Case laws

Thus, it is prayed to the honourable Supreme Court in this special leave petition that the honourable Supreme Court may be pleased to pass an order to live happily with petitioner Shri Shived Saxena if she is unable to prove cruelty on herself because she made false allegations against the petitioner after receiving the notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, restitution of conjugal rights and left home after the death of her father. The honourable Supreme Court may be pleased to set aside the previous order of maintenance in favour of respondent Smt. Megha Khare because Smt. Megha Khare is well-educated and post graduate in management and she did job before and after marriage and she is not doing job and has made false allegations after receiving the notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. on petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena only to get unfair maintenance. The petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena, would like to pray to the honourable Supreme Court to ask to respondent, Smt. Megha ...

1. Whether the honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh has not ignored to consider the guidelines of Deb Narayan Halder vs Smt. Anushree Halder on 26 August, 2003 , it which it is clearly mentioned that the wife can not claim maintenance if she is unable to prove cruelty. The court can not grant maintenance on the basis of conjecture and surmise and the respondent, Smt Megha Khare has made false allegations on petitioner after receiving the notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, restitution of conjugal rights and she has not proved any allegation on petitioner.  2. Where the honourable high court of Madhya Pradesh has erred in not considering the legal maxim ' Salus populi est suprema lex or Suprema lex salus populi which means that the welfare of the people is the supreme law. In other words, it means public welfare is the highest law. The Honorable High Court of Madhya Pradesh neither ordered the respondent, Smt. Megha Khare to prove the cruelty on herself nor considered that...

Ans: According to Lydia Maria Child, law is not a law if it violates the principles of eternal justice. According to William Scott Downey, law without justice is a wound without a cure.

Ans: In this citation, it  was observed by honourable Supreme Court that there have been many instances where the complaints were not  bona fide  and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases, acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial. The Court opined that merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, it does not allow unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. Till the time the legislature does not find a solution to the frivolous complaints, the courts have to take care of the situation within the existing framework.

Ans: In this citation, t he petition was filed under Article 32 of Indian Constitution for declaring  Section 498A  of IPC as unconstitutional and ultra vires in the alternative to formulate guidelines so that innocent persons are no longer falsely accused. Further, prayers were made that if any allegation under this section was unfounded then strict actions must be taken against him.

Synopsis: The Constitution of India, under Article 136  vests the honourable Supreme Court of India with a special power to grant leave to appeal against any judgement or order or decree in any matter or cause passed or made by the court/tribunal in the territory of India. Thus, this special leave petition is filed in the honourable Supreme Court against the impunged order of the honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur  to dismiss the criminal revisional no. 587 of 2020 under section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure granting maintenance to respondent Smt. Megha Khare. The case of Shri Shived Saxena, Petitioner V. Smt. Megha Saxena, Respondent, which was dismissed by honourable high court of Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 587 of 2020 is  outlined  before honourable Supreme Court in nutshell as: 1. That, the petitioner Shri Shived Saxena is legally wedded husband of respondent Smt. Megha Khare. 2. That the petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena challenged t...

Ans: According to this citation, the wife can not claim maintenance if she is unable to prove cruelty. The court can not grant maintenance on the basis of conjecture and surmise in accordance with the judgement of honourable Supreme Court. 

Ans: According to this citation, the honourable Supreme Court held that Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act  does not violate the fundamental right. It is limited to the rights of marriage and it does not encroach the right to privacy. 

