Daily Archives: January 20, 2016

NOT all Dowry& presents always wid in- laws, relations!! Dowry case agsnt in laws quashed-Supreme court

Supreme court quashes Dowry case against inlaws living separately EVEN though Daughtr-in-law dead

In this unfortunate case a woman, a wife is dead. As in common in many cases, in addition to IPC sec 304B and 498a cases, a case under Sec 6 DP act is also filed by the late wife’s father on 6 people including the husband !! The woman has lived away from the in-laws, still many including a widowed sister of the husband are roped in. This criminal case is quashed by the Hon Supreme court in a well reasoned order, explaining Stridhana and why the uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint prima facie DO NOT establish the offense

…13. Giving of dowry and the traditional presents at or about the time of wedding does not in any way raise a presumption that such a property was thereby entrusted and put under the dominion of the parents-in- law of the bride or other close relations so as to attract ingredients of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act….”

“……. living in Bangalore at their matrimonial house. ..common practice that these (stridhana) articles are sent along with the bride to her matrimonial house. It is a matter of common knowledge that these articles are kept by the woman in connection with whose marriage it was given and used by her in her matrimonial house when the appellants 2 to 6 have been residing separately in Vizianagaram, it cannot be said that the dowry was given to them and that they were duty bound to return the same to Syamala Rani….”

“…in our view, continuation of the criminal proceeding against appellants 2 to 6 is not just and proper and the same is liable to be quashed….”


REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9344 of 2014)

BOBBILI RAMAKRISHNA RAJU YADAV & ORS.    ….Appellants

Versus

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY ITS
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P.
HYDERABAD, A.P. & ANR.  …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

  1. Leave granted.
  2. The present appeal assails the order dated 23.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.1778 of 2010, whereby the High Court declined to quash the proceedings against appellants No.1 to 6 in C.C. No. 532 of 2009 under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 pending before Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram.

  3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:- First appellant is working as an Engineer in G.E. India Technology Company at Bangalore. Appellants No.2 and 3 are the parents, appellant No.4 is widowed sister and appellants No.5 and 6 are the sisters of appellant No.1. Marriage of first appellant and Syamala Rani was performed at Vizianagaram on 04.05.2007 and after marriage, Syamala Rani was residing at Bangalore with her husband-appellant No.1. Syamala Rani died on 06.09.2008 under suspicious circumstances and a case was registered in FIR No.1492 of 2008 under Sections 304B, 498A IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at H.A.L. Police Station, Bangalore City. On completion of investigation in the said case, chargesheet was filed against the appellants No.1 to 6 and the case was committed to Sessions Court vide committal order dated 29.12.2008 and was taken on file as S.C. No.79 of 2009 in the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore. Second respondent- father of Syamala Rani filed a private complaint against the appellants under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act alleging that he had paid dowry amount and other articles which were presented as dowry to the appellants on their demand and the same were not returned. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C. No.532 of 2009.

