Monthly Archives: August 2015

Husband lost his job due 2 wife’s behaviour. Still wife gets 7000 p.m. as maintenance / MOOLAH !!

ALL in the interest of justice and Equity
***********************************************
Husband lost his job due 2 wife’s behaviour.
Still wife gets 7000 p.m. as maintenance / MOOLAH !!
***********************************************
Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Kamalesh Mukherjee Snandy Vs. Dipannita Mukhopadhyay
11 August, 2015
Author: Harish Tandon
CO 2866 of 2015
Item No. SL-13
***********************************************
Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, Advocate
Mr. Shivaji Mitra, Advocate ……for the Petitioner
***********************************************
This revisional application is directed against the order dated no. 11 dated May 19, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Hooghly in Matrimonial Suit No. 628 of 2013 by which the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is disposed of. The husband/petitioner filed the aforesaid suit under Section 12 of the Act for declaration that the marriage is a nullity.

It fell from the learned Advocate for the petitioner that his client is a diploma holder and was at one point of time in gainful employment. According to him, the petitioner lost the job because of the behaviour of the wife/opposite party and is presently unemployed.

In an application under Section 24 of the Act, the wife asserts that the monthly income of the husband is Rs.20,000/- per month which has not been denied by the husband/petitioner except that he is not presently in gainful employment. The petitioner is an able-bodied person and has a capacity to earn. If at one point of time he was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month, the Court shall not deny the maintenance to the wife on the basis of the submission of the husband that he is not in employment.

The Trial Court considered the status of the parties in the society and have further taken into account the prices of the essential commodities and directed the alimony pendente lite of Rs.7,000/- per month to be paid to the wife from the date of the order. The Trial Court appears to have taken a lenient approach in the matter in not directing the alimony to be paid from the date of the application. It appears that there is no issue from the said wedlock.

This Court does not find that the sum of Rs.7,000/- towards the alimony is too excessive and not in commensurate with the income of the husband.

This Court, therefore, does not find any grounds warranting the interference with the impugned order.

The revisional application thus fails. No order as to costs.

(Harish Tandon, J.)


*****************************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 or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. 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 and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . 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 with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

Advertisements

File 498a, 506 collect money & suddenly there is a VOLUNTARY compromise. “Voluntary” I say!. P&H HC

* modus operandi of VOLUNTARY compromises explained
* filing criminal cases on husband and in laws, threatening them with arrest etc NOT elaborated !!

*****************************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 or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. 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 and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . 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 with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-13878 of 2015
Date of Decision: August 21, 2015

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

Naveen ….Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another …..Respondents

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

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

*************************
Present: Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Vishal Kashyap, AAG, Haryana.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
*************************

Rajan Gupta, J (Oral)

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of F.I.R No. 101 dated 5.4.2013 registered under Sections 498-A/506/323 IPC at Police Station, Bhawanikhera, District Bhiwani and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

Learned counsel for the parties submit that during the pendency of this petition a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and dispute has been amicably settled. Relying upon the judgment reported as Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, learned counsel submit that in view of compromise, the impugned F.I.R deserves to be quashed.

Learned State counsel does not dispute the ratio of judgment in Kulwinder Singh’s case supra and submit that in case a compromise is arrived at between the parties the State shall not stand in the way of quashing of F.I.R.

Heard It appears that on 30.4.2015, a direction was issued by this court to record the statements of the parties with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise. A report has been received from the trial court. Operative part thereof reads thus:-

“Consequently, both the parties i.e accused as well as the
complainant have appeared and accordingly, their separate statements
along with a joint statement on oath have been recorded, wherein,
complainant and accused namely, Sunita and Naveen have submitted that
a compromise has been effected with the accused. Complainant Sunita
has stated that she has received all alimony regarding her
maintenance and they both have filed a mutual divorce petition and
now she does not want any action against the accused and she has no
objection in cancellation of FIR Similarly the statement of mother of
complainant Ishwanti has also been recorded. Statement of accused
Naveen has also been recorded wherein he has stated that a compromise
has been effected and he has paid all alimony regarding maintenance
allowance of complainant Sunita and the compromise has been effected
out of their free will, consent and without any coercion or undue
influence. The aforesaid compromise effected between the parties is
for the welfare of both the parties and they have compromised the
matter with their own sweet will and without any pressure or
influence and thus they have no objection if the FIR is quashed.

