Daily Archives: August 7, 2013

major fight between two hardened WOMEN criminal in Salem (TN) Jail. attacks between the two has created a lot of tension

Dacoit woman Mythili and POTA arrest woman Ragini are in the same jail….. Many "relatives" of the POTA Arrest women visiting the jail has irked the Dacoit woman… this lead to clashes….. Many jail inmates caught in the crossfire have submitted a memo to the jail authorities, who are inquiring the matter… this has created a lot of tension inside the jail …..

சேலம் பெண்கள் சிறையில் கொள்ளைக்காரி-பெண் நக்சலைட் மோதலால் திடீர் பரபரப்பு

கருத்துகள்

Tamil-Daily-News_32895624638.jpg

00:58:27

Thursday

2013-08-08

சேலம்: சேலம் பெண்கள் கிளைச்சிறையில் கோரிமேட்டை சேர்ந்த பிரபல கொள்ளைக்காரி மைதிலி (28) என்பவர் 21 வழக்குகளில் கைதாகி சிறையில் அடைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளார். இதேபோல், பெண் நக்சலைட் தர்மபுரியை சேர்ந்த ராகினி (48) என்பவரும் அடைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளார். பொடா வழக்கில் கைது செய்யப்பட்டவர்.மைதிலியை பார்க்க தினமும் அதிகளவில் அவரது உறவினர்கள் வந்த வண்ணம் உள்ளனர். இதை ராகினி தட்டிக்கேட்டு வந்துள்ளார். இந்த விவகாரத்தால், மைதிலிக்கும், ராகினிக்கும் மோதல் ஏற்பட்டது. ராகினி, 1வது பிளாக்கில் கைதிகள் முகம் பார்க்கும் பெரிய கண்ணாடியை உடைத்து வீசியதுடன், மிரட்டல் விடுத்துள்ளார். இதையடுத்து மைதிலி உள்பட 27 கைதிகள், பெண்கள் கிளைச்சிறை கண்காணிப்பாளர் கணேசனிடம் ‘கண்ணாடியை உடைத்ததுடன் தங்களை மிரட்டி வரும் ராகினி மீது நடவடிக்கை எடுக்க வேண்டும்‘ என்று கையெழுத்துபோட்டு கொடுத்துள்ளனர். இதையடுத்து அவர், சேலம் மத்திய சிறை கண்காணிப்பாளரின் விசாரணைக்கு பரிந்துரைத்துள்ளார். பெண் கைதிகளுக்குள் மோதல் சம்பவம் பெரும் பரபரப்பை ஏற்படுத்தியுள்ளது.

source

http://www.dinakaran.com/News_Detail.asp?Nid=58353

***

FOLLOW
@ATMwithDick on twitter or
https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ (recent blog so recent cases )
FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

Want Maintenance, Ant.bail, 498a Quash, Divorce, DV case law??,..start here !! : 100 cases on Maintenance, Ant.. bail, 498a Quash, Divorce, DV, Quash EVEN when woman dead, proof of husband’s income etc etc

Want Maintenance, Ant.bail, 498a Quash, Divorce, DV case law??,..start here !! : 100 cases on Maintenance, Ant..bail, 498a Quash, Divorce, DV, Quash EVEN when woman dead, proof of husband’s income etc etc

************************************************************

Dear Readers

As you know these blogs have been a repository of a large number of court cases and interesting articles

I have made a very brief compilation of 100 cases posted the last few weeks !!

I plan to make more such compilations in the near future

Probably some one would be kind enough to send their cases to me so that I can blog and add them to this list ??