 Ans: The restitution of Conjugal rights are mentioned in following sections. Section 9 ; Hindu Marriage Act – 1955 Section 22; Special Marriage Act – 1954 Section 32; Indian Divorce Act-1869 Section 36; The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act  According to these sections, the husband can give legal notice to wife to live together and she can not leave him without any reason. x

Grounds to corroborate genuine liabilities and how the petitioner fulfilled his responsibilities honestly: The petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena would like mention his liabilities without alleging to respondent Smt. Megha Khare because he spent a lot on Smt. Megha Khare considering her a true friend because in accordance with petitioner, the happiest man is one who finds the true friend in his wife. The Indusind Bank credit card statement that the petitioner has incurred about Rs 60000/- on his wife (respondent)  and her family when he came to Jabalpur on the occasion of Barsi of his Father in law. In another instance, the petitioner has spent Rs 1,74,000 in arranging air ambulance for his father in law to be airlifted from Jabalpur to Medanta hospital in Gurgaon .All these expenses were incurred on his credit cards only . Accordingly, he incurred an expenses of about Rs 10 lacs in all in 4.5 years of his marriage life so that he could provide a comfortable life to his wife.To summari...

Part 2: Grounds to corroborate the concealing of income by respondent after putting false allegations on petitioner only to get unfair maintenance: Allegation by petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena Saxena on respondent, Smt. Megha Khare: The petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena alleged the respondent, Smt. Megha Khare that the respondent, Smt Megha Khare is concealing her income is putting false allegations on petitioner only to get maintenance. Facts to vindicate the allegation on respondent, Smt. Megha Khare by petitioner Shri Shived Saxena :  1. The learned court  relied only on the Net salary as per salary-slip bonafidely produced by the petitioner and passed the impugned order without looking into his liabilities towards his parents and other financial obligations. The learned court has not appreciated that petitioner has provided all the details bonafidely whereas respondent has hidden many facts and the legal maxim " falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" says that false in one thing,...

The Grounds are the reasons due to which the  petitioner, Shived Saxena  interfere in earlier order. Due to the grounds , question of law arises.  Thus, the grounds are being mentioned in this Special petition leave based on law of nature and lex fori: Part A: Grounds to corroborate false allegations on petitioner, Shri Sived Saxena by respondent, Smt. Megha Khare on the basis of law of nature and lex fori: Allegation on petitioner: The  respondent, Smt. Megha Khare was beaten on account of domestic violence and dowry harassment and driven out of her matrimonial home on 24.08.2018. Facts to rebut the allegation by petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena:  1. The petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena in his original written statement has produced the air ticket on which the respondent travelled on 24.08.2018 .He has shared a path breaking finding that the air ticket on which respondent travelled was booked 39 days in advance.  2. She also carried a total of 47 kgs of luggag...

1. Whether the honourable high court of Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur has erred  to comply with the guidelines mentioned in judgement of Rajnesh V. Neha( Criminal appeal no 730 of 2020) Supreme Court of India, on 4th November, 2020 in which it is clearly mentioned that the bonafide affidavit will be filed by both the parties and the evidences given by petitioner Shri Shived Saxena to rebut the veracity of affidavit submitted by Smt. Megha Khare will be considered. 2. Whether the Hon’ble High Court has not ignored to consider the guidelines of Rajnesh V. Neha that the wife will not get maintenance if she is well abled body and well-educated to work whereas the respondent, Smt Megha Khare is highly qualified and did job before and after marriage and is not doing job now only to get unfair maintenance by putting false allegations on petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena.

 Synopsis: The Constitution of India under Article 136  vests honourable Supreme Court of India with a special power to grant leave to appeal against any judgement or order or decree in any matter or cause passed or made by the court/tribunal in the territory of India. Thus, this special leave petition is filed in honourable Supreme Court against the impunged order of Honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur  to dismiss the criminal revisional no. 587 of 2020 under section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure granting maintenance to respondent Smt. Megha Khare. The case of Shri Shived Saxena, Petitioner V. Smt. Megha Saxena, respondent which was dismissed by honourable high court of Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 587 of 2020 is  outlined  before honourable Supreme Court in nutshell as: 1. That, the petitioner Shri Shived Saxena is legally wedded husband of respondent Smt. Megha Khare. 2. That the petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena challenged the valid...

Ans: Lis pendens, literally means ‘pending litigation’ or ‘pending suit. Koyalee v. Rajasthan District (2008)

Ans:  Ejusdem generis  is a Latin phrase that means  ‘of the same kind’ .  Thakur Amar Singhji v. State of Rajasthan (1955)

 Doli incapax – Incapable of crime. Or incapable of forming the intent to commit a crime. Read with section 82 of IPC.

Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea – The intent and act must both concur to constitute the crime. R.Balakrishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala, MANU/SC/0212/2003: 2003 (9) SCC 700: 2003 (2) SCR 436.

Actus legis nemini facit injuriam is a well-established Latin maxim that signifies ‘The act of the law does injury to no one’. 

Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona – A personal right of action dies with the person. Girja Nandini Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra Narain Choudhury, MANU/SC/0287/1966: AIR 1967 SC 1124: 1967 (1) SCR 93.

Actus Dei Nemini Injuriam – law holds no man responsible for the Act of God. Mali Ram Mahabir Prasad Vs Shanti Debi & Ors., MANU/BH/0010/1992: AIR 1992 PAT 66.

9. Whether the Hon’ble High Court has not ignored to consider that right to equality provides no discrimination between man and woman when woman is putting wrong allegations on man in order to get unfair maintenance from the man and man is striving to full his liabilities at the best. In Citation of Bisheshwar Nath V. IT Commissioner, AIR 1959 SC 149, it was held by the Supreme Court of India that the rights under Article 14 of Indian Constitution can not be waived. Thus, no citizen of India can waive his fundamental rights. It is not a mere privilege or license granted by the Constitution. A person can waive his ordinary right but the fundamental rights can not be waived.  

1. T he learned court has not appreciated what is prohibited in nature of things, can not be confirmed by law. The legal maxim " Quae rerum natur prohibentuur, null lege confirmata sunt " which means what is prohibited in the nature of things, can not be confirmed by law. So, it is against the law of nature to provide the maintenance to abled body and well educated wife when she can earn and she has cheated and put false allegations on her husband only to get the maintenance from her husband whereas husband has other liabilities and strain his nerve to meet the expenses of his family for the happiness of his family. 2. Because of the learned court has not been pleased to consider that Section 24 and Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (maintenance pendente lite ) permits any party to file a maintenance application if the other party is able to give maintenance and the other party has no means of sustenance. These are the two noteworthy provisions that must be taken int...

1. . Because of, the petitioner has burden to re-pay various loan amounts as taken by the petitioner time to time, thus he has to pay EMIs for the same. Though learned court erred in observing and concluded that petitioner got those personal loans and credit card bills just for his luxurious life. His sole purpose was to provide the best of facilities and comfort to his wife, her family so that peace and harmony may prevail and add to the marital bliss. The learned court has not been pleased to consider the fact that a true wife would contribute blessings and not burdens even when she is highly educated and she did job before and after marriage and her husband has many liabilities. 2. Because of, the leaned court acknowledged and concluded that the Home Loan, Premium of Mediclaim and montly Rent and etc. were taken by the petitioner towards expenses. But the learned court erred in observing that  it was duly showcased before the learned court by the petitioner through his Indusind ...

1.Because of, the learned court  relied only on the Net salary as per salary-slip bonafidely produced by the petitioner and passed the impugned order without looking into his liabilities towards his parents and other financial obligations. The learned court has not appreciated that petitioner has provided all the details bonafidely whereas respondent has hidden many facts and the legal maxim " falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" says that false in one thing, false in everything ". A true person would always like to put everything authentically before law. 2.  Because of, the learned court has failed to see that it is admitted fact that respondent is professionally qualified management post graduate (M.B.A) and she used to do work both time means before and after marriage and also having one joint account by showing TDS return in ITR which itself clears that she is earning at present. But learned court below wrongly concluded that the joint account belongs to his brother, h...

1.  Because of, the learned court below erred in observing that the respondent has reasonable ground to live separately as on basis that the FIR was registered u/s 498A of IPC, however petitioner produced the evidences which clears that FIR was lodged just after receiving notice of Sec.9 of Hindu Marriage Act and by tempering the police officials wrongly taken complaint and received the complaint from back date. But the learned court by not looking in the matter, wrongly concluded that she has reasonable reason to live separately. The truth always comes out in the end no matter how hard anyone tries to hide it.  The petitioner in his original written statement has produced the air ticket on which the respondent travelled on 24.08.2018 .He has shared a path breaking finding that the air ticket on which respondent travelled was booked 39 days in advance. In her original complaint at Mahila Thana she has alleged that she was beaten on account of domestic violence and dowry harass...

Assets ( moveable and im-moveable ) owned by the Deponent :    Respondent Megha claims of loan liability which was extended to her by her brother Ankur Khare to the tune of Rs 206527. Objection : •          When was this loan given by Ankur to Megha ? •          What was the purpose of availing this loan ? •          By when was she expected to repay back this loan ? •          Was there any agreement or documentation between the borrower and the lender ? •          How was Megha expected to repay back this loan ,especially when she does not have a source of Income ,atleast in the eyes of law? •          She has been claiming maintenance since September 2019 @Rs 25000 per month from petitioner Shived . Infact Petitioner Shived,...

Ans: Facts pertaining to income of Respondent : Needless to say that her ITR’s are file by her brother Ankur Khare who happens to be an Income Tax advocate by profession .Only the banks statements of the said bank accounts can reveal the truth . It is to be noted further that ,she has two joint bank accounts -Axis Bank (911010056397880) and Yes Bank (0444511000033) with her brother Ankur Khare who is an Income Tax advocate by profession .   When Respondent was caught red handed ,lying on oath about her income in the above mentioned Axis Bank account ,her brother Ankur Khare, who is an Income Tax advocate by profession, came to her defense saying on an affidavit submitted in the Family Court that he has been using his sister’s account for the “purpose of his business and that she has nothing to do” with  the money lying in the Axis Bank account despite she(Megha Khare)  being the first account holder and getting an income tax refund  against  her PAN card in...

Delay in submitting affidavit due to guilty conscience accuses itself:  No wonder ,that she did not submit this affidavit in the lower court for 2 years and even until Dec 2,2022 when the Honourable High Court issued a strict warning forfeiting the right to submission ,that she came forward and sought time till 8 December 2022. Further to be noted is  that ,her affidavit signing date of Rajnesh Vs Neha format is December 1,2022 .  If that be the case why did her counsel pray for the next date in the first place ?  Are these some kind of delaying tactics being played by her /her lawyers. This is nothing but a mockery of the whole judicial system.  Given to the values and belief systems imposed by the law and Honourable HC , a petitioner / respondent is expect to make genuine and responsible statements in the court in the interest of law abidance and justice. If her affidavit was ready on Dec 1,2022 ,she should have submitted the affidavit in all honesty without h...

Despite of the fact that ,Rajnesh Vs Neha affidavit format being a mandate from Honourable Supreme court  in Nov 2020 with  a very strict warning that it has to be completely true and accurate ,she has once again dared to fudge and manipulate the financial facts. She is taking undue advantage of the leniency of the Honourable court towards women, in general . Due to following reasons in compliance to Rajnesh V. Neha: 1. She hid her income source and income details.  2. She has a 5 bank accounts in total . If she does not have a source of income ,what is the need of having 5 accounts ? From where is she getting the money to maintain these 5 accounts. After all, she has said that she does not have a source of income and is dependent on her brother and mother for her livelihood. Most private sector banks advise a minimum balance of Rs 10,000 each month. This amounts to Rs 50,000 in all .

Objection by Applicant on Affidavit of Respondent: That, the Applicant seeks a humble liberty of the Hon’ble Court to file written objections to the Affidavit in compliance to Rajnesh V. Neha filed by the Respondent Wife on 02-12-2022 whereas Applicant submitted his bonafide affidavit on 13/10/2022. 

Proceedings during Revision in High Court:  1.  That, the Hon’ble Court vide the order dated 22-09-2022, directed both the parties to furnish an Income Affidavit in compliance to Rajnesh v/s Neha. 2.   That, the Hon’ble Court vide the order dated 22-09-2022, directed both the parties to furnish an Income Affidavit in compliance to Rajnesh v/s Neha . 2. That, the Applicant in compliance to the above order, filed the Income Affidavit stating all the assets on 13-10-2022. Meanwhile, the Respondent once again resorted to dilatory tactics and has hidden various facts about the income.

The Applicant named above begs to submit hereunder: 1.  Criminal Revision filed in High Court, Jabalpur under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C:  The Instant Criminal Revision was filed in High Court against the order passed by Learned Family Court, Jabalpur ,   fixing the interim maintenance of Rs 25,000 per month. 

Ans:  Certified that the Special Leave to Appeal is confined only to the pleadings before the Hon’ble High Court, whose order is challenged and the other documents relied upon in those proceedings.   No additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken therein or relied upon in the Special Leave to Appeal.   It is further certified that the copies of the documents/Annexures attached to the Special Leave to Appeal are necessary to answer the question of law raised in the Special Leave to Appeal or to make out grounds urged in the Special Leave to Appeal for consideration of this Hon’ble Court.   This certificate is given on the basis of the information given by the Petitioner whose Affidavit is filed in support of the Special Leave to Appeal.

Ans:     Relief prayed for:  It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please to :- a)    Grant Special Leave to Appeal against the impugned final judgment and order dated 03.02.2022 passed by the Bench of Jabalpur High Court in C.M.A.(MD)Nos. 1250 and 1261 of 2018 AND C.M.P.(MD) Nos. 10785 and 10786 of 2018  and/or; b)   Pass any other orders (s) or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

Ans: Whether the Hon’ble High Court has not ignored the true facts that the respondent can not claim maintenance by making false allegations on petitioner and has not failed to consider the legal maxim" actus curiae neminum gravabit which means that the act of court shall not prejudice anyone and there are many case laws in regard to it where husband was protected from unfair maintenance when wife was well-educated and making false allegations on husband. There are mentioned herewith given below: 1. Rupali Gupta vs. Rajat Gupta, 234 (2016) DLT 693. 2. Damanpreet Kaur vs Indermeet Juneja & Anr. on 14 May, 2012. 3. Biswajit Murmu & Anr vs The State of West Bengal (Calcutta High Court) on 29 July, 2015. 4. Smt. Mamta Jaiswal V. Rajesh Jaiswal on 24th March, 2000. 5. Smt. Pramila Bhatia vs Vijay Kumar Bhatia on 19 May, 2000 on Rajasthan High Court, page no. 362. 6. Sudhir Gupta v. Maniha Kumari @ Manisha Gupta [ CRL.M.C. 1117/2021 & CRL.M.A. 5684/2021. 7. Bhushan Kumar Mee...

QLP-7: Whether the Hon’ble High Court has not ignored the true facts that the respondent who is well-educated can do permanent job and a respondent is hiding her job and deliberately not doing job even if she did job before and after marriage and has committed offence under section 209 and 211 of IPC.

QLP-6: Whether the Hon’ble High Court has not ignored the true facts that the petitioner has submitted the documentary evidences of false allegations on him and the respondent cheated him only to get the maintenance even if she is well-educated and already earning.

 QOL 5:     Whether the Hon’ble High Court has not failed to consider that the brother of respondent who is tax advocate is assisting the respondent to get maintenance from petitioner by putting false evidences. The Honourable high court of Rajasthan has very important words in the following case law and the words are " Look for job and don't fight for alimony". Smt. Pramila Bhatia vs Vijay Kumar Bhatia on 19 May, 2000 on Rajasthan High Court, page no. 362. The honorable High Court of Jabalpur has not considered the facts given by the petitioner to prove that respondent has put false allegations on him and in-laws only to get the maintenance.