Monthly Archives: October 2015

Sati is abolished, but MEN are BURNING !! Woman has sex with 53-year-old & sets him on fire

Woman has sex with 53-year-old priest, then sets him on fire

ETV Rajasthan | Thu Oct 29, 2015 | 12:06 IST

#Sawai Madhopur #Rajasthan

A 53-year-old man was burnt by his lover in a guest house in Delhi’s Sarae Kale Khan area on Tuesday.

Gajanan, the victim belonged to Rajasthan’s Sawai Madhopur and is a priest by profession and also an astrologer.

According to police reports, Gajanan was found burnt and naked in the room. The woman after setting the room on fire ran away. Both of them were in a comprising situation and the woman on the pretext of dousing the fire, wore her clothes and left the room.

The man received several injuries and was admitted to Safdurjung hospital, where he died on Thursday.

The woman has been arrested and interrogation is on.

Source : http://www.news18.com /news/rajasthan /woman-has-sex-with-53-year-old-priest-then-sets-him-on-fire

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

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

Advertisements

Are pre nups useful In India ? (today’s scene ?

1. there is NO judicial precedent supporting pre nups in India .

2. What if woman files DV, files 498a on husband and family, leaves matrimonial home and files CrPC 125 etc in spite of a pre nup saying something else ? How can a a civil contract or an agreement between husband and wife, stop a woman from filing criminal cases … ? AFAIK, she can still file criminal cases and drag the husband to court, pre nup or NO pre nup. These criminal cases will go on for yearsand husband and co will have to run around to save themselves

3. because of the criminalisation of matrimonial proceedings, (example 498a, Dv cases, CrPC 125 cases, fake Rape on father in law, bro in law, fake 354 on Father in law, bro in Law etc etc), combined with the delay and backlog in Indian courts, and the level of honestly in the system, I do NOT think pre nups (civil law contracts) are useful in India

the above is my view

I’m Grateful for your answers / comments

File criminal cases on husband & in laws to collect 8 lakhs moolah !! Latest & greatest news from India

File criminal cases on husband and in laws (sis in law, bro in law) to collect 8 lakhs moolah !! Latest & greatest news from India
*********************************
//// Vaidegi lodged a police complaint against Jegadish, based on which, a case in Crime No.5 of 2014 was registered and after completing the investigation the respondent police has filed a final report in C.C.No.1038 of 2015 before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.////
////On the complaint lodged by Vaidegi, a criminal case in Crime No.805 of 2014 was registered against Santhapriya and Sankar, who are the in-laws of Vaidegi and after completing the investigation, the respondent police has filed a final report in C.C.No.1281 of 2015. ////
////The petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight Lakhs only) as a onetime settlement (permanent alimony) to the respondent ////
*********************************
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 15.09.2015
CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
Crl.OP.Nos.7836, 22996 and 23062 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

Crl.O.P.No.7836 of 2015
*******************************************
1.Jagadish
2.Arumugam
3.Mrs.Chandra
4.Mrs.Priya
5.Sankar .. Petitioners
Vs
1.J.Vaidegi
2.The Protection Officer,
District Social Welfare Office,
District Collector’s Office Complex,
Singaravelar Maligai, 8th Floor,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. .. Respondents

Crl.O.P.No.22996 of 2015
*******************************************
1.Mrs.Santhapriya
2.Sankar .. Petitioners
vs
1.The State,
Rep. By Inspector of Police,
W-6, AWPS, Secretariat Colony,
Chennai.

2.J.Vaidegi .. Respondents

Crl.O.P.No.23062 of 2015
*******************************************
Jagadish .. Petitioner

vs

1.The State,
Rep. By Inspector of Police,
W-6, AWPS, Secretariat Colony,
Chennai.

2.J.Vaidegi .. Respondents.

Prayer: Criminal Original petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.Nos.119, 1281 and 1038 of 2015 pending trial on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.T.C.S.Raja Chockalingam

For Respondents : Mr.C.Eamlia, Additional Public Prosecutor
G.M.Sankar for Defacto complainant

COMMON ORDER
*******************************************
These petitions are filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.119, 1281 and 1038 of 2015 respectively on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred by their name.