I’d be delighted to have your feedback and suggestions (as comments) to this blog

the list is uploaded to G docs and the link is here

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-JZGIVy-RW5NHdCcW1lSUtwaDg/edit?usp=sharing

short link : http://bit.ly/193IUoP

***************************
FOLLOW

@ATMwithDick on twitter or
https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ (recent blog so recent cases )
FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

chee .. how can you do this ? throw a stool at the honourable court ? Judge NOT injured !! So don’t worry

chee .. how can you do this ? throw a stool at the honourable court ? Judge NOT injured !! So don’t worry

*********************

FOLLOW @ATMwithDick on twitter or
https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ (recent blog so recent cases ) FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
***********************

Those WERE the days! 1996 ORISSA HC: Husband cannot b forced pay interim maint OR set ex party in case by CRIMINAL courts !! Civil Courts might have jurisdiction in just cases to impose restriction on defaulting husband from contesting in exercise of inherent power. Such power has NOT BEEN vested in criminal Courts since inherent power is vested with High Courts only under Section 482, CrPC. IF wife faces vagrancy and destitution , Orissa State Legal Aid and Advice Board can pay legal aid to wife for period of 6 months !!!!!!

Those WERE the days! 1996 ORISSA HC: Husband cannot b forced pay interim maint OR set ex party in case by CRIMINAL courts !! Civil Courts might have jurisdiction in just cases to impose restriction on defaulting husband from contesting in exercise of inherent power. Such power has NOT BEEN vested in criminal Courts since inherent power is vested with High Courts only under Section 482, CrPC. IF wife faces vagrancy and destitution , Orissa State Legal Aid and Advice Board can pay legal aid to wife for period of 6 months !!!!!!

Learning
********************

* those WERE the days
* Wife files for interim maintenance
* Court orders interim
* Husband refuses payment as he wishes to appeal interim and he has NOT obtained a certified copy so is waiting for the same
* Since husband has NOT paid interim maintenance, trial court sets him ex parte
* husband appeals
* Honourable Orissa HC says "….
* Where a party feels aggrieved, he should be given a chance to approach higher forums to vindicate his grievance
* Rigidity in insisting upon compliance of the order by creating" circumstances for which such party cannot express his grievance is not a fair play
* Trial Court ought to have examined if petitioner was supplied with a certified copy on his complying with the formalities before implementing the formalities
* Civil Courts might have jurisdiction in just cases to impose restriction on defaulting husband from contesting in exercise of inherent power.
* Such power has not been vested in criminal Courts since inherent power is vested with High Courts only under Section 482, CrPC
* In this case, ….I direct the State Legal Aid and Advice Board in exercise of power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to …financial assistance …Rs.150/- only which has been awarded as interim maintenance treating it to be an order in favour of the wife which would be utilised for benefit of children also.

******************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF – Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************
CASE FROM INDIAN KANOON SITE
******************************************************************

Orissa High Court

Jayaram Thakra @ Jhagara vs Sabitri Thakra And Ors. on 28 March, 1991

Equivalent citations: II (1991) DMC 594

Author: S Mohapatra
Bench: S Mohapatra

JUDGMENT

S.C. Mohapatra, J.

1. These two revisions arise out of a proceeding under Section 125, Cr. P.C.

2. Opposite party No. 1 is wife and opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are minor daughters of petitioner. In the proceeding for maintenance they filed an application for interim maintenance. By order dated 1-10-1986, trial Court directed petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/-per month where it was directed that on failure to comply with the order, petitioner would not be allowed to contest the case. After one month when order was not complied with by petitioner, opposite parties filed an application to give direction to petitioner to pay the same. Petitioner submitted that with object of challenging the order he has not complied with the same but in spite of application, certified copy has not been supplied till then. Learned Magistrate held that withholding of interim maintenance which is granted to avoid vagrancy and destitution would frustrate the purpose and accordingly, rejecting submission of petitioner, he ordered to set petitioner ex-parte and proceeding was posted for ex-parte hearing. Against the said order. Criminal Revision No. 257 of 1987 has been filed.

3. After ex-parte hearing, order dated 4-2-1987 was passed directing payment of maintenance at Rs. 400/- per month against which Criminal Revision No. 256 of 1987 has been filed.