  4. The appellants then preferred a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court to quash the complaint i.e. C.C.No.532 of 2009 contending that the complaint does not disclose an offence and that FIR No.1492 of 2008 was already registered against the appellants at Bangalore city. The High Court vide the impugned order dismissed the petition filed by the appellants holding that the offences alleged in the previous case in S.C.No.79 of 2009 emanating from the FIR No.1492 of 2008 and the subsequent complaint in C.C.No.532 of 2009 are not one and the same as the previous case was registered under Sections 304B and 498A IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, whereas the subsequent case is registered under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which is independent of the previous case. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
  5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint as the previous case was already registered against the appellants in FIR No.1492 of 2008 under Sections 304B and 498A IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the same is pending trial in Sessions Case No.79 of 2009 at Bangalore city and hence the subsequent complaint is not sustainable. It was further submitted that the subsequent complaint C.C.No.532 of 2009 emanates from the same cause of action and the allegations in the complaint do not constitute the alleged offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the complaint is an afterthought for wrecking vengeance on the appellants.
  6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the complaint case in C.C. No.532 of 2009 under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is independent of the previous case i.e. FIR No.1492 of 2008 and the pendency of the said case before the Sessions Court, Bangalore shall not affect the complaint filed under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was submitted that even after death of Syamala Rani, the appellants threatened the complainant and his family members and the complainant-respondent No.2 had led several mediations with the appellant No.1 for return of dowry amount and other articles which were presented as dowry on demand made by the appellants and inspite of such mediations, the appellants did not return the dowry amount and other articles and hence a prima facie case is made out against the appellants and the High Court rightly declined to quash the proceedings.
  7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the impugned judgment and material available on record.
  8. Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act lays down that where the dowry is received by any person other than the bride, that person has to transfer the same to the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given and if he fails to do so within three months from the date of the marriage, he shall be punished for violation of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Section 6 reads as under:- 6. Dowry to be for the benefit of the wife or her heirs.- (1) Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman- if the dowry was received before marriage, within [three months] after the date of marriage; or if the dowry was received at the time of or after the marriage, within [three months] after the date of its receipts; or if the dowry was received when the woman was a minor, within [three months] after she has attained the age of eighteen years; and pending such transfer, shall hold it in trust for the benefit of the woman. [(2) If any person fails to transfer any property as required by sub- section (1) within the time limit specified therefore, [or as required by Sub-section (3),] he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years or with fine [which shall not be less than five thousand rupees, but which may extend to ten thousand rupees] or with both.] (3) Where the woman entitled to any property under sub-section (1) dies before receiving it, the heirs of the woman shall be entitled to claim it from the person holding it for the time being: [Provided that where such woman dies within seven years of her marriage, otherwise than due to natural causes, such property shall,-if she has no children, be transferred to her parents; or if she has children, be transferred to such children and pending such transfer, be held in trust for such children.]
  9. If the dowry amount or articles of married woman was placed in the custody of his husband or in-laws, they would be deemed to be trustees of the same. The person receiving dowry articles or the person who is dominion over the same, as per Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is bound to return the same within three months after the date of marriage to the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given. If he does not do so, he will be guilty of a dowry offence under this Section. The section further lays down that even after his conviction he must return the dowry to the woman within the time stipulated in the order.
  10. In Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar & Anr. (1985) 2 SCC 370, this Court observed as follows:- “20. We are clearly of the opinion that the mere factum of the husband and wife living together does not entitle either of them to commit a breach of criminal law and if one does then he/she will be liable for all the consequences of such breach. Criminal law and matrimonial home are not strangers. Crimes committed in matrimonial home are as much punishable as anywhere else. In the case of stridhan property also, the title of which always remains with the wife though possession of the same may sometimes be with the husband or other members of his family, if the husband or any other member of his family commits such an offence, they will be liable to punishment for the offence of criminal breach of trust under Sections 405 and 406 of the IPC. 21. After all how could any reasonable person expect a newly married woman living in the same house and under the same roof to keep her personal property or belongings like jewellery, clothing etc., under her own lock and key, thus showing a spirit of distrust to the husband at the very behest. We are surprised how could the High Court permit the husband to cast his covetous eyes on the absolute and personal property of his wife merely because it is kept in his custody, thereby reducing the custody to a legal farce. On the other hand, it seems to us that even if the personal property of the wife is jointly kept, it would be deemed to be expressly or impliedly kept in the custody of the husband and if he dishonestly misappropriates or refuses to return the same, he is certainly guilty of criminal breach of trust, and there can be no escape from this legal consequence…..”

  11. It is well-settled that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised in rare cases. As has been laid down by this Court in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors., (1988) 1 SCC 692, that when a prosecution at the initial stage was asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court was as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the offence. It was also for the Court to take into consideration any special feature which appears in a particular case to consider whether it was expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This was so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and therefore, no useful purpose was likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings even though it may be at a preliminary stage.

