that the Appellant was a resident of Uttar Pradesh and that the Respondent School was also located in Uttar Pradesh. As the grievances of the Appellant primarily pertained to the Respondent School, the Court held that the mere inclusion of CBSE as a respondent was not sufficient to enable this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved the Appellant preferred a review petition against this judgement which was also dismissed with costs of INR 30,000 imposed on the Appellant.

Subsequent to the events of the First Writ Petition, the Appellant preferred the underlying writ petition seeking compensation from CBSE for alleged “intentional harassment, mental trauma of holding back the Petitioner in Class VII for two academic years in violation of RTE Act.” Without adjudicating on the merits of the matter, the Ld. Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of non-conveniens, noting that the Appellant has attempted to found territorial jurisdiction in Delhi merely because CBSE is headquartered in Delhi.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the Ld. Single Judge erred in not considering that Clause 18.3.2 of the CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws explicitly states that the legal jurisdiction for suits filed against the CBSE shall be the Union Territory of Delhi.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

The principle emerging from Shristi Udaipur is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In essence, the basis of the Appellant‟s claim for compensation is the loss of an academic year due a delay in examinations for Grade VIII. As the responsibility for conducting the examinations fell on the Respondent School, it is plain that the most vital part of the cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh, where the Respondent School is located. Moreover, it must also be noted that the Appellant is a resident of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, on a holistic examination of these circumstances, as the Appellant has failed to produce any material establishing that the grievance caused to her is directly attributable to the actions of the CBSE.

doctrine of forum conveniens is invoked to determine the most appropriate forum for adjudication of a dispute and this exercise is undertaken not only for the convenience of the parties but also in the interest of justice. Therefore, this Clause cannot be read in a matter that would permit all cases filed against the CBSE, regardless of the existence of a more appropriate forum, to be adjudicated in the Union Territory of Delhi; the existence of such a clause cannot exempt Courts from invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens especially in cases like the present where no direct actions of the CBSE have been impugned by the Appellant. So the court did not find any eason to interfere with the Impugned Judgement. Accordingly, the present LPA was dismissed.

“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- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

 

0

Application In The Prescribed Manner Is Required For The Remedy Under Rule 12-B Of Bihar Prohibition & Excise (Amendment) Rules: High Court Of Patna

Blog , , , ,

Title: Binod Kumar v State of Bihar

Citation: CWJC No.15688 of 2023

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri And Honourable Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya

Decided On: 08-11-2023

Introduction:

In the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

  • For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, commanding the respondents to unseal the petitioner’s Cement Godown situated in the village- Rudahan, Area- 5400 Sq.fit, which has been sealed in connection with Bochahan P.S. Case No. 318/2023, registered for an offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.

Facts:

The subject matter of premises, namely, Khata No. 109, Kheshra No. 10 about 5400 Sq. ft., cement godown situated in village – Rudahan, P.S. – Bochahan, District – Muzaffarpur is stated to be involved for the offences under the Bihar Excise Act, 2016. It is reliably learnt that about 279 litres of foreign liquor was seized from the aforementioned godown and it has been seized. The present petition is for de-sealing.

Learned counsel for the State-respondent submitted that having regard to the huge quantity seized and it is not appropriate for this Court to direct for de-sealing the premises. Further, it is also pointed out that confiscation proceedings is under going.

Court’s Judgement and Analysis:

Petitioner has submitted representation on 05.10.2023, there is no action on the part of the concerned respondent. At the same time, petitioner has remedy under Rule 12-B of Bihar Prohibition & Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2022. But the petitioner is required to submit application in the prescribed form in respect of de-sealing of seized premises.

Therefore the petitioner was directed to approach the concerned authority while making application under the Rule 12-B of Bihar Prohibition & Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2022.

Application is to submitted before the competent authority, the competent authority is directed to take note of all the factual materials and proceed to pass order and communicate the same to the petitioner within a reasonable period of three weeks from the date of receipt of petitioner’s application under Rule 12-B of Bihar Prohibition & Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2022.

“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- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

1 … 5 6 7