4. In spite of absence of provision for grant of interim maintenance in a proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C., Courts can grant the same in just circumstances. See A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 984, (Smt. Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat), (1989) 2 O.C.R. 687 (Yudhistir Nayak v. Smt. Rukmani Nayak), (1989) 2 O.C.R. 84 (Madhab v. Minamani Das and Another), 1986(1) O.L.R. 558 (Smt. Sulochana Sahu v. Baman Ch. Sahu). Where a party feels aggrieved, he should be given a chance to approach higher forums to vindicate his grievance. Rigidity in insisting upon compliance of the order by creating" circumstances for which such party cannot express his grievance is not a fair play. Trial Court ought to have examined if petitioner was supplied with a certified copy on his complying with the formalities before implementing the formalities. To avoid vagrancy and destitution, a method should not have been adopted which prevents a party from expressing his grievance.

5. Direction setting petitioner ex-parte is grievance of petitioner as learned Magistrate has no power to pass an ex-parte order except the grounds provided for in Section 126(2) Proviso which reads as follows :

"126. Procedure :

(1) XXX XXX XXX

(2) All evidence in such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons cases.

Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom ah order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex-parte and any order so made may be set aside for good case shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper."

6. Non-compliance of order to pay interim maintenance is not a situation envisaged to pass ex-parte order. Specific provision for ex-parte order having been made by Parliament, there is no scope for Courts to read into the provision something which is not consistent with the language of the said provision. Power to set a party ex-parte is not ancillary to exercise main power. Civil Courts might have jurisdiction in just cases to impose restriction on defaulting husband from contesting in exercise of inherent power. Such power has not been vested in criminal Courts since inherent power is vested with High Courts only under Section 482, Cr. P.C. Same principle is not possible to be applied to proceedings before Criminal Courts.’

7. Giving opportunity of being heard in a principle of natural justice which is to be followed unless statutory provision leads to a conclusion otherwise. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to hold that drastic power to take away the right to defend ought not to be invoked unless language of the statute does not envisage the same.

8. I might have considered to think differently if the persons who were given interim maintenance would not have any remedy to realise the same. Such order for interim maintenance can be executed like a final order for maintenance. Courts can execute the order promptly to give relief to eradicate vagrancy or destitution.

9. So far as wives to whom maintenance is ordered to be paid, difficulties have been removed by the Committee for implementing Legal aid schemes constituted by Central Government headed by a Sitting Judge of Supreme Court which is known as CILAS. It has intimated the Orissa State Legal Aid and Advice Board in letter dated 29-9-1989 that to cover the difficult period from the institution of proceedings for matrimonial maintenance from a husband, wife can be paid financial assistance in deserving cases by the State Board upto a ceiling of Rs. 300/- per month for a maximum period of six months with order of Court. Implementation of the scheme is simple. Wife who has an order for getting maintenance in her favour is to make an application to the Court for getting the financial assistance from the State Legal Aid Board. Court is to examine the justification of the prayer and pass an order to that effect in his favour in a deserving case. Since the amount of legal assistance to be received is to be paid back to the Board for being utilised in other deserving cases for making it a permanent scheme for temporary assistance, wife is to execute an undertaking for adjustment of the amount recovered from the husband as per order of the Court. Time for six months is adequate enough to recover the maintenance amount from the husband. Courts should be more vigilant in such cases. Introduction of this scheme is not yet made known to Courts. It is advisable that a scheme is prepared by Member-Secretary of State Legal Aid and Advice Board and circulated to all Courts dealing with maintenance of wives from husbands in this State so that it can be implemented to the benefit of destitutes by the Courts in deserving cases without waiting for any administrative direction from the High Court since the scheme is not in any manner inconsistent with administration of justice. Rather it is in furtherance of the same.

10. In this case, adopting the scheme of CJLAS, I direct the State Legal Aid and Advice Board in exercise of power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to implement the scheme on receipt of order of the Court and proposal for such financial assistance to the extent of Rs.150/- only which has been awarded as interim maintenance treating it to be an order in favour of the wife which would be utilised for benefit of children also.

11. Coming back to the order setting petitioner ex-parte, I am satisfied that learned Magistrate had no such power and this is also not a deserving case where such drastic action was called for. Accordingly, order dated 11-11-1986 is set aside and consequent final order is also vacated. Learned Magistrate shall continue the proceeding from the stage where it was on 11-11-1986. Proceeding under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code may be finalised within three months of receipt of record of this Court. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 6th May, 1991, for fixing a date of hearing.

