Daily Archives: August 2, 2014

Husband to pay 3lakh alimony after winning cruelty & desertion divorce 9 years ago! Hon P&H HC


Husband to pay 3lakh alimony after winning cruelty & desertion divorce 9 years ago! Hon P&H HC

* husband on 18.12.2003 filed a petition seeking dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on ground of desertion and cruelty.
* The petition of husband was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Moga vide judgment and decree dated 02.05.2005
* and the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce.
* wife appeals
* wife gets Rs 3 Lakhs as permanent alimony in mediation / negotiations

*****************************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 movement. SIF as a concept 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 Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo .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 JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

F.A.O. No.162-M of 2005 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 28.07.2014

Urmila Devi ….Appellant

v.

Saudesh Kumar ….Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NAVITA SINGH

Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.S. Singla, Advocate for the respondent.

****

S.S. Saron, J.

C.M. No.14467-CII of 2014

C.M. No.14467-CII of 2014 has been filed for fixing the appeal for actual date of hearing and for payment of Rs.2 lacs to the appellant-wife as per compromise dated 23.04.2014 which was arrived at between the parties in Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Notice of C.M.

Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for non-applicant-appellant accepts notice. He has no objection to the appeal being taken up for hearing today itself.

Accordingly, the appeal is taken up for hearing.

The marriage between the parties was solemnised according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Yakkopur Kalan, Tehsil Shahpur District Jalandhar on 14.10.1996. After marriage, the parties resided together at Village Chuhar Chak, Teshil and District Moga. They resided together for two years and from the marriage, they had a child who died few months after birth. Due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the respondent- husband on 18.12.2003 filed a petition seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The petition of the respondent-husband was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Moga vide his judgment and decree dated 02.05.2005 and the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce. The appellant-wife aggrieved against the same filed the present appeal.

Notice of motion was issued on 04.07.2005. The parties were present in Court on 09.03.2006. The appellant had agreed to return to the respondent and the respondent also agreed to keep her happily. The case was adjourned to 20.04.2006 to await the outcome of the reunion. However, the parties again fell apart. They were again present on 24.04.2006. The appellant was willing to accompany the respondent- husband, who had no objection. Brother of the appellant, namely, Jaswinder Pal Singh, it was stated was interfering in the matrimonial life of the appellant. He was directed to keep away from the matrimonial house of his sister till the next date of hearing. Other criminal proceedings said to be initiated were also stayed. Ultimately the parties were directed to appear in Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court vide order dated 23.01.2014. In the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, a settlement/ compromise was reached at between the parties on 23.04.2014 which was recorded in writing signed by both the parties, the relatives of the parties and their counsel as well. It was inter-alia agreed that the respondent- husband will pay a total lump sum amount of Rs.3 lacs towards maintenance and permanent alimony. The payment of Rs.1 lac was to be paid on 08.05.2014 and demand of draft of Rs.2 lacs was to be paid on 08.07.2014. The appellant had agreed to withdraw the present appeal on the receipt of second and final instalment, i.e. on 08.07.2014. She had also undertaken to withdraw the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure titled "Urmila Devi v. Saudesh Kumar" pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nakodar within a week from the date of payment of the amount. Both the parties also agreed that they shall not file initiate/ pursue any pending further civil and criminal litigation of any kind whatsoever arising out of the matrimony between the parties or their respective family members. It is admitted by learned counsel for the appellant that an amount of Rs.1 lac has been received by the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent has tendered draft No.183175 dated 07.07.2014 drawn on Union Bank of India, S.D. Secondary School, Moga for an amount of Rs.2 lacs in favour of Urmila Devi – appellant. The said draft has been handed over to learned counsel for the appellant, who has accepted the same on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in terms of the compromise, the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the compromise. There shall be no order as to costs.

