Monthly Archives: May 2016

33 year old neice says 55 year old mama raped her over 2 years !! Mama, a vice Chancellor, is arrested !!

We do NOT know IF this is true. We are forwarding a news item for readers’ thoughts !!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Bengaluru private university vice chancellor Madhukar G. Angur held on rape charge

The vice chancellor of a private university here has been arrested for allegedly raping a 33-year-old woman, the police said on Saturday.

 

 

 

 

Bengaluru, Feb 6 (IANS) The vice chancellor of a private university here has been arrested for allegedly raping a 33-year-old woman, the police said on Saturday.  ”We have arrested Madhukar G. Angur on Friday night on a complaint by the victim’s mother, who charged him with sexually abusing her daughter over a period, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Southeast) M.B. Boraingaiah told.  Angur (55), a divorcee, is the vice-chancellor of Alliance University, set up in 2010 at Anekal on the city’s southern outskirts.

“The victim is the accused’s niece, who has been working in the university’s administrative office since 2011. As the complaint is filed by her mother, who is his sister, we are interrogating them and others in the family,” Boralingaiah said.  Based on the written complaint, a first information report (FIR) has been registered against the accused under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Also Read: Man held for raping minor in Goregaon)

According to the complaint, the victim and the accused have been in relationship for a couple of years as Angur had promised to marry her but betrayed.  ”The victim’s mother said her daughter went into depression and is under counselling to recover from the trauma of betrayal and deceit by the accused,” the IPS officer added.  The accused also threatened the victim against complaining to the police or anyone else and blackmailed her mother with threats to “expose” their family.

Modified Date: February 6, 2016 6:46 PM

 

Advertisements

Brother, father inlaw asking to have relations! DV case 13 yrs after marriage & 3 yrs after husband’s death! P&H HC quash

Sad tale of how Domestic violence act is rampantly misused and seven people including 4 women are harassed to for one woman’s greed !!

A woman has filed a false domestic violence case on her mother-in-law, father- in-law, three married sisters-in-law and their husbands. This is 13 years after the marriage and 3 years after the death of the husband. Accused, married sisters-in-law along with their husbands were residing separately (complainant was living at Chandigarh while accused 1 to 6 were living in various districts of Haryana !!) . The complainant pleads that she had been denied a right in the property (which is a civil matter not connected to any violence). The Trial court takes the case and also issues notice to distant relatives asking them to appear

The relatives approach P & H HC and seek a quash

The Hon P & H HC notes and orders as follows “….9. In the present complaint, the complainant had implead the in-laws and the distant relatives. The trial Court had summoned all the respondents without even waiting for the report of the Protection Officer. The trial Court should have applied its mind and should have examined the contents of the complaint before issuing notice to the distant relatives who were residing separately. There was no averment in the complaint that they had at any point of time lived together. The complaint had been filed three years after the death of the husband of the complainant. No specific instance of domestic violence had been mentioned. As regards the share in the property there is a civil remedy and can not be gone into in these proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. There is also the bar of limitation in the present fact situation. I have no hesitation in holding that continuation of the proceedings under the Act against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law. 10. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the aforementioned complaint as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed….”


In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Crl. Misc. No. M-24081 of 2015

Date of Decision: 23.05.2016

Rajbala and others ……Petitioners

Versus

Seema Gupta …..Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Present: Mr. Anshul Mangla, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the respondent.


ANITA CHAUDHRY, J(ORAL)

 