12. In the result, both the revision are allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. Send a copy of this order to Member-Secretary, State Legal Aid and Advice Board for compliance.

********************************

FOLLOW
@ATMwithDick on twitter or
https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ (recent blog so recent cases )
FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

Orissa HC : Magistrate can order intr main u/s 125 CrPC from date of filing application. Need NOT be from date of application for *interim* maintanence or from the date of the order for interim maintenance. However the magistrate to discuss the reason for such directions.

Magistrate can order intr main u/s 125 CrPC from date of filing application. Need NOT be from date of application for *interim* maintanence or from the date of the order for interim maintenance. However the magistrate to discuss the reason for such directions.

Learning
**********************
* Quoting the Honourable HC : "……….the Magistrate has the competence to direct payment of interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. it has to be borne in mind that ordinarily the direction for payment of interim maintenance is either from the date of the order or from the date of application for interim in it If the Magistrate considering the facts and circumstances of the case before him deems it just and proper to direct that interim maintenance should be paid not from the date of the order or from the date of application for interim maintenance but from the anterior date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He should discuss the reason for such direction, (his will not only convince the parties that the jurisdiction vested in him has been exercised properly and on sound judicial principles …….."
* However in this case the hapless husband is contesting the VERY marriage
* the husband is begging as to WHY the case / main petition is NOT disposed off and why interim has to be granted !! and those thoughts are NOT discussed by the Honourable HC !!

******************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF – Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************
CASE FROM INDIAN KANOON SITE
******************************************************************

Orissa High Court

Smt. Sabita Sahoo vs Captain Khirod Kumar Sahoo on 16 October, 1990

Equivalent citations: II (1991) DMC 288

Author: D Mohapatra
Bench: D Mohapatra

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.

1. These two revision petitions are inter-linked. They are directed against different orders passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 37 of 1988 pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class Bhubaneswar With consent of the learned counsel for the parties the cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by the common order.

2. The controversy in these cases relates to payment of interim maintenance by Khirod Kumar Sahoo to Smt. Sabita Parida alias Sahu during pendency of the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for proper appreciation of the contentions raised by the counsel, it is necessary to state in short the factual backdrop of the case.

3. On the application filed by Smt. Sabita Sahu on 31.5.88 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Criminal Misc. Case No. 37 of 1988 was initiated by the Judicial Magistrate, First, Class, Bhubaneswar. In the said application she alleged, inter alia, that she had married to Khirod Kumar Sahoo, an officer of the Indian Army and they had lived as husband and wife before parting. Since her husband neglected to maintain her, she filed the application claiming maintenance.

4. Khirod Kumar Sahu denied that there was any such marriage between the parties though at one stage there was negotiation for it and therefore the claim was without any basis whatsoever. During pendency of the proceeding Sabita Sahu filed an application on 1.11.89 praying for interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month alleging, inter alia, that she had no ostensible source of livelihood, is undergoing great hardship to meet her daily needs and the case has been pending since a year. This application was also contested by the husband. The learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for interim maintenance by his order dated 12.12.89 which was the subject matter of Criminal Revision No. 71 of 1990 before this Court. That case was disposed of by order dated 2.3.90 whereby this Court set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and directed him to reconsider the matter and pass fresh order subject to certain conditions, within the period specified in the order. Thereafter the learned Magistrate heard the parties and passed the impugned order dated 29,3.90 granting the prayer for interim maintenance and directed the husband to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. This order is challenged by the husband in Criminal Revision No. 333 of 1990. The wife filed an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for enforcement of the order of interim maintenance and prayed for issue of warrant against the husband. This prayer was not accepted by the learned Magistrate who decided to issue a notice to him first and passed the order 18.6.90 accordingly. This order is being challenged by the wife in Criminal Revision No. 328 of 1990.