( S.S. SARON )
JUDGE

( NAVITA SINGH )
JUDGE

July 28, 2014

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

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ 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

Husband to pay 3lakh alimony after winning cruelty & desertion divorce 9 years ago! Hon P&H HC


Husband to pay 3lakh alimony after winning cruelty & desertion divorce 9 years ago! Hon P&H HC

* husband on 18.12.2003 filed a petition seeking dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on ground of desertion and cruelty.
* The petition of husband was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Moga vide judgment and decree dated 02.05.2005
* and the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce.
* wife appeals
* wife gets Rs 3 Lakhs as permanent alimony in mediation / negotiations

*****************************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 movement. SIF as a concept 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 JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

F.A.O. No.162-M of 2005 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 28.07.2014

Urmila Devi ….Appellant

v.

Saudesh Kumar ….Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NAVITA SINGH

Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.S. Singla, Advocate for the respondent.

****

S.S. Saron, J.

C.M. No.14467-CII of 2014

C.M. No.14467-CII of 2014 has been filed for fixing the appeal for actual date of hearing and for payment of Rs.2 lacs to the appellant-wife as per compromise dated 23.04.2014 which was arrived at between the parties in Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Notice of C.M.

Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for non-applicant-appellant accepts notice. He has no objection to the appeal being taken up for hearing today itself.

Accordingly, the appeal is taken up for hearing.

The marriage between the parties was solemnised according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Yakkopur Kalan, Tehsil Shahpur District Jalandhar on 14.10.1996. After marriage, the parties resided together at Village Chuhar Chak, Teshil and District Moga. They resided together for two years and from the marriage, they had a child who died few months after birth. Due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the respondent- husband on 18.12.2003 filed a petition seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The petition of the respondent-husband was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Moga vide his judgment and decree dated 02.05.2005 and the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce. The appellant-wife aggrieved against the same filed the present appeal.

Notice of motion was issued on 04.07.2005. The parties were present in Court on 09.03.2006. The appellant had agreed to return to the respondent and the respondent also agreed to keep her happily. The case was adjourned to 20.04.2006 to await the outcome of the reunion. However, the parties again fell apart. They were again present on 24.04.2006. The appellant was willing to accompany the respondent- husband, who had no objection. Brother of the appellant, namely, Jaswinder Pal Singh, it was stated was interfering in the matrimonial life of the appellant. He was directed to keep away from the matrimonial house of his sister till the next date of hearing. Other criminal proceedings said to be initiated were also stayed. Ultimately the parties were directed to appear in Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court vide order dated 23.01.2014. In the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, a settlement/ compromise was reached at between the parties on 23.04.2014 which was recorded in writing signed by both the parties, the relatives of the parties and their counsel as well. It was inter-alia agreed that the respondent- husband will pay a total lump sum amount of Rs.3 lacs towards maintenance and permanent alimony. The payment of Rs.1 lac was to be paid on 08.05.2014 and demand of draft of Rs.2 lacs was to be paid on 08.07.2014. The appellant had agreed to withdraw the present appeal on the receipt of second and final instalment, i.e. on 08.07.2014. She had also undertaken to withdraw the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure titled "Urmila Devi v. Saudesh Kumar" pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nakodar within a week from the date of payment of the amount. Both the parties also agreed that they shall not file initiate/ pursue any pending further civil and criminal litigation of any kind whatsoever arising out of the matrimony between the parties or their respective family members. It is admitted by learned counsel for the appellant that an amount of Rs.1 lac has been received by the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent has tendered draft No.183175 dated 07.07.2014 drawn on Union Bank of India, S.D. Secondary School, Moga for an amount of Rs.2 lacs in favour of Urmila Devi – appellant. The said draft has been handed over to learned counsel for the appellant, who has accepted the same on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in terms of the compromise, the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the compromise. There shall be no order as to costs.

( S.S. SARON )
JUDGE

( NAVITA SINGH )
JUDGE

July 28, 2014

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

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ 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

498-A etc on hubby &co quashed on 7.5Lakhs pmt. Dowry case NOT against society so quash. Hon P&H HC

* wife has filed 498A on hubby, father + mother in law, brother in law etc etc

* at mediation hubby agrees to pay rs 7.5 lakhs

* wife agrees to quash !!!