3. Vaidegi got married to Jegadish on 27.01.2010 and they have no issues through the wedlock. It appears that their marriage ran into rough weather and got estranged. Vaidegi lodged a police complaint against Jegadish, based on which, a case in Crime No.5 of 2014 was registered and after completing the investigation the respondent police has filed a final report in C.C.No.1038 of 2015 before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Challenging which, Jegadish has filed Crl.O.P.No.23062 of 2015. On the complaint lodged by Vaidegi, a criminal case in Crime No.805 of 2014 was registered against Santhapriya and Sankar, who are the in-laws of Vaidegi and after completing the investigation, the respondent police has filed a final report in C.C.No.1281 of 2015. Challenging which, Santhapriya and Sankar are before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.22996 of 2015. Vaidegi lodged a proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act in C.C.No.119 of 2015 against Jagadish and others. Challenging which, Jegadish and others are before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.7836 of 2015.

4. Now it appears that the parties have arrived at a compromise. Vaidegi is present before this Court and she has filed an affidavit, wherein she has stated as follows:

<BIG>2.I have received a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) i.e., one lakh at Mediation Centre and seven lakhs at Family Court, from the petitioners’ brother vide D.D.No.979665 dated 02.09.2015 SBI further I have got back my sridhana articles also from the petitioner (Jagadish/Husband). Therefore, I have no claim in any manner from the petitioner in future. I will not initiate any type of litigation against the petitioners in future.</BIG>

3. I submit that as the matrimonial dispute amicable settled by me and the petitioner. I am giving my consent to allow this quash petition.

4. It is therefore respectfully prayed that his Hon’ble Court may be pleased to take note of the above facts and record the same and allow this quash petition.”

5. Earlier Tr.C.M.P.No.408 of 2015 has been filed by Jegadesh, in which the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Chennai. Before the Mediation Centre, the parties appear to have entered into settlement.

The terms of which are as follows:

1.The petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight Lakhs only) as a onetime settlement (permanent alimony) to the respondent herein further the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the respondent by way of cash before the Mediation Centre, today itself and the balance amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only) will be paid to the respondent at the time of giving her consent in O.P.No.3426/13 to grant decree of divorce at the earliest or at the time of giving evidence in the mutual divorce petition. There shall be no further claim whatsoever on either side.

2.The respondent herein agrees to give her consent to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.1038/2015 & C.C.No.1181/2015 and D.V.C.No.119/2015 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore Court (at present at Motre Merket Buildings) which initiated based on for complaint.

3.The respondent herein undertakes to not to prefer any compliant or case before any judicial body or form or Court against the petitioner or his family members.

4.The petitioner hereby agreed to return all the articles which are in his custody which belongs to the respondent herein.

5.Both parties should scrupulously adhere to the terms and conditions.

In view of the above, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the proceedings in C.C.Nos.119, 1281 and 1038 of 2015 respectively on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai are hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

15.09.2015

vsm

P.N.PRAKASH, J.

vsm

To V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai -8.

Crl.OP.Nos.7836, 22996 and 23062 of 2015 15.09.2015

Hubby has NOT paid a penny 2yrs after DV order, but keeps appealing, filing revisions !! HC dismisses his petition !

There are some husbands who are probably ill advised (or smarter than we think), who keep filing petitions and appeals without paying a penny on maintenance. Here is one such husband who hasn’t paid a penny but has appealed both at sessions court and also at HC. However his appeal at sessions court has been dismissed because he did NOT appear !! As expected, the madras HC also dismisses his petition under sec 482 CrPC

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

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 14.10.2015

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5746 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

Ravi … Petitioner

-Vs-

1.Sreethangam
2.Rinshika rep. By her mother Sreethangam
3.Selvakani
4.Ganesan
5.Stelladevi
6.Thangaraj
7.Ponsudha
8.Vasantha
9.Raja .. Respondents

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records and set aside the order of dismissal passed in C.A.No.42 of 2013 by the Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil dated 22.01.2015.

