Daily Archives: May 19, 2016

DV filing wife gets just Rs 5000 for 3 kids in spite of appeal @ sessions !!

Many women think DV act means money, means moolah and they will get what they ask for. The reality is far from that. There are umpteen cases where the woman get next to nothing, especially when the husband is working in the un-organised sector !! Ultimately such women end up paying more lawyer’s fee than anything else !

It is also possible that some of these women have come up with exaggerated claims and so are unable to prove things in court !

Here is a case where a woman files DV and gets just 5000 p.m. for 3 kids. Husband seems to be in the unorganised sector and wife has NO proof of what she claims as his income !!


IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAIL JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS 02
(CENTRAL) DELHI

Crl. A NO. 47/15

Smt Kusum Kataria
w/o Sh Manish Kataria
r/o 3517/B, Block ­93­B
First Floor, Sant Nagar,
Burari, Delhi. ……..APPELLANT

versus

  1. Mr Manish Kataria
    s/o Sh Khem Chand Kataria
  2. Sh Khem Chand Kataria

  3. Smt Krishna Kataria
    w/o Sh Khem Chand Kataria

  4. Kapil Kataria
    s/o Sh Khem Chand Kataria

all resident of 3517/B, Block 93­B
Sant Nagar, Burari
Delhi.  …….RESPONDENT

DATE OF INSTITUTION :04/07/2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT :16/05/2016

J U D G M E N T

  1. The present criminal appeal u/s 29 of D V Act has been filed by the present appellant against the order dated 05/05/15 passed by Ms Mona T. Kerketta, Ld MM, Central District, Delhi whereby the Ld Trial Court has directed the respondent no. 1 to pay a composite sum of Rs.5,000/­ per month as interim maintenance to the children of the parties from the date of filing of the petition. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal as stated by appellant are that marriage between appellant & respondent no. 1 was solemnized on 21/02/2002 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Three children were born out of this wed lock. It is stated by the appellant that after few days of marriage, respondent no, 1 along with his family members started treating the appellant with cruelty. The appellant filed a petition u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act along with an application u/s 23 of D V Act. Vide order dated 05/05/15, Ld Trial Court has directed the respondent no. 1 to pay a composite sum of Rs.5,000/­ per month as interim maintenance to the children from the date of filing of the petition.
  3. Being aggrieved with the order of Ld Trial Court, appellant has filed the present appeal on the following grounds:
    • a) That Ld Trial Court has not correctly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case.
    • b) That Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate the documents of the property no. 3517/B, Block ­93­B, First Floor, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi in favour of respondent no. 1. That Ld Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that respondent no 1 is also paying the home loan as per affidavit given by respondent no. 1 in the court.
    • c) That the Ld Trial Court has failed to consider that the PAN card mentioned by the respondent no. 1 in his affidavit, is not in the name of respondent no. 1 but the same is in the name of Sh Chet Ram.
    • d) That Ld Trial Court has not considered the fact that respondent no 1 is the owner of of two properties, one is shared household, which is in the name of respondent no 1 and there is another property, which is owned by respondent no 1 under the home loan, and respondent no 3 who is claiming to be the owner of the shared household did not place on record any document in this regard.
    • e) That Ld Trial Court has completely ignored the fact that respondent no 1 in his income affidavit has mentioned that statements of all bank is annexed herewith , but respondent no 1 has not filed any bank statement.
  4.  With these and similar grounds, appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order .
  5. I have heard arguments from Ms Alka Singh, Ld counsel for the appellant as well as from Sh A. K. Singh, Ld counsel for respondents.
  6. I have considered the arguments advanced by Ld counsel for parties and gone through the trial court record.
  7. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order of Ld Trial Court dated 05/057/15, whereby Ld Trial Court has granted composite interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/­ to the appellant and her children.
  8. It is admitted facts of parties that marriage of petitioner was solemnized with respondent no. 1 and three children were born out of this wed lock. From the trial court record, it is clear that appellant/complainant is earning Rs.15,000/­ per month, whereas Respondent no. 1 has claimed to be earning Rs.6,000/­ per month. From the documents placed on record, it is clear that respondent no. 1 is IIT electrical diploma holder, hence the Ld Trial Court has rightly not accepted the version of the respondent no. 1 of earning Rs.6,000/­ per month. Ld Trial Court has taken the monthly income of respondent no. 1 as per Minimum Wages Act of skilled person at Rs.11,000/­ per month, which in my opinion is the correct procedure. Thus, same does not suffer from any infirmity. On the other hand, appellant has Cr. A NO. 47/15 Page 4 of 5 pages stated that respondent no. 1 owns two properties but she has not filed on record any document to substantiate her claim. Hence, I am of the opinion that Ld Trial Court has rightly granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/­ to the children after considering the monthly income of respondent no. 1/husband as Rs.11,000/­ per month. Even otherwise, this is an interim maintenance order and final order of maintenance is yet to be passed after evidence will be led by the parties.
  9. In view of above observations, the appeal as filed by the appellant is dismissed. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  10. Trial court record be sent back with the copy of the order.
  11. File of appeal be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16th of May, 2016.

( SHAIL JAIN )

ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL)

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


FIR in year 2004 or earlier. “Revision” rejected @ HC in 2016 !! Who says delay is bad ??

As per the record the FIR was filed circa 2004 or earlier and summoning order was dated 10th June 2004…. The accused seemed to have filed for a revision stating that the magistrate has NOT applied his mind and NO personal involvement has been shown !! That “revision” is rejected in 2016 …. YES seems to have lingered for 12 years and finally rejected, meaning the case should start afresh now !!

This can’t be a typo, as the year is mentioned multiple times , it’s mentioned on the summoning order, on this revision case etc!!, and the matter is from the Allahabad HC site (directly from site) !!

However a certified copy is ordered, immediately !!


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Deputy Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. – 34

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 3369 of 2004

Revisionist :- Sanjay And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,R. Sinha

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

  1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and perused the record.
  2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by summoning order dated 10.06.2004 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Magistrate, Dudhi, District Sonebhadra, in Case No. 475 of 2004, under Sections 498-A, 147, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  3. The impugned summoning order has been passed on a complaint made by complainant-respondent no. 2 and after recording statements of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Nothing has been placed on record to show that Magistrate has not applied its mind to the material available before him.
  4. The mere fact that individual role has not been assigned in complaint or there is no injury report etc. is wholly irrelevant at this stage inasmuch as from perusal of documents placed on record, i.e., statement recorded by Magistrate under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. it cannot be said that prima facie offence under Sections 498-A, 147, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act is not made out. Magistrate, therefore, has rightly exercised its power. No ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out.
  5. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
  6. Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.

Order Date :- 13.5.2016

AK

Visit http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/StartWebSearch.do for more Judgments/Orders delivered at Allahabad High Court and Its Bench at Lucknow.

Disclaimer

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/ 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 http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/ WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

 

In laws ready to gift a crore worth bungalow NOT people who demanded dowry !! Fake 498A busted !

A husband who took her on pleasure trips, In-laws who were ready to gift her a bungalow worth crore, are NOT the people could have have demanded dowry !! Major inconsistencies in FAKE 498a case brought out and husband & family acquitted #fake_498a #fake_dowry

Screenshot - 19_05_2016 , 12_44_02.png

Wife goes 2 Supreme court 2 get husband arrested & screwed, refusing 2.5 Lakhs deposited in court! The 498a ablaas of India

Wife goes 2 Supreme court 2 get husband arrested & screwed, refusing 2.5 Lakhs deposited in court! The 498a ablaas of India

A husband is convicted of 498a & 406 at magistrate court. His mother is acquitted, his father dies during the case. He goes on appeal against the conviction, while wife goes on appeal against the mother in law’s acquittal !!. The sessions court says he can pay Rs 250000 to the wife and if he does so, he would be shown leniency and not jailed so that he does NOT loose his government job. Husband also deposits the money. All seems well to the normal reader, except that the wife pursues the matter to the HC where she looses again !! She doesn’t give up and goes right up to the Supreme court, seeking directions that the husband NOT be spared, meaning arrested whatever, as 498a and 406 are grevious offences … Hon SC sends the matter back to High Court for re-hearing the parties and fresh decision on merits!

I appreciate that henious crimies are to be punished. IF so what about the false case ? false rape and false dowry cases are also crimes against humanity !! why aren’t the women punished ?


REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.212 OF 2016
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3695 of 2013]

Charanjit Kaur …..Appellant

Versus

Bikram Singh & Anr. …..Respondents

W I T H

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.213 OF 2016
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3694 of 2013]

J U D G M E N T

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

Heard the parties. Leave granted.

Various shades of life at times create so much impact that even a disinterested person gets shaken and tends to recall the clichéd statement that truth can be stranger than fiction. At least in the Indian society, a wife, come what may, is perceived to be the ultimate caretaker of her family and particularly the husband. But cruel acts of the husband and the in-laws can turn the situation upside down. The essential brief facts of this case amply justify the aforesaid observations. The appellant is wife of respondent no.1. Harassed and tortured on account of greed for dowry, she was hounded out of the matrimonial house and was forced by such circumstances to lodge a criminal case under Section 498A, 406 and 120B of the IPC when all hopes of compromise sought to be achieved through numerous rounds of Panchayat by the elders of the two families failed to yield any result and allegedly even ornaments and streedhan of the appellant were not returned to her. During trial the father-in-law expired and mother-in-law was acquitted but the husband, respondent no.1 herein was convicted and awarded R.I. for one year for each of the offence under Section 406 and 498A of the IPC and also a fine of Rs.1000/- with a default clause of R.I. for 15 days. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

The appellant preferred an appeal against the acquittal of mother-in-law as well as for enhancing the punishment awarded to the husband. State also appealed against acquittal whereas respondent no.1 preferred appeal against his conviction. All the three appeals were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala and the judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Phagwara dated 30.07.2007 in R.T. No.8 of 23.5.2007 arising out of FIR No.8 dated 8.1.2002 of P.S. Sadar, Phagwara was affirmed with a modification in the sentence awarded to Bikram Singh, respondent no.1. He was shown marked leniency in view of a plea that in case he is sent to jail he may lose his Government job. The Sessions Court, on the aforesaid ground permitted him to deposit Rs.2,50,000/- payable to the appellant within one month and if such deposit is made then he was to get the benefit of probation bond under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Against the aforesaid judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala dated 16.12.2010 the appellant preferred Crl. Revision No.803 of 2011 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh which has been dismissed virtually in a summary manner by the order under appeal dated March 12, 2012.

On behalf of the appellant, a number of submissions have been advanced to assail the impugned order. It has been contended that considering the nature of the offence, no leniency should have been shown to the respondent no.1 after his conviction was affirmed for offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC. The appellant claims that she did not withdraw the fine of Rs.1000/- awarded by the trial court or the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- awarded by the appellate court. The High Court appears to have been influenced by a wrong presumption that there was still a chance to save the marriage although the fact is otherwise and would have been clear if High Court had granted an opportunity to the appellant to express her feelings and view in the matter.

Without expressing any opinion on the pleas advanced on behalf of the appellant and the reply advanced on behalf of respondents, after going through the order under appeal and noticing the summary manner in which the Revision has been dismissed only after noticing that Rs.2,50,000/- has been deposited, we are of the firm view that the impugned order needs to be set aside so that the matter may be sent back to the High Court for re-hearing the parties and fresh decision on merits. We order accordingly. The appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3695 of 2013 is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Be it noted that we have not gone into the merits of rival submissions and the High Court would be free to take its own decision in matter strictly in accordance with law. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

This order shall govern the appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3694 of 2013, also.

.…………………………………….J.

[DIPAK MISRA] ……………………………………..J.

[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH] New Delhi.

March 10, 2016.


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