  12. In the light of the well settled principles, it is to be seen whether the allegations in the complaint in the present case and other materials accompanying the complaint disclose the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Marriage of first respondent and Syamala Rani was solemnized in Vizianagaram on 04.05.2007 and the couple was living in Bangalore. Appellants 2 to 6–the parents and sisters of appellant No.1 were living in Vizianagaram. It is the contention of the appellants that there are no allegations in the complaint that the ‘stridhana articles’ were given to appellants 2 to 6 and that they failed to return the same to Syamala Rani. In paras (3) and (4) of the complaint filed by the second respondent, it is alleged that he paid the dowry amount “to the accused and some ‘stridhana articles’ like double cot and other furniture and utensils required to set up a family”. In the complaint, it is vaguely alleged that even after death of deceased-Syamala Rani, the accused started threatening the complainant and that the accused offered to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards full and final settlement. The relevant averments in the complaint in paragraphs (5) and (6) read as under:- “5. The complainant submits that even after the death of the deceased the accused by keeping the dead body on one side, started threatening the complainant and his family members that if they give any report to the police, they will be killed then and there only and they offered to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards full and final settlement. There the complainant, who was in deep shock at the death of his daughter could not answer anything but gave a report to the police. 6. The complainant submits that he lead several mediations with the accused through his colleagues, whose names are mentioned below for return of the dowry, but the accused did not return the amount and other amounts, given under different heads. A duty cast upon the accused to return those articles and amount, which were presented as dowry on demand made by the accused. The complainant reserves his right to file a fresh complaint against all the accused for return of the dowry.” By reading of the above, it is seen that there are no specific allegations against appellants 2 to 6 that the dowry articles were entrusted to them and that they have not returned the dowry amount and the articles to Syamala Rani. Equally, there are no allegations that those dowry articles were kept in Vizianagaram and used by appellants 2 to 6 who were separately living away from the couple in Bangalore. Even though complainant has alleged that the dowry amount was paid at the house of the accused at Gajapathinagaram, there are no specific allegations of entrustment of the dowry amount and articles to appellants 2 to 6.
    13. Giving of dowry and the traditional presents at or about the time of wedding does not in any way raise a presumption that such a property was thereby entrusted and put under the dominion of the parents-in- law of the bride or other close relations so as to attract ingredients of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As noticed earlier, after marriage, Syamala Rani and first appellant were living in Bangalore at their matrimonial house. In respect of ‘stridhana articles’ given to the bride, one has to take into consideration the common practice that these articles are sent along with the bride to her matrimonial house. It is a matter of common knowledge that these articles are kept by the woman in connection with whose marriage it was given and used by her in her matrimonial house when the appellants 2 to 6 have been residing separately in Vizianagaram, it cannot be said that the dowry was given to them and that they were duty bound to return the same to Syamala Rani. Facts and circumstances of the case and also the uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint do not constitute an offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against appellants 2 to 6 and there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellants 2 to 6. Be it noted that appellants 2 to 6 are also facing criminal prosecution for the offence under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Even though the criminal proceeding under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is independent of the criminal prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in the absence of specific allegations of entrustment of the dowry amount and articles to appellants 2 to 6, in our view, continuation of the criminal proceeding against appellants 2 to 6 is not just and proper and the same is liable to be quashed.
  13. The impugned order in Criminal Petition No.1778 of 2010 is set aside qua the appellants 2 to 6 and the appeal is partly allowed.

CJI. (T.S. THAKUR)

J. (A.K. SIKRI)

J. (R. BANUMATHI)

New Delhi;

January 19, 2016

wife poisons tea to kill 2nd husband. Daughter drinks poison tea, dies ! All violence is MALE generated

A four-year-old girl has died and her 12-year-old sister has been hospitalised after taking tea their mother had allegedly laced with poison apparently to kill her husband, a police officer on Tuesday said.