* HC quotes many cases and quashes 498A

*****************************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 movement. SIF as a concept 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 JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Misc. No.M-8757 of 2014

Date of Decision: 25.07.2014

Gulshan Kumar and others ….Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another ….Respondents

BEFORE :- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

Present:- Mr. Viney Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Pradeep Virk, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

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

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

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

Petitioners, namely Gulshan Kumar, Kundal Lal, Tarun Kumar and Tamanna are accused in case FIR No.64 dated 14.02.2011 registered under Sections 498-A/506/323 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Ambala City.

Petitioner no.1 is husband, petitioner No.2 is father-in-law, petitioner No.3 is brother-in-law (jeth) and petitioner No.4 is sister-in-law (jethani) of the complainant-respondent No.2. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 25.11.2000. However, out of the said wedlock, two children were born but subsequently, due to temperamental differences, both the parties could not live together and started living separately since 14.02.2011. Complainant-respondent No.2 made a complaint, on the basis of which, an FIR, in dispute was registered against the present petitioners.

During pendency of the proceedings, the parties settled their dispute with the intervention of relatives. It was settled between the parties that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 would obtain decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent and the petitioner No.1 will pay a sum of ` 7,50,000/- as permanent alimony and both the children will remain with complainant-respondent No.2. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

The petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present petition for quashing of FIR, in dispute, on the basis of compromise.

While issuing notice of motion on 11.03.2014, the directions were also issued to the parties to appear before the trial Court for recording of their respective statements with regard to compromise and the trial Court was also directed to send its report along with statements of the parties.

However, in compliance of said directions of this Court, the statements of all the parties were recorded before the trial Court, wherein, the factum of compromise was affirmed. The complainant-respondent No.2 -wife has also specifically stated in her statement that she has no objection in quashing of FIR registered against the petitioners. As per report sent by the trial Court, the compromise is genuine and the statements made by the parties are as per their own free will. The copy of compromise with certain terms and conditions has also been placed on record, which has duly been signed by petitioner No.1-husband and complainant/respondent No.2-wife.

Since the dispute between the parties has been settled by way of compromise and the complainant has no objection in quashing of the proceedings and moreover, no purpose would be served, in case, the proceedings are allowed to be continued as ultimate result would be acquittal as the complainant is not going to support the case of the prosecution because of compromise, the continuation of the proceedings would be an exercise in futility which will not only amount to wastage of valuable time of the Court but it would not be in the interest of both the parties also. The continuation of the proceedings would be abuse of process of Court and the same would not be in the interest of justice. This Court has power to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C have been designed to achieve that the proceedings may not be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution as has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in case State of Karnataka vs L. Muniswami AIR 1977 SC 1489.

It has been observed by Hon’ble the Apex Court that though justice has to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution. The relevant observations of made therein are reproduced as under :-

" In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High
Court is entitled to quash the proceeding if it comes
to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to
continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court
or that the ends of justice require that the
proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High
Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal
matters is designed to achieve that a court proceeding
ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon
of harassment or prosecution. In a criminal case, the
veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very
nature of the material on which the structure of the
prosecution rests and the like would justify the High
Court in quashing the proceedings in the interest of
justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends
of mere law though justice has not to be administered
according to the laws made by the legislature. The
compelling necessity for making these observations is
that without a proper realization of which seeks to
save the inherent powers of the High Court to do so
justice between the State and its subjects it would be
impossible to appreciate the width the contours of
that salient jurisdiction."

A larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh vs State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR Criminal 1052 has also observed that the proceedings can be quashed even in case of non-compoundable offences, in case, the compromise is there between the parties. The observations of this Court are reproduced as under :-

" Criminal Procedure Code, Section 320(9) – Criminal
Procedure Code, Section 482 – Compounding of offences
which are non-compoundable under Section 320(9)
Cr.P.C. – Offence non-compoundable, but parties
entering into compromise-High Court has power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C allow the compounding of non-
compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where
the High Court felt that the same was required to
prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to
otherwise secure the ends of justice – This power of
quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes
alone. …."

In the present case, the dispute between the parties is matrimonial and the same is not against the Society. On the basis of compromise, the marriage between the parties has also been dissolved. In case of matrimonial dispute, because of strained relations, multiple litigation is there between the parties. Sometimes not only the strained relations are there between husband and wife but other family members and also the distant relations are implicated. Sometimes tendency of false implication is also there because of the strained relations. Even after acquittal by the Courts, some impressions are there on the parties which not only affect their future prospects but the bitterness becomes a part of life.

Hon’ble the Apex Court has observed in judgment PreetiGupta and another vs State of Jharkhand and another 2010(7) SCC667 as under :-

"30. It is a matter of common experience that most of
these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in
the heat of the moment over trivial issues without
proper deliberations. We come across a large number of
such complaints which are not even bona fide and are
filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid
increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry
harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous
social responsibility and obligation to ensure that
the social fiber of family life is not ruined or
demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions
of small incidents should not be reflected in the
criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are
filed either on their advice or with their
concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong
to a noble profession must maintain its noble
traditions and should treat every complaint under
section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make
serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at
an amicable resolution of that human problem. They
must discharge their duties to the best of their
abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and
tranquility of the society remains intact. The members
of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint
should not lead to multiple cases.

32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the
complaint the implications and consequences are not
properly visualized by the complainant that such
complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony
and pain to the complainant, accused and his close
relations.

33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the
truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent.
To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority
of these complaints. The tendency of implicating
husband and all his immediate relations is also not
uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of
criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real
truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and
cautious in dealing with these complaints and must
take pragmatic realities into consideration while
dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of
harassment of husband’s close relations who had been
living in different cities and never visited or rarely
visited the place where the complainant resided would
have an entirely different complexion. The allegations
of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with
great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that
long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour,
acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst
the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge
that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband
or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even
for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable
settlement altogether. The process of suffering is
extremely long and painful.

34. Before parting with this case, we would like to
observe that a serious re-look of the entire provision
is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter
of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the
incident are reflected in a large number of
complaints. The tendency of over implication is also
reflected in a very large number of cases.

35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings
for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the
trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars
of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number
of these complaints have not only flooded the courts
but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting
peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is
high time that the legislature must take into
consideration the pragmatic realities and make
suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative
for the legislature to take into consideration the
informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in
consideration and make necessary changes in the
relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to
send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and
to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who
may place it before the Hon’ble Minister for Law &
Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger
interest of the society."

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.64 dated 14.02.2011 registered under Sections 498-A/506/323 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Ambala City along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua petitioners-Gulshan Kumar, Kundan Lal, Tarun Kumar and Tamanna.

(DAYA CHAUDHARY)

JUDGE

25.07.2014

gurpreet

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

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

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ 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

498-A etc on hubby &co quashed on 7.5Lakhs pmt. Dowry case NOT against society so quash. Hon P&H HC

* wife has filed 498A on hubby, father + mother in law, brother in law etc etc

* at mediation hubby agrees to pay rs 7.5 lakhs

* wife agrees to quash !!!

* HC quotes many cases and quashes 498A

*****************************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 movement. SIF as a concept 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 JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Misc. No.M-8757 of 2014

Date of Decision: 25.07.2014

Gulshan Kumar and others ….Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another ….Respondents

BEFORE :- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

Present:- Mr. Viney Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Pradeep Virk, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

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

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

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

Petitioners, namely Gulshan Kumar, Kundal Lal, Tarun Kumar and Tamanna are accused in case FIR No.64 dated 14.02.2011 registered under Sections 498-A/506/323 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Ambala City.

Petitioner no.1 is husband, petitioner No.2 is father-in-law, petitioner No.3 is brother-in-law (jeth) and petitioner No.4 is sister-in-law (jethani) of the complainant-respondent No.2. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 25.11.2000. However, out of the said wedlock, two children were born but subsequently, due to temperamental differences, both the parties could not live together and started living separately since 14.02.2011. Complainant-respondent No.2 made a complaint, on the basis of which, an FIR, in dispute was registered against the present petitioners.

During pendency of the proceedings, the parties settled their dispute with the intervention of relatives. It was settled between the parties that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 would obtain decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent and the petitioner No.1 will pay a sum of ` 7,50,000/- as permanent alimony and both the children will remain with complainant-respondent No.2. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

The petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present petition for quashing of FIR, in dispute, on the basis of compromise.

While issuing notice of motion on 11.03.2014, the directions were also issued to the parties to appear before the trial Court for recording of their respective statements with regard to compromise and the trial Court was also directed to send its report along with statements of the parties.

However, in compliance of said directions of this Court, the statements of all the parties were recorded before the trial Court, wherein, the factum of compromise was affirmed. The complainant-respondent No.2 -wife has also specifically stated in her statement that she has no objection in quashing of FIR registered against the petitioners. As per report sent by the trial Court, the compromise is genuine and the statements made by the parties are as per their own free will. The copy of compromise with certain terms and conditions has also been placed on record, which has duly been signed by petitioner No.1-husband and complainant/respondent No.2-wife.

Since the dispute between the parties has been settled by way of compromise and the complainant has no objection in quashing of the proceedings and moreover, no purpose would be served, in case, the proceedings are allowed to be continued as ultimate result would be acquittal as the complainant is not going to support the case of the prosecution because of compromise, the continuation of the proceedings would be an exercise in futility which will not only amount to wastage of valuable time of the Court but it would not be in the interest of both the parties also. The continuation of the proceedings would be abuse of process of Court and the same would not be in the interest of justice. This Court has power to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C have been designed to achieve that the proceedings may not be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution as has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in case State of Karnataka vs L. Muniswami AIR 1977 SC 1489.

It has been observed by Hon’ble the Apex Court that though justice has to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution. The relevant observations of made therein are reproduced as under :-

" In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High
Court is entitled to quash the proceeding if it comes
to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to
continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court
or that the ends of justice require that the
proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High
Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal
matters is designed to achieve that a court proceeding
ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon
of harassment or prosecution. In a criminal case, the
veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very
nature of the material on which the structure of the
prosecution rests and the like would justify the High
Court in quashing the proceedings in the interest of
justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends
of mere law though justice has not to be administered
according to the laws made by the legislature. The
compelling necessity for making these observations is
that without a proper realization of which seeks to
save the inherent powers of the High Court to do so
justice between the State and its subjects it would be
impossible to appreciate the width the contours of
that salient jurisdiction."

A larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh vs State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR Criminal 1052 has also observed that the proceedings can be quashed even in case of non-compoundable offences, in case, the compromise is there between the parties. The observations of this Court are reproduced as under :-

" Criminal Procedure Code, Section 320(9) – Criminal
Procedure Code, Section 482 – Compounding of offences
which are non-compoundable under Section 320(9)
Cr.P.C. – Offence non-compoundable, but parties
entering into compromise-High Court has power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C allow the compounding of non-
compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where
the High Court felt that the same was required to
prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to
otherwise secure the ends of justice – This power of
quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes
alone. …."

In the present case, the dispute between the parties is matrimonial and the same is not against the Society. On the basis of compromise, the marriage between the parties has also been dissolved. In case of matrimonial dispute, because of strained relations, multiple litigation is there between the parties. Sometimes not only the strained relations are there between husband and wife but other family members and also the distant relations are implicated. Sometimes tendency of false implication is also there because of the strained relations. Even after acquittal by the Courts, some impressions are there on the parties which not only affect their future prospects but the bitterness becomes a part of life.

Hon’ble the Apex Court has observed in judgment PreetiGupta and another vs State of Jharkhand and another 2010(7) SCC667 as under :-

"30. It is a matter of common experience that most of
these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in
the heat of the moment over trivial issues without
proper deliberations. We come across a large number of
such complaints which are not even bona fide and are
filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid
increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry
harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous
social responsibility and obligation to ensure that
the social fiber of family life is not ruined or
demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions
of small incidents should not be reflected in the
criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are
filed either on their advice or with their
concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong
to a noble profession must maintain its noble
traditions and should treat every complaint under
section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make
serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at
an amicable resolution of that human problem. They
must discharge their duties to the best of their
abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and
tranquility of the society remains intact. The members
of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint
should not lead to multiple cases.

