Many clients ask me this question? will the wife be allowed to enter the matrimonial home under domestic violence act?
Many old parents are scared that they would be evicted from their own house and court will allow the wife to reside with them or give the property of wife.
A lot of tension is created in such a scenario.
I have done some research and let us find out if this is true or not?
Now there are two scenarios.. One is the normal scenario the property where wife residing in matrimonial home is owned by in laws and not the husband….But husband is staying with his parents i.e inlaws and wife and wife alleges she was thrown out of the matrimonial house. She needs shelter and demanded residence rights and protection from in-laws.
The answer to this scenario lies in the fact since the property is owned by in-laws, she does not get a right to reside in shared household because husband does not have any right title interest in the property.
On the other hand husband is casted by a responsibility to provide alternate accommodation/rental which will be part of the maintenance
Thus, looking at the totality of the circumstances and the pleadings as well as the order X, CPC statements, it cannot be said that the learned single Judge was off the mark when he observed that there is no dispute that the suit property belongs to the defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, the first point of attack that the conclusion of the learned single Judge was founded on a wrong premise, falls to the ground. We must emphasise once again that the right of residence which a wife undoubtedly has does not mean the right to reside in a particular property. It may, of course, mean the right to reside in a commensurate property. But it can certainly not translate into a right to reside in a particular property. It is only in that property in which the husband has a right, title or interest that the wife can claim residence and that, too, if no commensurate alternative is provided by the husband
Shumita Didi Sandhu vs. Sanjay Singh Sandhu and Ors. (03.09.2012 – DELHC) : MANU/DE/4077/2012
Now take another scenario in which husband has a share in property or is not coming up for the proceedings. He was disowned and abandoned the complainant wife.
In that scenario wife can demand and be allowed shelter in the shared household that is the matrimonial home..
I have made compendium of judgements you can download fill the form…
Many clients come with a query that whether it is advisable to leave a job or join some small job. Will the court consider this and reduce the maintenance?
I will answer this question with my own experience and the recent Judgement of the Delhi High Court.
In my own case which is still running Gurugram court. The wife was earning and had a child. The husband resigned from the job and was earning around Rs. 120000/- the husband cited that he was fired from the organization.
I argued that he was working in this company for the last 6 years and in order to avoid maintenance he resigned voluntarily.
The court decided in my favor and Rs. 25000/- maintenance was awarded in the case. The court said that since the husband is able-bodied he can find a job at the same level.
Now in a recent case of Sandeep Walia Vs. Monika Uppal the husband said that she was working at NIIT and left the job for better prospects and due to the recession he is unable to find a new job. He showed his expenses as Rs. 32000/- and now working as a driver at his uncle’s place.
The plea of the petitioner that he does not have any means to pay is, therefore, rejected. He is a healthy able-bodied person and is in a
position to support his wife. He is under the legal obligation to support his wife and to pay maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is sacrosanct duty to render financial support and there is no escape route unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds. The bald submission that the petitioner does not have any source of income is no ground to exonerate him from the liability of maintaining his wife under the facts of the present case. Even experience shows that actual income is normally not disclosed by the parties. Under such circumstances, it is always safe to come to a realistic conclusion considering the status of the parties and their lifestyle etc.
The court will fix maintenance as per the standard of living and lifestyle of the parties.
A DV case can be filed by the wife as per section 27 of the DV act
Here is section 27 of the DV act
(1) The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which—
(a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; or
(b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or
(c) the cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act.
(2) Any order made this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.
Now many wife these days misuse either temporary resides or cause of action has arisen
Now I explain with an example and later with the case law…
In one of my case wife alleged that when she was travelling at the airport to Delhi. She was harassed mentally by husband at the airport.
She filed complaint in Delhi as she claimed that the cause of action arose in Delhi.
The trial court dismissed her complaint as the cause of action is engineered one
To support this the latest Judgement of Bombay High Court
Afia Rasheed Khan vs. Mazharuddin ali khan and ors comes to rescue.
Here also wife claimed that she has been living in Hyderabad with in laws and forced to travel to Mumbai. Where she claims that she was harrassed by the in laws and survallence was put on her. her counsel claims cause of action.