In view of aforesaid circumstances a compromise has been voluntarily
effected between the parties to my belief and the aforesaid
compromise is genuine and outcome of free consent of both the parties.”

The compromise is in the interest of the parties and after the matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuance of the criminal proceedings. In view of above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in light of Full Bench judgment of this court in Kulwinder Singh’s case supra. http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The F.I.R in question and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

(Rajan Gupta) Judge

August 21, 2015

BB

ablaa takes 7.5lakhs & refuses mutual consent. Husband runs 2 HC who tells him 2 go file fresh case !

Lots of ppl ask us what is the format for mutual consent AFTER PAYMENT !! we safely tell them we have NO such format ! Here is a Taza case, decreed just 1 week ago, showing a harassed husband who has lost 7.5lakhs and is now running pillar to post ..sorry court to court after wife took the money and showed him the door

Again ladies and gentlemen, I am NOT making this up !!. This is all from reported Judgements of honourable courts !!

*****************************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 or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. 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 and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . 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 with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

F.A. No. 156 of 2014

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

Rajeev Ranjan Singh, S/o Sudarshan Singh, Qr. No.3062, Sector 12/B P.O & P.S. -Sector-12, B.S.City, District. Bokaro, Thro’ his father Sri Sudarshan Singh, Power of Attorney Holder ……….. ………..Appellant

Versus-

Shweta Kumari, W/o Rajeev Ranjan Singh, D/o Suresh Prasad Singh, Qr. No.- 1212, Sector 12F, PO&PS-Sector 12, B.S.City, Dist.Bokaro……….Respondent

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

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT

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

For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Ashray Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : none

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

05/ Dated: 24th August, 2015

Per Virender Singh, C.J.:

1. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the appellant sub- mits that in fact the respondent-wife has deceived the appellant and took a clever turn by withdrawing from according consent to the mutual divorce after once agreeing to it, and setting the dispute for good after receiving a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-, vide two different drafts as one time permanent alimony and maintenance. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that those all settlements arrived at between the parties have been reduced into writing and both the sides had agreed to go ahead with a petition under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

3. Be that as it may, they all can be said to be a good ground for the appellant to move the court concerned once again seeking decree of divorce but not for the purposes of disturbing the impugned order.

4. Faced with this situation, counsel for the appellant states that he may be allowed to withdraw the instant appeal enabling the appellant-husband to file a fresh petition in the court concerned seeking decree of divorce on all the pleas available to him including the grounds taken herein.

5. Prayer acceded to.

6. Resultantly, the appeal, on hand, stands dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.

(Virender Singh, C.J.) (P.P. Bhatt, J.) Anu/SI/LAK

It’s just coincidental that we shared a path… ! should that make me a criminal ?

* I was on my way, just like everyday in my life.

* It’s coincidental / just fate that we took the same path.

* Now she has a photo of me & charged me with crimes

* half the world looks at me like a criminal

* I’m innocent

* What have I done to get this ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please read those lines once again. This is NOT the Jasleen Kaur, Sarvjeet Singh story. This is the story of millions of husbands and their families. They are charged JUST on the words of a woman, many times no photos even !! It’s just their fate they got into marriage, they got into a gamble. This is BEYOND politics.

This is the story of male servitude and misery in India

SPEEDY JUSTICE for innocents ! a.k.a. inquiry commissions for retired judges !!

SPEEDY JUSTICE and SAFETY of the innocents ! a.k.a. inquiry commissions for retired judges !!

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

Violence, Gundagiri @ Hon Egmore MM court (Chennai) has been on news for quite some time.

Attacks, and even one murder has happened within court premises.

Groups of lawyers have clashed against each other, litigants terrorized etc all in broad daylight !!

Criminal cases against such attacks is pending before Hon Madras HC for FOUR years !!

We understand that in this case, "…The then Commissioner of Police Mr. Tripathy filed a detailed counter, with a list of 23 cases against 75 lawyers, most of them practising in Egmore court. Mr. Tripathy said police on court duty were harassed by advocates…" !!

Now (in Aug ’15) the court is planning to appoint AN inquiry commission to look into the matter !!!