32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the
complaint the implications and consequences are not
properly visualized by the complainant that such
complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony
and pain to the complainant, accused and his close
relations.

33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the
truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent.
To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority
of these complaints. The tendency of implicating
husband and all his immediate relations is also not
uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of
criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real
truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and
cautious in dealing with these complaints and must
take pragmatic realities into consideration while
dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of
harassment of husband’s close relations who had been
living in different cities and never visited or rarely
visited the place where the complainant resided would
have an entirely different complexion. The allegations
of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with
great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that
long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour,
acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst
the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge
that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband
or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even
for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable
settlement altogether. The process of suffering is
extremely long and painful.

34. Before parting with this case, we would like to
observe that a serious re-look of the entire provision
is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter
of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the
incident are reflected in a large number of
complaints. The tendency of over implication is also
reflected in a very large number of cases.

35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings
for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the
trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars
of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number
of these complaints have not only flooded the courts
but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting
peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is
high time that the legislature must take into
consideration the pragmatic realities and make
suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative
for the legislature to take into consideration the
informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in
consideration and make necessary changes in the
relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to
send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and
to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who
may place it before the Hon’ble Minister for Law &
Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger
interest of the society."

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.64 dated 14.02.2011 registered under Sections 498-A/506/323 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Ambala City along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua petitioners-Gulshan Kumar, Kundan Lal, Tarun Kumar and Tamanna.

(DAYA CHAUDHARY)

JUDGE

25.07.2014

gurpreet

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

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

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ 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

Husband 2 pay 15lakh (1.5Mill) alimony even after CRUELTY & DESERTION divorce: Jarkhand HC 30 Jul ’14


Husband earning Rs 70 K p.m. ordered to pay 15 lakhs (1.5 Mill) permanent alimony to wife AFTER a decree of divorce on grounds of CRUELTY & DESERTION !! : Jarkhand HC 30 Jul ’14

* Divorce (cruelty and desertion) granted asking husband to pay Rs 10,000 p.m. or Rs. 7 lakhs as permanent alimony
* Wife does NOT appeal divorce, but seeks more money … ONLY
* Husband ready to Pay rs. 12 Lakhs thru mediation… wife disagrees and seeks min Rs. 15 Lakhs
* HC directs husband to pay Rs. 15 Lakhs in the interests of justice .. To quote "…to ensure that the wife is paid maintenance befitting of the status of the parties. Thus taking into account the rise in the cost of living and the devaluation of money, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent – husband – Sandeep Santosh to pay a permanent alimony and maintenance of Rs.15,00,000/-. …."

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

*****************************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 movement. SIF as a concept 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 JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

F. A. No. 89 of 2013

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

Smt. Reena Kumari @ Apporva … …. …. Appellant

Versus

Shree Sandeep Santosh …. …. …. Respondent

**********

CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

**********

For the Appellant : Mr. Raj Nandan Sahay, Advocate Mr. Rabindra Prasad, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Dilip Jereth, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Abinash Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate & Mr. Veer Vijay Pradhan, Advocate
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
**********

Pronounced on 30/07/2014

Per Amitav K. Gupta, J :

The instant appeal is arisen out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih in Title (Matrimonial) Suit No.10 of 2008, whereby the marriage of the appellant, Reena Kumari @ Apporva and respondent, Shree Sandeep Santosh was dissolved in terms of Section 13 (i) (a) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion and the respondent was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month or fixed alimony and maintenance of Rs.7,00,000/- in lump sum to be paid by the respondent within six months from the date of order.

2. In the present appeal the appellant has not challenged the judgment and decree of dissolution of marriage however, she has impugned the quantum of permanent alimony and maintenance of Rs.7,00,000/- as too meagre.