The incident occurred at Govinda Sardar Para, about 25 km from Agartala on Monday, the officer said.

Sita Rani Debbarma offered tea laced with poison to her second husband Goutam Debbarma, apparently to kill him, but he didn’t take it, Uttam Bhowmik SP (Police Control), said.

more below from THE Hindu News paper

Screenshot - 20_01_2016 , 11_59_04

Perjury case against Lying wife (that she’s unemployed)! Fraud & justice can’t dwell together. BombayHC

Wife claims she is un employed, that it is an embarrassment to depend on her parents for livelihood etc and claims interim maintenance. It turns out that the woman is working as a teacher and earning approx 7000 p.m. Husband submits proof of her employment. As she lied before the court, Bombay HC orders the registrar of the family court to file a perjury case against her !!

Excerpts :
“…..While submitting the application for interim maintenance, the respondent-wife has taken oath and she has sworn affidavit on the application itself. This goes to show that she has made false averments knowingly in a Court proceeding. In such circumstances, prima facie, the offences punishable under Section 177, 181, 182 and 191, read with Section 193 of Indian penal Code are attracted. Because of the false statements made by the respondent in her application for interim maintenance, this Court is misled and misguided and therefore, the petitioner has suffered and he was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month. ….”

“….The Deputy Registrar of Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, is directed to file complaint against the respondent-wife in competent Court, for the offences punishable under Section 177, 181, 182 and 191, read with Section 193 of Indian penal Code….”


IN THE FAMILY COURT MUMBAI AT BANDRA

PETITION NO.A-2050 OF 2010

Mr. Niraj Shah … Petitioner

Vs.

Mrs. Nikita Shah … Respondent

CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE

SHRI. S. R. KAFRE

DATED : 24 th DECEMBER, 2013 .