  1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal complaint bearing No. RBT-03-2 dated 6.6.2003 filed under Section 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Annexure P-1) and the order dated 6.6.2013 and all the consequent proceedings arising out of the same.
  2. The petitioners have been summoned in the complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘Act’ for short). The petitioners are the relatives of the husband of the complainant. The husband of the complainant had died on 21.4.2010 in a road accident. The complaint was filed against the mother-in-law, father- in-law, three married sisters-in-law and their husbands. It has been filed 13 years after the marriage and three years after the death of the husband. The petitioners have pleaded that false allegations had been levelled and they had never claimed custody of the minor children and the married sisters-in-law along with their husbands were residing separately and the petition has been filed only to harass them. The complainant was seeking maintenance and a separate residence as well as damages and a restraint order against any domestic violence. The complainant as per her allegations had left the matrimonial home on 1.11.2012. It was pleaded that she had been denied a right in the property.
  3. The trial Magistrate issued notice to the respondents heard both the sides on the application claiming interim maintenance as well as interim order qua residence in the shared household. The trial Court recorded a finding that the respondent had failed to show that her husband had any right in the house, the property was in the name of the mother-in-law and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in ‘S.R.Batra and another versus Smt. Taruna Batra 2007(1) DMC 1(SC)’ interim maintenance and relief of residence was denied. The case was thereafter fixed for the presence of the remaining respondents.
  4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the documents placed on record.
  5. Counsel for the petitioners have vehemently contended that the petitioners are the close relatives of the husband and were living separately and there was no single instance of domestic violence and the complaint had been filed three years after the death. It was urged that the trial Magistrate without even ascertaining the correctness of the allegations and without ascertaining whether all of them were living together, had issued notice. It was urged that no specific instance has been given in the complaint and vague allegations of taunts and beatings and wild allegations that the brothers-in-law and father-in-law pressurized her to maintain relations with them have been levelled. It was urged that the complainant and her husband were living in Chandigarh and petitioners No. 1 to 6 are living in different districts of Haryana, the sisters-in-law were living with her husbands in separate residence and the proceedings were only an abuse of the process of law. Reliance was placed upon Suo Motu versus Ushaben Kishorbhai Mistry 2016(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 421, Om Parkash Syngal and others versus Aditi Garg 2016(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 12, Chandrawati Devi and others versus State of Bihar and another 2014(4) ECrC 53, Inderjit Singh Grewal versus State of Punjab and another 2011(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1, Ashish Dixit and others versus State of U.P. and another 2013(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 340, Devanand Baliram Wankhade and others versus State of Maharashtra and others 2015 All MR (Crl.) 3618, Anoop and others versus Vani Shree 2015(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 989, Smt. Geeta and others versus State of U.P. and another 2014(5) R.C.R. (Criminal) 577 and Nandan Singh Manrai versus State and others 2011(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 271.
  6. The submission on the other hand was that the remedy was available and the petitioners could approach the Magistrate and when a specific remedy is provided, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. It was also urged that the provisions of the Act provide for a remedy under the civil law and the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not have been resorted to.
  7. A Division bench of the Gujrat High Court was faced with a similar objection. The Division Bench in ‘Suo Motu versus Ushaben Kishorbhai Mistry 2016(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 421’ examined the provisions of the Act and the judgments referred before it concluded as under:-
    • “27. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the following conclusions:
    • (i) The provisions of the Act provide for remedial measures for civil rights of women but the machinery provided is through criminal court.
    • (ii) Initiation of proceedings under Section 12 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 31 of the Act would begin only when the Magistrate has passed any judicial order including of issuance of notice for hearing.
    • (iii) Any person affected by any proceedings under the Act, prior to initiation of proceedings under Section 12 of the Act may prefer Special Criminal Application under Article 226 of the Constitution if as per him, the proceedings are beyond the scope and ambit of the Act or without any authority in law. But this Court, while entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution may decline entertainment of the petition by way of self-imposed restriction in exercise of the judicial powers or may decline entertainment of the petition in exercise of its sound judicial discretion.
    • (iv) Once proceedings are initiated under Section 12 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 31 either independently or jointly on account of any judicial order passed by the learned Magistrate including issuance of notice, such proceedings shall be governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure coupled with the power of the Court under Section 28(2) to lay down its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 or under sub-section (2) of Section 23of the Act.
    • (v) Once the applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure has started on account of any judicial order passed by the learned Magistrate including issuance of notice either under Section 12 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 31 of the Act independently or jointly, remedial measures to the aggrieved person as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be said as available. But the higher forum under the Code of Criminal Procedure, may be the Court of Session or the High Court, may decline entertainment of such proceedings considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the settled principles of law and in accordance with law.
    • (vi) The aforesaid remedial measures provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure would also include the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code, but the Court may, in a given case, decline entertainment of the petition when there is express remedy provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure or no case is made out to prevent the abuse of process of any Court, or no case is made out to secure the ends of justice.”
    • This Court in ‘Om Parkash Syngal and others versus Aditi Garg reported in 2016(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 12 had held that the violence committed by a person while living in the shared household can only constitute domestic violence and other acts of violence when one is living separate may be punishable under the different provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the other penal laws but cannot be covered under the Domestic Violence Act.
  8. In Chandrawati Devi’s case (supra), the complainant had never lived with the brother-in-law and the mother-in-law and had claimed a share in the property and money of the deceased husband. It was held that the matter could not be decided in a complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act and the matter could be taken up in a partition suit and the proceedings were quashed. The issue of maintainability was also decided therein and it was held that the extra ordinary remedy and the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be invoked when it was to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure justice.
  9. In the present complaint, the complainant had implead the in-laws and the distant relatives. The trial Court had summoned all the respondents without even waiting for the report of the Protection Officer. The trial Court should have applied its mind and should have examined the contents of the complaint before issuing notice to the distant relatives who were residing separately. There was no averment in the complaint that they had at any point of time lived together. The complaint had been filed three years after the death of the husband of the complainant. No specific instance of domestic violence had been mentioned. As regards the share in the property there is a civil remedy and can not be gone into in these proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. There is also the bar of limitation in the present fact situation. I have no hesitation in holding that continuation of the proceedings under the Act against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law.
  10. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the aforementioned complaint as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.

 

(ANITA CHAUDHRY)

JUDGE

May 23, 2016

Gurpreet

Husband cannot be arrested, just because wife sought arrest… Madras HC

TheHonourable Madras High Court has set aside an order of the family court, ordering arrest of a husband, for non-payment of maintenance. It transpires that in this case the husband had defaulted on payment of maintenance, as he had met with an accident and could not on sufficient money… The wife had filed a petition stating that the husband has not paid the maintenance
The wife also seems to have sought arrest of the husband when he appeared at the court. The family court seems to have ordered rest of the husband as a matter of course. The husband appealed to the honourable High Court which has stopped the arrest…

Full details will be available as and when the order of the Honourable Madras High Court is uploaded to the High Court website

here comes the independant, self reliant women of India !!

Look NO further, here comes the independent, self reliant women of India !!

Legally, Indian men have to pay women through out their lives ….still women are called independent and Indian men called the “oppressors”, the chauvinist pigs” and what NOT !!


Just look at what the law mandates !

  • Till she’s married her father has to provide for her.
  • After marriage husband has to provide for her.
  • If husband is mentally unsound, or incapacitated, she can even claim money from husband’s ancestral property.
  • If she has a son, she can sue him and claim maintenance as well.
  • This is the LAW in india !!
  • Lifelong alimony is also the law, and the norm in India.
  • The law will NOT ask a woman to either educate herself, or work for herself.

  • However Indian women are called independent, self-sufficient, and Indian males are often called the oppressors !!

 

25000 to MCom BEd Wife based on husband’s earnings. NO debate about why pay ? where’s violence etc Sad state of matrimonial life in India !

Rs 25000 p.m. to a well qualified MCom BEd wife, purely based on DV case being filed and husband’s earnings. NO debate about why pay ? where’s violence proven etc …. Do discussion about woman’s own responsibility to maintain herself !! Sad state of matrimonial life in India !

most women get away with maintenance the moment they file a DV case or a sec 125 case !! Here, a honourable court’s orders 25000 p.m to a well qualified Mcom BEd wife

In this decision, every aspect of the husband’s salary and deductions are discussed. A huge sum of Rs 25 K month is awarded, which is easily equivalent to 50 lakhs deposit in a nationalised bank (7.5% interest, 5% net of tax )

This is granted to the woman though she was working as Government primary teacher under U.P. State Government. Though She is post graduate in Commerce (M.Com), B.Ed. From Delhi University and the husband arguing that she can easily maintain herself ….

Throughout the order, NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING is discussed about who is the erring party, why should the wife be paid maintenance, has she proven domestic violence, why should a well educated woman be paid etc etc ?

Now ppl may revert saying this must be at the interim stage…which is PRECISELY my point… IF the “interim” stage means Rs 3 lakhs per annum and drags on for three / four years, what happens to “justice” ? and “merits of the case” ???


Delhi District Court

In The Matter Of :­ vs Sumant Sahni on 24 May, 2016

Author: Naresh Kumar Malhotra

IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA: ASJ­05 : WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

C.A No. ­5/15.

Case ID No. 02401R0055272015

In the matter of :­
Aarti Jain,
W/o Sumant Sahni,
D/o Sh. D.K. Jain,
R/o 42, Arihant Nagar,
Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi­ 110026. ………… Appellant.

VERSUS

Sumant Sahni,
S/o Late Kulbhushan Sahni,
R/o C­15, Radhey Puri,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi­51
Also at:
Colt Technology Service India Pvt. Ltd.
1st ­ 4th Floor, Building No. 4, Unitech Sez, Tikri,
Sector­ 48, Gurgaon­ 122002. …………. Respondent.

DATE OF INSTITUTION : 30.01.2015

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 19.05.2016

DATE OF DECISION : 24.05.2016

AND

C.A No. ­ 45/15 & Old No. 1/4/15.

Case ID No. 02401R0001902015

In the matter of :­
Sumant Sahni,
S/o Late Kulbhushan Sahni,
R/o C­15, Radhey Puri,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi­ 110051. ………… Appellant.