3. Since the only issue to be adjudicated is with respect to the quantum of maintenance and alimony of Rs.7,00,000/-. It would be necessary to refer the provisions of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which reads as under :-

"Permanent alimony and maintenance – (1) Any court
exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the
time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent
thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by
either the wife or the husband, as the case may be,
order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant
for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum
or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not
exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard
to the respondent’s own income and other property, if
any, the income and other property of the applicant [
the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of
the case], it may seem to the court to be just, and
any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a
charge on the immovable property of the respondent.

(2) If the court is satisfied that there is a change
in the circumstances of either party at any time after
it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may at
the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind
any such order in such manner as the court may deem
just.

(3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose
favour an order has been made under this section has
re-married or, if such party is the wife, that she has
not remained chase, or, if such party is the husband,
that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman
outside wedlock, [it may at the instance of the other
party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such
manner as the court may deem just]."

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the monthly salary of the respondent at the time of filing of Matrimonial Suit was Rs.22,000/- and evidence was laid that the respondent earns Rs.1,00,000/- from the landed property situated at his native place, besides the monthly salary. It is submitted that the appellant is gainfully employed as Lecturer in National Institute of Technology (N.I.T.) Kurushetra, Haryana presently drawing a salary of more than Rs.70,000/-. It urged that the appellant does not have any fixed source of income and considering the steep rise in the cost of living the alimony of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) should be enhanced. It is urged that the appellant is residing in her parental house and dependent upon her aged parents.

5. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondent has submitted that no doubt the salary statement of the respondent, for the month of June, 2014 shows that his gross salary is Rs.73,000/- per month but the respondent had taken loan from the bank to pay the permanent alimony amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, as ordered by the learned Trial Court. That he is paying monthly E.M.I of Rs.8,500/- to the bank for liquidation of the loan amount; that he has also taken home loan from his C.P.F account, for which Rs.17,000/- per month is deducted and his net take hand pay comes to around Rs.31,000/-.

6. Heard. This Court had directed the parties to settle the matter amicably to which the respondent had argued to pay Rs.12,00,000/- which is not agreeable and acceptable by the appellant who demanded that permanent alimony of maintenance be enhanced to Rs.15,00,000/-.

7. It is to be noted that essence of the provision for maintenance is to ensure that the financially weaker spouse is reasonably provided for by the other. The social status and living standard of the parties is to be taken into consideration. Admittedly, the appellant is a middle aged lady and on query, she has stated that she is employed as a Teacher in a private school. It is admitted by her that all the articles given at the time of marriage along with bank draft amounting to Rs.4,52,000/- have been returned by the respondent to her.

8. The appellant has not re-married and is residing with her aged parents. It is settled principle that directing the payment of alimony or maintenance is not in the nature of penalty, but only to ensure that the wife is paid maintenance befitting of the status of the parties. Thus taking into account the rise in the cost of living and the devaluation of money, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent – husband – Sandeep Santosh to pay a permanent alimony and maintenance of Rs.15,00,000/-. At this stage the respondent has submitted that he is willing to pay the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- but seeks liberty to pay Rs.7,00,000/- within two weeks from the date of the order and remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- in installments as he has to repay the loan taken by him from the bank and also from his C.P.F account. This has not been objected to by the appellant.

9. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances, the respondent is directed to pay Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) by way of demand draft drawn in the name of the appellant – Reena Kumari @ Apporva, within two weeks from the date of this order. He shall pay the remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) in four equal instalments of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs). The first instalment to be paid within the first week of November, 2014 and remaining each of the three instalments shall be paid at an interval of three months.

10. It is also made clear that if the said amount is not paid within the stipulated period, then the respondent – husband shall pay an interest @ 9% on the unpaid amount. The appellant is also at liberty to realize the unpaid amount in accordance with law.

11. With the said direction and observations the appeal is allowed in part with the aforesaid modification of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court/ Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih in Title Matrimonial Suit No.10 of 2008.

(R. Banumathi, C. J.)

(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Dated 30/07/2014

Chandan/- A.F.R

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

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

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ 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