!For Petitioner : Mr.K.Appadurai

^For Respondents : Mr.J.John Jayakumar for R1
No Appearance for RR2 to 8

O R D E R

The petitioner has come forward with this application to set aside the order of dismissal passed in C.A.No.42 of 2013 by the Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil dated 22.01.2015.

2.Even though, the matter is posted for dismissal, today, the learned counsel for the petitioner is present.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents 1 and 2 have preferred an application before the trial Court under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, in which, an interim order has been passed, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- each to the respondents 1 and 2 and totally Rs.10,000/- per month, against which, the petitioner has preferred an appeal in C.A.No.42 of 2013 before the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District and because of the no representation on behalf of the appellant, the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution, against, the petitioner has come up with the criminal original petition.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the first respondent also and perused the materials available on records.

5.Admittedly, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil has not been complied with. This Court, by an order order 11.08.2015, directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). But, instead of payment of the amount, the petitioner filed M.P.(MD) Nos.1 of 2015 and 2 of 2015 for extention of time and modification of the condition respectively. Even today, also, he has not paid any amount. The act of the petitioner shows the malafide intention to drag on the proceedings, without paying the maintenance amount to his wife and daughter. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

6.Perusal of the records would show that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil, directing him to pay the interim maintenance amount. But, without paying the same, he has preferred the appeal and since he has not appeared before the appellate Court and he was not ready to get along with the appeal, the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution only on 22.02.2015, after a period of two years. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. Further, I do not find any reason to extend the time and to modify the order and I am of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 are also dismissed. It is left open to the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner to recover the maintenance amount.

TO

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil.

2.The Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Broken families & beautiful children. When a Father doubts paternity & mother has married again ! Madras HC

In this sad case, a daughter seeks maintenance from her biological father, or some one she says is her father, thru her grandmother. Her biological mother has gone away and married some one else and has two children from that wedlock. Neither father nor mother cares for the kid and the case comes to court

The accused Father doubts the very birth and paternity of this kid, though there are multiple records that prove one Xaviour Muturaj as the husband and most probably the dad

The father contends that he is Muthukuty and not Xaviour Muturaj and also contends that the marriage is not conclusively proven

So the case lingers

Finally the HC refuses to quash the Crpc 125 maintenance and affirms the magistrate court decree in favour of the daughter !! Parties are permitted to proceed with a civil suit and decide matters of paternity etc IF they so choose

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

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 14.10.2015

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.85 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011

Xaviour Muthuraj @ Muthukutty … Petitioner

-vs-

Mary Asha @ Ajitha Asha … Respondent

Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Padmanabhapuram, in M.C.No.26 of 2004 dated 18.11.2010.

!For petitioner : Mr.J.John Jayakumar

^For respondent : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar

:O R D E R

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.”

Shakespeare in Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2) This is the popular Shakespearean quote expressing the meaning that name is a meaningless and artificial convention. But this is a case where the name has been a tool in the hands of the revision petitioner to drag this case up to High Court.

2.Mary Asha @ Ajitha Asha, the daughter of the revision petitioner was a minor at the time of filing of the petition and hence represented by the grandmother, though the mother was alive and available. Now she has attained majority. As against the major daughter, against the award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month, passed in M.C.No.26 of 2004, this revision petition has been filed.

3.Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition: Mallika is the wife, Natchathram is the grandmother and the respondent herein is the daughter born between Mallika and the revision petitioner. Mallika and the revision petitioner got married on 03.07.1987 in a Church according to Christian customs. Out of the wedlock, the child, viz. Mary Asha @ Ajitha Asha was born. Mallika got separated from the revision petitioner and got married to someone else and also having children through him. Alleging that the child is not able to be maintained, the application for maintenance was filed by the grandmother.

4.The marriage and the paternity of the child was disputed by the revision petitioner. But, the Court below, on a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the marriage between Mallika and the revision petitioner is true and the child is the one born between them and therefore, the child is entitled to be maintained by the revision petitioner.