5. The main thrust of the argument of Shri M.M. Sahu appearing for the husband is that the learned Magistrate clearly erred in directing his client to pay interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is his further submission that the learned Magistrate has given no specific reason way interim maintenance should be paid retrospectively. Shri Sahu has also contended that no interim order of maintenance was necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and instead the main proceeding should have been disposed of expeditiously. It is also the contention of Shri Sahu that certain observations have been made by the learned Magistrate regarding the registered deed of marriage which, as contended by him, was not filed during the hearing of the petition for interim maintenance but has been noticed and relied upon by the learned Magistrate in the order. ‘

6. Shri G.S. Rath appearing for the wife, on the other hand lends full support to the impugned order and submits that considering the scope the purpose and the spirit behind the order of interim maintenance, all possible steps should be taken to avoid delay in its implementation and the amount should be realised as quickly as possible.

7. The position is not disputed before me that though Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not make any specific provision for payment of interim main tenance, the Magistrate has jurisdiction to has such order in appropriate case. It is also not in dispute that such an order which is meant primarily to avoid vagrancy and destitution to the wife cat, be passed ex parte. The controvert raised in the case relates to the date from which the order for payment of interim maintenance is to be effected. While it is the contention of Shri Sahu that ordinarily payment of interim maintenance is to be directed from the date of order or from the date of filing of the application for interim maintenance, it is the submission of Shri Rath that it is open to the Court to direct payment of interim maintenance from an anterior date, i.e. the date of fir of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Shri Rath placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Yudhistir Nayak v Smt. Rukmani Nayak, reported in 32 (1990) O.J.D. 94 (Criminal) which is also noted by the learned Magistrate.

8. I have perused the order of the learned Magistrate granting intern maintenance. It is patent from it that the learned Magistrate has not any specific reason for his direction for payment of interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C and not from the date of the application for interim maintenance of from the date of the order. Though the position is not in dispute that the Magistrate has the competence to direct payment of interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. it has to be borne in mind that ordinarily the direction for payment of interim maintenance is either from the date of the order or from the date of application for interim in it If the Magistrate considering the facts and circumstances of the case before him deems it just and proper to direct that interim maintenance should be paid not from the date of the order or from the date of application for interim maintenance but from the anterior date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He should discuss the reason for such direction, (his will not only convince the parties that the jurisdiction vested in him has been exercised properly and on sound judicial principles but it will also avoid criticism of arbitrariness against his order. While deciding a case it is important to determine whether the Court has the power/jurisdiction to grant the prayer of the applicant and it is equally important to exercise such power legally and properly.

9. Coming to the decision in the case of Yudhistir Nayak v. Smt. Rukmani Nayak (supra) in that case this Court discussing the facts and circumstances of the case decided not to interfere with the order of the Magistrate granting interim maintenance from the date of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the present case though the learned Magistrate has referred to the above decision in his order he has made no attempt to ascertain if the facts and circumstances in the two case’s are comparable and similar. However, in view of the order I propose to pass, it is not necessary to delve further into the matter.

10. On perusal of the lower Court record, it appears that there has been some delay in disposal of the case on account of the application filed by the wife to amend her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to change the date of the marriage. The matter has now been set at rest by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 70 of 1990 wherein the prayer for amendment has been allowed. Now the parties are to lead evidence in support of their respective cases.

11. Considering the stage at which the proceeding stands, the purpose and the spirit behind the order for interim maintenance and the necessity to avoid unnecessary delay in finalisation of the controversy, I deem it proper to dispose of the revision petitions in the following manner :

(i) The husband Khirod Kumar Sahu will deposit a lump sum amount of Rs. 3,600/- towards interim maintenance in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhubaneswar by the 6th of November, 1990;

(ii) On the said amount being deposited, it will be open to Smt.. Sabita Sahu to withdraw the same.

(iii) The learned Magistrate will dispose of the Criminal Misc. Case No. 37 of 1988 within six weeks from the date of deposit of the aforementioned amount in the Court.

(iv) While deciding the case the learned Magistrate will not be influenced by any observation made in the order dated 29.3.80, particularly regarding the registered deed of marriage and will dispose of the case in accordance with law.

(v) The order of interim maintenance will be subject to the result of the case.

12. Both the criminal revisions are disposed of in the manner aforesaid.

***********************************************

FOLLOW
@ATMwithDick on twitter or
https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ (recent blog so recent cases )
FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist