Posts

Q: Write about the citation of Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 July, 2005 ?

Ans: By this petition purported to have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short `the Constitution') prayer is to declare Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC') to be unconstitutional and ultra vires in the alternative to formulate guidelines so that innocent persons are victimized by unscrupulous persons making false accusations.  Further prayer is made that whenever, any court comes to the conclusion that the allegations made regarding commission of offence under Section 498 IPC are unfounded, stringent action should be taken against person making the allegations. This according to the petitioner, would discourage persons from coming to courts with unclean hands and ulterior motives. Several instances have been highlighted to exhibit how commission of offence punishable under Section 498A IPC has been made with oblige motive and with a view to harass the husband, in-laws and relatives.  According to the petitioner there i...
Post a Comment
Read more

Q: Write about the citation of 'MANJU RAM KALITA V. STATE OF ASSAM, 2009' ?

Ans: In the citation of MANJU RAM KALITA V. STATE OF ASSAM, 2009, the honourable Supreme Court relying on several precedents observed that the meaning of “Cruelty” differs in each statutory provision and hence must be established in the context of Section 498A of IPC. The conduct of the man, the seriousness of his acts must be compared with the likeliness of the woman to commit suicide, etc. It must be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels would not come under the purview of “cruelty”. Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction order under Section 498A of IPC. x
Post a Comment
Read more

Q: Write about the citation of BHASKAR LAL SHARMA & ANR. V. MONICA ?

Ans: In the citation of BHASKAR LAL SHARMA & ANR. V. MONICA, the honourable Supreme Court observed that all the essential elements required for an offence under Section 498A of the IPC were not fulfilled in the present case. The respondent took all coercive steps to ensure the presence of appellants in India without making any effort at conciliation. The court was of the view that merely because the mother-in-law kicked the daughter-in-law and threatened her with divorce, the same did not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of IPC. Thus, no case was made out against the appellants under Section 498A of IPC. x
Post a Comment
Read more

Q: Discuss the citation Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, (1975) 2 SCC 386 ?

Ans:  In case of Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, (1975) 2 SCC 386, the honourable Supreme Court held that the object of the provisions of maintenance are to prevent vagrancy as well as destitution. The Magistrate has to find out as to what is required by the wife to maintain the standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but is modestly consistent with the status of the family. The requirements of the wife for such moderate living can be fairly determined, only if her separate income, also, is taken into account together with the earnings of the husband as well as his commitments. The Supreme Court of India held that the separate or independent income of the wife should also be considered while determining the amount of maintenance payable to her. Therefore, the Court passed the appeal and set aside the judgment delivered by the High Court. The Court decided to send the case back to the trial Magistrate to readjust the amount of maintenance. x x
Post a Comment
Read more

Q: Write about the citation of Naresh Chandra V. Reshma Bai ?

Ans: According to the citation of Naresh Chandra V. Reshma Bai : 1992, Cri.L.J 579: 1992, the the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the absence of facts are essential to put forward to constitute a valid marriage. Court can not grant interim maintenance in favour of alleged wife but the illegitimate child is entitled to interim relief. x
Post a Comment
Read more

Q: Conclude the citation of Swastika Sen V. State of West Bengal ?

Ans: In accordance with the citation of Swastika sen V. State of West Bengal, 2003, , the Calcutta High Court held that if a wife is an employed person or has a business and earns a definite sum by way of regular income and if the court finds that such income is sufficient to maintain her to earn for her livelihood, she can not claim maintenance from the husband. The ITR proves that the wife was able to maintain herself during the interim period, thus the application was dismissed.
Post a Comment
Read more

Q: Elaborate the citation of Nikhat Fatima v. Syed Razi Ahmed ?

Ans: The High Court of Telangana replied the question if a wife who is earning, be operated as a bar from awarding maintenance to suit the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home, though the case of Nikhat Fatima v. Syed Razi Ahmed,( Tr.C.M.P.Nos.758 and 760 of 2018) which was decided through the learned bench led by M.S.Ramachandra Rao.  In the present case, the family court dismissed the interim application filed by the first petitioner on the ground that the wife herself had mentioned that she was earning Rs 20,000/- per month. The court ordered the first respondent to pay 7 Thousand per month to each petitioner 2 and 3 that were his children towards interim maintenance, from the date of the petition, pending disposal of maintenance case and the petition to the extent of petitioner 1 that is the wife was dismissed.  The wife being aggrieved by the order approached the HC for revision. Once the case was brought before the High Court,  the court referred to...
Post a Comment
Read more