ORDER

  1. This is an application filed by the petitioner for taking action for perjury against respondent-wife.
  2. According to the petitioner he has filed this petition for decree of divorce. The respondent had filed interim application for maintenance pendentelite on 28-4-2011 stating in para No.10 of said application, “I have no source of income and have become burden on my parents, it is embarrassing and ridiculous situation as I am being compelled to depend upon parents for my daily needs, after marriage”. The respondent has also mentioned, “I do not have any other source of income.”
  3. According to the petitioner, the respondent used to work as a Teacher in a school prior to her marriage is admitted position. The petitioner had filed an application for review of order by producing documentary proof that the respondent is working as a school Teacher and her photograph appears in the magazine of the school. The respondent is doing a job as a pre-primary Teacher at Thakur Public School, Kandivali (E) and having permanent job and also having bank account in Saraswat Bank, Kandivali (E) Branch, vide salary account No.4963957. The respondent had refused to produce any document in spite of the petitioner has filed on record the book published by the school, where the respondent is working as a Teacher. The respondent has filed her affidavit as per the direction of this Court, which speaks abut her employment. It is admitted that she was working full-time and getting Rs.7500/- per month but in spite of calling upon her to produce her bank statement and income proof, she refrained from doing so.
  4. According to the petitioner, after the witness summons and a document brought on record, it is revealed by the order of this Court dated 7-5-2013 that the respondent is a liar and she obtained the interim maintenance order by misguiding this Court by purposefully stating lie on oath and concealing the material fact by not producing documents which are in her possession and made the petitioner to suffer. Therefore, the petitioner has requested for taking legal action against the respondent under the provisions of Section 195 and Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code.
  5. After filing of this application, my learned predecessor has passed order dated 3-7-2013 of issuance of notice under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code. The copy of this application was given to the respondent on the same day i.e. on 3-7-2013. On 5-8-2013 the learned Advocate for the respondent had made a remark on the overleaf of the application that she will argue, she does not want to give written reply.
  6. I have heard learned Advocate Smt. Usha Tanna for the petitioner and learned Advocate Smt. Jivan Vijay for the respondentwife. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has vehemently argued that, though the respondent has source of income, she has made false averments in her application that she did not have any source of income. She has sworn affidavit with false contents. The learned Advocate has further submitted that while deciding the review application of the husband, this Court has made observations in respect of the false averments made by the respondent and therefore, it is necessary to initiate action of perjury against the respondent-wife.
  7. Smt. Jivan Vijay, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent-wife has submitted that false accusations are made against the respondent. She has filed her documents on record and in view of modified order, the quantum of the maintenance was reduced and this Court, while deciding the review application, has imposed exemplary cost of Rs.5000/- on the respondent and therefore already action is taken against the respondent. Now, there is no need to proceed against the respondent under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Advocate for the respondent has further submitted that there was no malice or intention to mislead this Court and the bonafide mistake of the respondent be excused. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions canvassed by the learned Advocates for both the parties.
  9. The provisions of Chapter XXVI of Code of Criminal Procedure deal with offences affecting the administration of justice. Section 195 of said Code speaks about prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. The provisions of Section 340 of the Code reads as under :
    • “Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195- (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,-
    • (a) record a finding to that effect;
    • (b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
    • (c ) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
    • (d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
    • (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.
    • (2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-Section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-Section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195.
    • (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,-
    • (a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
    • (b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.
    • (4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in Section 195.”
  10. In the case in hand the petitioner-husband has filed main petition for divorce under the provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent has submitted written statement at Exh.12. After the appearance of the respondent, both the parties were referred to the Marriage Counsellor for exploring the possibility of reconciliation and amicable settlement. However, no reconciliation or amicable settlement had taken place. Even after hearing of the argument of present application at Exh.56, I had referred both the parties to Judge Mediator, to work out the settlement between the parties. However, the parties could not come to terms and accordingly Judge Mediator has submitted the report.
  11. The respondent had filed interim application No.162 of 2011 (Exh.13) for interim maintenance under the provisions of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. Said application was contested by the petitioner. Said application was decided on 2-3-2012 by my learned predecessor and interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month was granted to the respondent, from the date of said application i.e. 28-4-2011. The respondent was also given litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
