• Rajnesh vs  Neha and Ors. 04.11.2020 MANU/SC/0833/2020

Paragraph 8  party may claim maintenance under different laws like HAMA and HMA since each offers distinct remedies. For example, a Hindu wife can seek maintenance under both HAMA and Sections 24 and 25 of HMA during proceedings like divorce or restitution.

Paragraph 9 Although a party can approach courts under multiple enactments due to their different purposes, this can cause overlapping jurisdiction and conflicting maintenance orders. This must be streamlined to avoid repeated obligations for the respondent.

Paragraph 10 When maintenance is already awarded under Section 125 CrPC, that amount must be considered in subsequent proceedings under HMA Sections 24 or 25 to prevent duplicate maintenance orders.

Paragraph 29 Section 125 CrPC provides summary maintenance to wives, children, and parents, irrespective of religion. It requires proof that the husband has means but neglects to support a wife who cannot maintain herself.

Paragraph 30 The remedy under Section 125 CrPC is summary and does not resolve matrimonial disputes. Such issues must be handled by civil or family courts under laws like the HMA.

Paragraph 44 Section 3 of the DV Act includes economic abuse, defined as the denial of financial resources the aggrieved person is entitled to, including household necessities and court-ordered payments.

Paragraph 49 Under Section 20 DV Act, the Magistrate can order the respondent to pay for expenses and losses from domestic violence, which includes loss of earnings, medical costs, damaged property, and maintenance, in addition to Section 125 CrPC or other laws.

Paragraph 50 Section 20(1)(d) of the DV Act clarifies that maintenance granted under the Act is in addition to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC or other applicable laws.

Paragraph 51 Section 20(6) authorizes the Magistrate to direct the respondent’s employer or debtor to pay a portion of the respondent’s income or debts towards monetary relief.

Paragraph 52 Section 22 permits the Magistrate to award compensation for injuries, including emotional and mental distress caused by domestic violence.

Paragraph 53 Section 23 allows the Magistrate to grant ex parte monetary relief if satisfied from the aggrieved woman’s affidavit that domestic violence is ongoing or likely.

Paragraph 54 Section 26 allows seeking DV Act reliefs in civil, family, or criminal proceedings. Prior relief must be disclosed to the Magistrate if obtained in another proceeding.

Paragraph 55 Section 36 states the DV Act is supplementary to other laws. Courts differ—some deny adjustment of maintenance across laws, others allow it to avoid duplicate payments.

Paragraph 57 Applicants must disclose prior maintenance orders in new cases for the court to consider adjustments. If modification is needed, it must be sought from the original court.

Payment of Interim Maintenance (i) HMA Section 24 and CrPC Section 125 require interim maintenance orders to be passed within 60 days, but delays occur due to court backlogs, adjournments, and incomplete pleadings.

(ii)Courts often guess the interim maintenance amount due to incomplete or false disclosures by both parties, making accurate assessments difficult.

(iii)Family Courts must first attempt to settle disputes per Section 9 of the Family Courts Act. Marriage counsellors, as required under Sections 5 and 6, should be appointed in every Family Court.

(iv)The applicant must file a brief application with a mandatory Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities.

(v)The court uses these affidavits to objectively assess interim maintenance.

(vi)Delhi High Court, through a series of cases, established a format for affidavits of assets, income, and expenditure for various maintenance laws. This was expanded over time to more laws and courts.

(vii)Given India’s diverse population, the Supreme Court sought input from State Legal Services Authorities to frame appropriate affidavit formats.

(viii)NALSA submitted suggestions from SLSAs to help draft effective Affidavit formats.

(ix)Separate formats for urban, rural, and tribal areas are included in Enclosures I–III of the judgment.

(x)In Meghalaya, which follows a matrilineal system and has tribal tax exemptions, a special affidavit format is prescribed.

(xi)The Court sets guidelines under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution for filing affidavits and conducting maintenance proceedings, covering topics like timelines, affidavit disputes, interrogatories, and consequences for delay or false statements. EWS/BPL parties may be exempted.

Permanent Alimony (i–iv)

Courts should consider evidence of income, standard of living, and marriage duration. Support for children’s marriage and consideration of trust funds is included.

Criteria for Maintenance (i–vi)

Maintenance is to prevent destitution, not to punish. Factors include the applicant’s income, standard of living, children, and liabilities. The amount should be fair—not excessive or insufficient—and consider inflation. Section 23 HAMA and Section 20(2) DV Act guide this. Courts may estimate income if not fully disclosed. Key criteria like status, needs, assets, number of dependents, and lifestyle are to be considered.

Paragraph 99

All parties in maintenance proceedings nationwide—current and pending—must file the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities as per the formats annexed to the judgment.

• Smt. Suman Mandal Vs Rajesh Kumar Mandal on 25 september, 2020, AIR 2021(NOC) 418 (PAT), AIRONLINE 2020 PAT 522.

Summary of paragraph 15 and 16:-

Paragraph 15 Section 20 of the Domestic Violence (DV) Act allows for maintenance to be granted to the aggrieved person and her children, in addition to any maintenance ordered under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code or any other existing law. Section 26 enables relief under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act to be sought in any civil, family, or criminal court, in addition to other proceedings. Section 36 affirms that the DV Act supplements, rather than overrides, other legal provisions.

Paragraph 16 A combined reading of Sections 20, 26, and 36 of the DV Act indicates that its maintenance provisions supplement other laws. Thus, maintenance can be awarded under the DV Act in addition to any maintenance granted under Section 125 of the CrPc.

RD VS BD on 31 July, 2019 Delhi High Court

Summary of paragraph 13, 14 and 16:-

Paragraph 13 (Bombay High Court – Prakash Babulal Dangi v. State of Maharashtra, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 8897):
The Court held that maintenance orders under the DV Act and Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are independent and can co-exist. Hence, the husband is liable to pay both — the interim maintenance under the DV Act and the separate maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was awarded from the date of the order.
The Court clarified, referring to Section 20(1)(d) of the DV Act, that maintenance granted under the DV Act is in addition to that granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or any other law. Section 36 of the DV Act reinforces this by stating that DV Act provisions are supplementary and not in derogation of other laws. Therefore, maintenance under the DV Act cannot replace or substitute maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Paragraph 14 (Punjab & Haryana High Court – Sanjay Gulati v. Harsh Lata, MANU/PH/0323/2018):
The Court ruled that a wife already receiving maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can also claim maintenance under Section 20 of the DV Act. There is no requirement for her to seek enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C. Instead, she can file a separate DV Act petition. However, while determining maintenance under the DV Act, courts must consider any maintenance already being paid under other laws like Section 125 Cr.P.C. or Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Paragraph 16 (Summary by Court):
A combined reading of Sections 20, 26, and 36 of the DV Act makes it evident that the DV Act provisions for maintenance are supplementary and not exclusionary. Thus, an aggrieved person can receive maintenance under the DV Act in addition to any maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

• Shome Nikhil Danani vs Tanya Banon Danani on 11 April, 2019, AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 668

Summary of Paragraphs 17 and 18:

Paragraph 17
Section 20 of the Domestic Violence (DV) Act has a broader scope than Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), as it allows for monetary relief covering various expenses and losses due to domestic violence—such as loss of earnings, medical costs, and property damage. Additionally, Section 20(1)(d) empowers the magistrate to order maintenance for the aggrieved person and her children, even alongside or in addition to orders under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or any other applicable law.

Paragraph 18
It is evident that an order under Section 20 of the DV Act is not limited by an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court failed to recognize this distinction, mistakenly perceiving the wife’s application under Section 23 as solely for maintenance. In reality, her application also sought residence rights under Section 19 and protection under Section 18, besides the monetary relief under Section 20.

• Richa Arya Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Crl. Rev. P. 300/2015 (MANU/DE/0336/2016

Paragraph 22:

 The Supreme Court’s judgment in Juveria Abdul Majid Khan Patni vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and Anr., (2014) 10 SCC 736,

The Supreme Court clarified that monetary relief under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is distinct from maintenance and may be awarded in addition to any maintenance ordered under Section 125 Cr.P.C or any other law. This relief is intended to cover the expenses and losses suffered by the aggrieved woman and her child due to domestic violence, and it does not depend on the existence of a domestic relationship at the time of filing the application under Section 12.

Rajnesh vs  Neha and Ors. 04.11.2020 MANU/SC/0833/2020

Smt. Suman Mandal Vs Rajesh Kumar Mandal on 25 september, 2020, AIR 2021(NOC) 418 (PAT), AIRONLINE 2020 PAT 522.

RD VS BD on 31 July, 2019 Delhi High Court

Shome Nikhil Danani vs Tanya Banon Danani on 11 April, 2019, AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 668

Richa Arya Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Crl. Rev. P. 300/2015 (MANU/DE/0336/2016

The post Maintenance can be claimed under different laws such Sec 125 of CrPC and Sec 24 and 25 of HMA. appeared first on advsaikatrahman.

1. Anurag Soni vs. The State of Chattisgarh 2019 (13) SCC 1

Summary of Paragraph 11, 19 (10.5) and 16:

Paragraph 19(10.5): Refers to Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar, highlighting the distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court must examine whether the complainant had mala fide motives or made a false promise to satisfy lust. A mere breach of promise does not amount to rape.

Paragraph 10.6 sub-para-16: Refers to Sujit Ranjan v. State, holding that consent given by the prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse on a promise of future marriage cannot be considered as given under “misconception of fact.” The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had no intention to marry from the inception.

Paragraph 11: Refers to Tilak Raj, where the prosecutrix was in a consensual relationship with the accused for two years. The Court found that the story of sexual intercourse on false pretenses of marriage was concocted and not believable. The accused was acquitted under Section 376 of the IPC.

2. Prashant vs. The State of NCT Delhi 2024 INSC 879:

Summary of Paragraph 11,18,19and 20

Paragraph 11: Refers to State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, outlining parameters for exercising powers under Section 482 of CrPC. Quashing may be appropriate where allegations do not constitute any offence or are made with mala fide intentions.

Paragraph 18: Highlights that the complainant and appellant were in a consensual relationship. The appellant’s marriage in 2019 likely led the complainant to file the FIR. A mere breakup of a consensual relationship cannot result in criminal proceedings.

Paragraph 19: Emphasizes that the crucial ingredients of the offence under Section 376 (2)(n) IPC are absent. The relationship was consensual, and a breakup does not amount to criminality.

Paragraph 20: There is no case of criminal intimidation as the relationship was consensual. The complainant filed the complaint after the appellant’s marriage in 2019.

3. Sonu@Subhash Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 1405

Summary of Paragraph 9, 10 and 11.

Paragraph 9: In the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, the court outlined the legal principles for situations where a promise to marry is used to deceive a woman into engaging in sexual relations. If the promise to marry is false and made with the intention to deceive, it creates a “misconception of fact” that invalidates the woman’s consent. However, a mere breach of promise does not constitute a false promise. To establish a false promise, it must be shown that the person making the promise had no intention of keeping it at the time it was made.

Paragraph 10:  The court summarized the legal position from previous cases, stating that a woman’s consent under Section 375 must involve active and reasoned deliberation. To determine if consent was invalidated by a “misconception of fact” due to a promise to marry, two conditions must be met: the promise of marriage must have been false and made in bad faith with no intention of being kept, and this false promise must have directly influenced the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.

Paragraph 11: Considering the legal tests established in the aforementioned decision, the court concluded that even if all allegations in the FIR are accepted as true for the purpose of considering an application to quash under Section 482 of the CrPC, no offence has been established. There is no allegation that the promise to marry was false from the beginning. Instead, the FIR indicates a subsequent refusal to marry, which led to its registration. Based on these facts, the High Court erred in not entertaining the petition under Section 482, as the determination of an offence should not solely depend on trial evidence.

Anurag Soni vs. The State of Chattisgarh 2019 (13) SCC 1

Prashant vs. The State of NCT Delhi 2024 INSC 879

Sonu@Subhash Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 1405

The post CONCENSUAL RELATIONSHIP CANNOT BE TERMED AS “RAPE” (PRATIK) appeared first on advsaikatrahman.

1. Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I, 2010 9 SCC, 368:

Paragraph 16 emphasizes that at the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C., the court’s role is to assess whether there is sufficient evidence to presume the accused committed an offense. It clarifies that a Magistrate should evaluate materials to determine if a prima facie case exists but should not delve deeply into the merits of the evidence or conduct a trial-like inquiry. Although if there is no prima facie evidence or the evidence is totally unworthy of credit it is the duty of the magistrate to discharge the accused.

Paragraph 17 outlines principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which deal with discharging an accused or framing charges. Key takeaways include:

1. Prima Facie Case Determination: Judges can sift through and weigh evidence to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case against the accused.
2. Grave Suspicion: Charges can be framed if there is grave suspicion against the accused that is not satisfactorily explained.
3. Judicial Mindset: Judges must evaluate the broad probabilities, totality of evidence, and documents without acting as a “Post Office” for the prosecution.
4. Possibility of Offense: Charges can be framed if evidence indicates the accused might have committed the offense, even though proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed for conviction.
5. Probative Value: Judges must apply judicial minds to assess evidence but not delve deeply into its probative value at the charge-framing stage.
6. Two Views: If evidence gives rise to mere suspicion rather than grave suspicion, the accused can be discharged.

These principles guide the judiciary to ensure fairness while progressing cases through trial.

• 2. Asim Shariff v. NIA, 2019, 7 SCC 148:

Summary of Paragraphs 16 and 19:

Paragraph 16: The Court referred to the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, discussing the scope of Section 227 CrPC. The judge at this stage is not to conduct a mini-trial or weigh evidence in-depth but must assess whether a prima facie case exists based on the documents and evidence presented. If there is grave suspicion of the accused’s involvement in the offense, the court can proceed with framing charges. The sufficiency of grounds does not require a complete examination but a preliminary assessment of the material.

Paragraph 19: The Court reiterated that while considering discharge applications under Section 227 CrPC, the judge has the authority to sift and assess evidence to determine if a prima facie case exists. If the material points to grave suspicion but lacks a clear explanation from the accused, charges can be framed. The judge must exercise judicial discretion, ensuring that the decision to proceed with the trial is based on a reasonable evaluation of the facts, and not on mere suspicion.

Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I, 2010 9 SCC,36

Asim Shariff v.NIA, 2019, 7 SC

The post Under what circumstances can a case be discharged by the Court at the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C appeared first on advsaikatrahman.

Bail granted before the expiry of the statutory period of a Bangladeshi National as he was not involved in any other offence. Moreover, an Indian National and a Foreign National has the same rights in the Country without any discrimination.

Shivinder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Lambert Kroger Vs. Enforcement Directorate

Md. Kyaw Kyaw Naing Vs. The State of Manipur and Ors.

Muhammad Jamil Vs State Of Haryana

Abu Taher Miah on behalf of accd. Najrul Islam Vs. State of Tripura

The post Bail Granted to Bangladeshi National (Arafat Omi Judgments) appeared first on advsaikatrahman.