VERSUS

Smt. Aarti Jain,
W/o Sh. Sumant Sahni,
D/o Sh. D.K. Jain,
At 42, G.F, Arihant Nagar,
Punjabi Bagh West, Delhi­ 110026. …………. Respondent.

DATE OF INSTITUTION : 03.01.2015

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 19.05.2016

DATE OF DECISION : 24.05.2016

JUDGEMENT

  1. Vide this common judgment, I shall decide the appeal bearing No. 05/15 filed by appellant Aarti Jain against her husband Sumant Sahni against the order dated 24.11.2014, vide which the Ld. MM has directed the respondent Sumant Sahni to make the payment of Rs. 25,000/­ per month to the appellant upto 10th of each English Calender month from the date of filing of application i.e. 04.04.2014 till further orders. Ld. MM has also held that this amount includes the rental charges for the suitable accommodation as well. Respondent was also directed to clear the arrears of maintenance within five months from the date of this order. It was also ordered that amount paid or payable by the respondent to the complainant either in this case or in any other proceedings shall be adjusted accordingly.

The respondent Sumant Sahni has also challenged the order dated 24.11.2014 and filed CA No. 45/15. As both the appeals bearing No. 5/15 & 45/15 are arising out of order dated 24.11.2014, I am deciding both the appeals together.

  1. The appellant Arti Jain has filed the appeal bearing No. 5/15 on the ground that order dated 24.11.2014 has been passed by the Ld. MM without applying judicial mind and facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. MM has ignored the cogent evidences submitted by the appellant. Ld. MM has not considered the fact that amount of Rs. 25,000/­ per month is at lower side and same is liable to be enhanced according to the status and life style of the parties. The respondent has deliberately not filed complete information in the affidavit. Ld. MM has not taken adverse inference of the proved facts and the respondent has not disclosed his real income. The respondent has not disclosed about the bank statements, the bank accounts, income, investment and other assets. The respondent has not filed ITR of the previous year. The respondent is a CA and he has also done C.S from ICAI Delhi and ICSI, Delhi. The respondent is capable of doing multiple dimensional jobs and has multiple source of income other than the salary. He has intentionally concealed his income. The respondent is also visiting abroad and doing private practice. It is also mentioned that ITR of the respondent does not show his correct income. Ld. Trial Court has also mentioned in the order that respondent has not disclosed his correct income. It is also mentioned that respondent in his Jeevansathi profile has mentioned his yearly income as Rs. 15­20 lacs. It is prayed that order dated 24.11.2014 be set aside and the appellant be granted interim maintenance of Rs. 1,20,000/­ per month.
  2. The respondent Sumant Sahni has also filed appeal bearing No. 45/15 on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court has erred in law thereby directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/­ per month to the respondent on account of interim maintenance and that too without any basis. The respondent in the present appeal Smt. Aarti Jain has failed to file complete bank statement. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that Aarti Jain is working as Government Primary Teacher under U.P. State Government and this fact is concealed by Aarti Jain deliberately. Ld. Trial Court has failed to take into consideration that the respondent i.e. Aarti Jain is a well educated lady, post graduate in Commerce (M.Com), B.Ed. From Delhi University and she has enough source of income. It is prayed that order dated 24.11.2014 be set aside.

  3. Reply to both the appeals filed by the respondent therein and they denied the contents of the appeal.

  4. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties in both the appeals and perused the records of both the appeals as well as Trial Court Record very carefully.

  5. Perusal of the file reveals that Aarti Jain has filed petition u/s. 12 r/w Section 18,19,20,22 & 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with the averments that she was married with Sumant Sahni on 06.05.2011. After marriage the respondent i.e. Sumant Sahni started demanding flat, a Honda City Car, gold items (2­3 tolas), cash of Rs. 10 lacs. It is also mentioned that she was harassed and tortured for not bringing adequate dowry. She has also mentioned that respondent Sumant Sahni is a man of means, well settled and monthly income of the respondent is more than Rs. 2 lacs per month. He is also having income from shares/ debentures and from private practice. The total income of the respondent is more than Rs. 2.5 lacs per months. The respondent is having properties at Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, Noida and F­214, Unitec Vista, Sector 70A, Gurgaon.

7. In reply, the respondent Sumant Sahni has denied that appellant Aarti Jain was ever harassed or tortured on account of dowry. The complainant used to threaten him. She had taken all the jewellery articles and filed a false case against him. As per respondent his in hand salary is Rs. 95,000/­ pm out of which he is paying the installment of loan amount. It is also mentioned that complainant is a qualified lady and she was working as Government Primary Teacher under U.P. State Government. She is post graduate in Commerce (M.Com), B.Ed. From Delhi University and she can easily maintain herself.

  1. The Ld. MM vide order dated 24.11.2014 directed the respondent Sumant Sahni to make the payment of Rs. 25,000/­ per month to the appellant upto 10th of each English Calender month from the date of filing of application i.e. 04.04.2014 till further orders.

9. The respondent Sumant Sahni has filed affidavit before the Ld. Trial Court and in the affidavit he has mentioned his monthly income as Rs. 1,07,155/­. He has also placed on record the pay slip for the month of June, 2014 which shows that his monthly income is Rs. 1,91,786/­, Rs. 11,309/­ is being deducted on account of provident fund, a sum of Rs. 23,560/­ is being deducted on account voluntarily provident fund and a sum of Rs. 10,000/­ is being deducted on account of Matching Grant Scheme. Thus, after deduction monthly income of Sumant Sahni comes to Rs. 1,07,155/­.

During arguments, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for the respondent that a sum of Rs. 45,940/­ is being paid by the respondent as house loan. This fact is not denied any where by the appellant that respondent has not taken housing loan and he is not making payment of Rs. 45,940 as house loan. Perusal of the Trial Court Record shows that respondent Sumant Sahni has filed an application for change of home loan from HDFC bank to SBI and this application was allowed by the Ld. MM vide order dated 04.01.2014. Thus, it is not denied that respondent is paying housing loan of Rs. 45,940/­. If we deduct the amount of Rs. 45,940/­ from 1,07,155/­, the salay in hand of Sumant Sahni comes to Rs. 61,215/­. Thus, Ld. MM has rightly assessed the income of respondent to Rs. 75,000/­ to 80,000/­ per month and rightly granted maintenance of Rs. 25,000/­ per month to the complainant.

Ld. Counsel for respondent Sumant Sahni had placed reliance on judgment (2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases 372 titled as “Bhushan Kumar Meen Vs. Mansi Meen alias Harpreet Kaur”.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the appellant Aarti Jain has placed reliance on judgments 2014(I) TVT 461 (Del.) titled as “Navneet Arora Vs. Surender Kaur & Ors.”, Criminal appeal No. 5660/2010 titled as “Neeta Rakesh Jain Vs. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain”, Crl. M.C. No. 1859/2008 titled as “Rajeev Preenja Vs. Sarika & Ors.” and 181 (2011) Delhi Law Times 602 titled as “Jayant Bhargava Vs. Priya Bhargava”.

  1. During arguments, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for appellant Aarti Jain that respondent Sumant Sahni is also earning by doing private practice but no document has been placed on record to show that respondent Sumant Sahni is also doing private practice.

11. It is vehemently contended by Ld. Counsel for the respondent Sumant Sahni that appellant Aarti Jain is highly qualified and she was working at the time of marriage as Government Primary Teacher under U.P. State Government.

No document has been placed on record by the respondent Sumant Shani to show that Aarti Jain is still working as Government Primary Teacher under U.P. State Government. Thus, it cannot be said that Aarti Jain is working at present.

  1. In the appeal filed by appellant Aarti Jain, she has also prayed that residential order in matrimonial shared household be granted. The appellant Aarti Jain has placed reliance on judgments 2014(I) TVT 461 (Del.) titled as “Navneet Arora Vs. Surender Kaur & Ors.”, Criminal appeal No. 5660/2010 titled as “Neeta Rakesh Jain Vs. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain”, Crl. M.C. No. 1859/2008 titled as “Rajeev Preenja Vs. Sarika & Ors.” and 181 (2011) Delhi Law Times 602 titled as “Jayant Bhargava Vs. Priya Bhargava”. Perusal of the Trial Court Record shows that the Ld. MM in the order dated 24.11.2014 has mentioned that the amount of Rs. 25,000/­ per month includes the rental charges for the suitable accommodation as well.
  • In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 24.11.2014 and the Ld. MM has rightly assessed the income of Sumant Sahni as Rs. 75,000/­ to Rs. 80,000/­ per month and rightly granted maintenance of Rs. 25,000/­ per month to Aarti Jain. Both the appeals filed by Aarti Jain & Sumant Sahni are without any merits are same are hereby dismissed.

  • Copy of this common judgment be sent alongwith the TCR.

    Appeal files be consigned to Record Room, after necessary compliance.

    Announced in the Open Court on 24.05.2016

    (Naresh Kumar Malhotra)
    ASJ­05 (West)/THC/Delhi

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