  12. On 11-5-2012 the petitioner had filed application for review and/or cancellation of maintenance order dated 2-3-2012. The said application was resisted by the respondent by filing her reply on Exh.32 and after hearing both the parties, the said application was decided on 7-5-2013. In view of that order, the quantum of maintenance granted to the respondent was reduced from Rs.20,000/- per month to Rs.13,000/- per month. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  13. In the original interim maintenance application at Exh.13 in para No.10 the respondent has stated that she has no source of income and has become burden on her parents, it is embarrassing and ridiculous situation as she being compelled to depend upon parents for her daily needs, after marriage. Further, in para No.13 of said application the respondent has stated that she is a simple graduate and cannot earn her livelihood and it is the duty of the petitioner to provide for the same. While replying these averments, the petitioner had stated in para No.8 of his reply at Exh.17 that the respondent is well educated and accomplish and qualified graduate with expertise in teaching institution and was employed in Nursery Institution and thus the respondent was capable of maintaining herself and what was stated by her is not true.
  14. Now, it is necessary to see what observations are made by my learned predecessor while deciding the review application at Exh.30, in respect of the income of the respondent-wife. The observations made in para No.10 of said order runs as under :
    • “While disposing interim maintenance application, this Court in para No.4 has observed that there is no record before Court to believe that respondent-wife is an earning member. This observation was based upon statement of respondent and also from the circumstance that there was no record before Court to prove the earning of the respondent. The documents which are referred herein in this order clearly reveal that on the date of passing of the order and on the date of moving an application for interim maintenance, respondent was an earning member, so respondent has misguided this Court to believe that she do not have any income. She has suppressed vital information from the Court that she is earning about Rs.6804/- by being working as a Pre-primary Teacher in a school”.
  15. It is settled position of law that while determining quantum of maintenance the regard shall be had to the status and position of the parties, income of both the parties, reasonable wants of the claimant and number of persons dependent upon the payer. The provisions of maintenance are benevolent provisions. These provisions are made to prevent vagrancy of destitute wife and the minor children. The person who is liable to maintain his dependents, has to provide maintenance to his dependents, so that they can keep their soul and body together and they should not face any problem in their day-to-day life. The needy persons are entitled to get the basic requirements like food, shelter and clothes from the person who is liable to maintain them as per the provisions of law.
  16. It is settled principle of law that he who seeks equity, must do equity. The fraud and justice cannot dwell together. The justice seeker must step in the Court with clean hands. The dishonest person cannot be entertained by the Court of law. In matrimonial matters persons come with their family problems before the Court and Court makes every possible attempt to find out solution of their problems. In such circumstances, it is the first and foremost responsibility of the party to tell the truth to the Court, so that Court can go to the root of the matter to solve the real dispute. There should not be game of hide and seek when justice is sought from the Court of law. All the Dharmashastras teach us “… सथ्यम वद …” “Tell the truth”. Foundation of every case must be on true and honest disclosure of facts. No place can be given to lies or falsehood during the course of administration of justice. The person who comes to the Court i.e. house of justice, to seek justice, has to show his bonafides and honesty by making true disclosure of the facts within his knowledge.
  17. Here it has been established that the respondent-wife has suppressed vital information from the Court that she is earning about Rs.6804/- by being working as a Pre-primary Teacher in a school. It was the prime duty of the respondent-wife to come in the Court with clean hands by stating that she is earning Rs.6804/- per month. If she wants to claim maintenance from the petitioner, she has to make out a case that it is not possible for her to lead life with dignity and respect in that amount and the income of the petitioner is at higher side. She has to show the disparity between her income and income of the respondent and by making such type of true disclosure of the facts, she should have claimed maintenance amount from the petitioner. But this has not been happened in this case. The respondent-wife has made false averments in her interim maintenance application by stating that she has no source of income and she is burden upon her parents. She has not taken pain to disclose her income, though it may be meager. On the contrary, she has made false statements on oath.
  18. While submitting the application for interim maintenance, the respondent-wife has taken oath and she has sworn affidavit on the application itself. This goes to show that she has made false averments knowingly in a Court proceeding. In such circumstances, prima facie, the offences punishable under Section 177, 181, 182 and 191, read with Section 193 of Indian penal Code are attracted. Because of the false statements made by the respondent in her application for interim maintenance, this Court is misled and misguided and therefore, the petitioner has suffered and he was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  19. The petitioner was required to file application for review of said order and accepting his contention, the quantum of maintenance was reduced from Rs.20,000/- per month to Rs.13,000/- per month. While deciding the said application, my learned predecessor has imposed exemplary cost of Rs.5000/- on the respondent for making false statements. But it does not mean that the respondent is absolved from the criminal liability. Therefore, it is necessary to take action against the respondent as per the provisions of Section 195 and 340 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Deputy Registrar of this Court has to file complaint against the respondent in competent Court for the offences discussed above.
  20. In view of my foregoing discussion, I come to the conclusion that, the application at Exh.56 deserves to be allowed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order.

 

O R D E R

  1. The application at Exh.56 is allowed.
  2. The Deputy Registrar of Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, is directed to file complaint against the respondent-wife in competent Court, for the offences punishable under Section 177, 181, 182 and 191, read with Section 193 of Indian penal Code.
  3. The Deputy Registrar is authorized to take true copies of entire proceedings to file along with the complaint in the competent Court.
  4. Inform this order to Deputy Registrar, Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai.

Sd/-24-12-2013

( Subhash R. Kafre ) Judge,

Family Court No.3, Mumbai.

Date : 24th December, 2013

 

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