5.In so far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, even though Rs.3,000/- was claimed, the Court has chosen to order only Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance. This order is under challenge in this revision petition. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

6.The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no relationship of husband and wife between the revision petitioner and the mother of the respondent, and therefore, no maintenance should have been ordered by the Court below. The supporting contention is that Xaviour Muthuraj is a person different from Muthukutty and they are not one and the same person and therefore, the document filed on the side of the child showing the relationship between the parties should not have been acted upon by the Court below. Whether they are one and the same person or different persons, has been considered by the Court below and the finding is that in respect of the documents filed on both the sides, in all documents bearing the name Muthukutty as well as Xaviour Muthuraj, the father’s name being one and the same, it must refer one and the same person. The Court has also given a finding that when the father’s name and the mother’s name is not disputed in both the documents filed, the contention that the persons named therein could be different persons, cannot be accepted and therefore, the person by name Xaviour @ Muthuraj and Muthukutty are one and the same person.

7.The next contention is that when the marriage itself is disputed, the presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act would not be applicable in this case, and therefore, unless the birth of the child is established as a child born between the revision petitioner and Mallika, the Court should not have ordered maintenance. So far as this case is concerned, the Court has relied upon the documents, viz. Ex.A1 and Ex.R4, both with reference to two different marriages. One is the marriage invitation pertaining to the revision petitioner and Mallika, and the other one Ex.R4 is the marriage invitation of the revision petitioner along with one Chandrakala. In both these invitations, the parents’ name of the revision petitioner herein is stated to be one and the same.

7.1.Apart from this fact, the Court has also relied upon the Birth Certificate of the child, which is marked as Ex.A5. Finding that at the time when the birth was registered, the fact that in future there could be a case for maintenance in which the Birth Certificate can be relied upon, could not have been in the mind of the parties and therefore, the Birth Register long prior to the maintenance application, should be given credence. Relying upon the Birth Certificate, the legitimacy of the child has been upheld by the Court below.

8.During the hearing of this matter, there was a suggestion that parties could be sent for DNA test and this Court also thought it fit to do so. But it was represented that the mother, having married somebody else and living with him after begetting two children, cannot be disturbed at this distant point of time, and that after being consulted, she seems to have expressed her inability to cooperate for the DNA test. Therefore the contention is that unless the paternity of the child is proved, the respondent is not entitled to claim maintenance.

9.The fact remains that the petition before the Court below has not been filed by the mother, but it was filed by the grandmother of the child, in whose custody the respondent is living. The mother has not even chosen to appear before the Court and give evidence stating that the child is the one born between the revision petitioner and herself. Perhaps with an intention to save her marriage with her second husband, she might have chosen not to support the case of the daughter. Having regard to the peculiar nature of this case, this Court thought it fit that instead of relegating the parties to the Civil Suit, this Court can give a finality to the litigation,

(a)having regard to the age of the grandma; (b)having regard to the educational need of the child, having attained majority. But, the process of DNA test could not be carried out because of the circumstances stated above.

10.But the fact remains that the birth of the child herein has been registered long back. When the marriage has been proved, then the non- examination of the mother, to speak about the paternity, will not be fatal as the presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act would come into operation and save the respondent.

11.So far as the contention regarding the DNA test is concerned, the Court below has relied upon the decision in 1957 L.W. (Crl.) 499, wherein it has been held that the Court need not embark upon an elaborate enquiry with regard to status of parties and the parties must be given liberty to move the Civil Court if they are so advised in order to have the parentage of the child determined finally. Based on this decision, this Court is of the view that the parties must be given liberty to work out their remedies before the Civil Court in order to determine the parentage of the child (even at this point of time, if the revision petitioner wants to challenge the parentage of the child). http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

12.In such circumstances, as the remedy open to the parties under Section 125 Cr.PC being summary in nature, the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. There is no scope for interference in the findings arrived at by the Court below.

13.Therefore, the findings regarding the marital status of the parties, paternity of the child and the quantum of maintenance, as given by the Court below, cannot be interfered with. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. It is always open to the parties, as stated by the Court below, to work out their final rights before the Civil forum, if they are so advised.

To:

The Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram..