Forget uniform civil code, forget equality between genders, can we at least have uniform judgements

Forget uniform civil code, forget equality between men and women, at least can we have uniformity in judicial pronouncements ?? Can we have simplified mumbo-jumbo? Can we have a simplified set of rules so that at least man can understand where they will be looted ? ….. Here is a honourable High Court that says wife can file both domestic violence and section 125 cases simultaneously … go figure …. I know, I know some one will come and say no you misunderstood the mumbo-jumbo… !!! I’m already for a reinterpretation… I just want to looting to stop ✋ 


IN THE HIGH COURT OF …..

                 ……. BENCH
ON THE …. DAY OF …., ….
                         BEFORE
      THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE …….
          CRIMINAL PETITION NO……../….
BETWEEN
SHRI.S. ….

S/O LATE …

AGE:… YEARS OCC:..

R/O:OPP:….,

.. VILLAGE

……..A,

…., …..

                                          … PETITIONER
(BY SRI. .. B ….., ADV.)
AND
1. SMT.S………

      W/O S … RAO

      (D/O LATE S.R….)

      AGE:36 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS

      R/O:H………
2. KUMARI … S….

      D/O S … RAO

      AGE:8 YEARS OCC:STUDENT

      R/O:…….
3. KUMARI …. … S….

     D/O S … RAO

     AGE:8 YEARS OCC:STUDENT

     R/O:……
(BOTH THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 BEING MINOR IS REP BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1)

                                              … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. … B ……, ADV. FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION & THEREBY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF THE FALSE ALLEGATIONS FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS & THEREBY TAKING COGNIZATIONCE OF THE COMPLAINT/PETITION BY ISSUE OF SUMMONS WHICH IS ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, ….,

….. VIDE ANNEXURES – F & G, IN ITS CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOURS NO…../2014.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                            ORDER
The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings initiated against him under the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. where maintenance was awarded. The sole contention is that maintenance has been awarded in a separate proceeding initiated under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. The same is being paid. Therefore, the proceeding under Section 125 of Cr..P.C. requires to be quashed.
2. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the respondent disputes the same.
3. On hearing learned counsels, I’am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition.
4. The two enactments have been created granting a special status to the women. There is no bar under law for initiating proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as well as under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. Each one of the statues is different, giving a separate right to the wife. It is not the contention of the petitioner that both the proceedings are not maintainable. He accepts the fact that two proceedings are maintainable against him. Under these circumstances, the question of interfering in one of the proceedings only because relief has been granted in another proceedings would not arise for consideration. The right granted to the wife is coextensive with both enactments. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ……

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s