Court Held :Thus, averments in application suggest, that Applicant is well educated person; she is financially sound; her parents are in business. In consideration of her background it is difficult to accept her contention or that she could not seek protection order at Hyderabad. In other words, application in no way suggest or implies that she was forced to leave the Hyderabad and or she was intending to reside in Mumbai. On the contrary the chronology of the events do suggest, that the Applicant engineered the cause of action with an intention to file case and confer jurisdiction
How to file defamation case on wife when she makes false allegations….
The case of defamation case must be filed after the case is over and you get a favorable order.
Any example of success of such cases?
Many clients do ask me to share case study related to successful defamation cases.
I would like to share one case of Karanataka High Court
where the wife was convicted for defamation
Facts of the Case
The husband has file RCR case against the wife and wife in her statement of objections alleges as under
“complainant does not know the name of his daughter. The said fact clearly proves as to what was the extent of relationship the complainant had with the first respondent and the girl child. It shows clearly that he has another relationship.”
“….the complainant being an addict of liquor was torturing the first respondent in the night asking her to dance naked since there would be no other person in the room and when she was not doing so, he was torturing her physically and mentally”. “The complainant developing the attitude of behaving at his own whims and fancies, was binging some persons who were unknown to her and insisting her to have physical relationship with them and to make money.” “since the first respondent refused to establish the illicit relationship with third persons and sell her character to third parties and earn money, the complainant assaulted her on several occasions and also attempted to kill their daughter by throttling her neck.
The court found out that definately such allegations are defamatory in nature.
But there are 9 exceptions to Section 499. One of the exception is that a statement which is made in good faith is exempted from being called as defamatory.
Section 52 IPC defines good faith.
The demand of section 52 is that the statement should be made with due care and caution.
The court has held
Admittedly, except making those statements in her statement of objections at Ex.P-4 and reiterating it in Ex.P-1, she has not even attempted to show that they were the imputation of truth or that they were made in good faith. Therefore it can be safely held that the complainant has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed an offence of defamation.
In the recent case of Divorce. The High court granted divorce on the ground of the wife filing various frivolous petitions/complaint against the Husband.
The Wife has filed multiple complaints with different authorities and due to false complaints, Mental cruelty was inflicted on the husband by wife…
The Husband presented various evidences against wife, like complaint copy kalandara etc. Husband also presented various abusive messages from the wife side.
The above-discussed facts and circumstances unequivocally speak volumes of the fact that the respondent has incessantly been filing the complaints against the petitioner as well as his family members and the petitioner even had to go behind the bars in connection with one of those complaints, resulting in harm/damage to his image and reputation in the eyes of their relatives and the society at large. It has recently been observed by a three Judges’ Bench of the Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar Versus Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar 2021 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 289 that:- “12. When the appellant has suffered adverse consequences in his life and career on account of the allegations made by the respondent, the legal consequences must follow and those cannot be prevented only because, no Court has determined that the allegations were false. The High Court however felt that without any definite finding on the credibility of the wife’s allegation, the wronged spouse would be disentitled to relief. This is not found to be the correct way to deal with the issue.
Proceeding with the above understanding, the question which requires to be answered here is whether the conduct of the respondent would fall within the realm of mental cruelty. Here the allegations are levelled by a highly educated spouse and they do have the propensity to irreparably damage the character and reputation of the appellant. When the reputation of the spouse is sullied amongst his colleagues, his superiors and the society at large, it would be difficult to expect condonation of such
In a recent Judgement of Delhi High Court In Sarita Bakshi Vs. State the Hon’ble High Court first evaluated the salary slip of the Husband which looked like as mentioned below..
The Husband has deliberately shown a GPF loan deduction of Rs. 5150 which is deducted from salary but court held in this Judgement as under
In the present case, the total of income of the respondent has been shown as Rs. 49,407/- and the deductions have been shown as Rs. 19,452/-. After deductions the net carry on salary will come to Rs. 29,955/-. The learned Trial Court has rightly held that the deduction of Rs. 5,000/- towards recently taken personal loan cannot be considered as deduction as it is for his personal benefit and not mandatory statutory deduction; the total carry on home salary will thus come to about Rs. 35,000/- per month.
The Apex Court in the matter of Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari and Others MANU/SC/0349/1970 : (1970) 3 SCC 129 while adjudicating the deductions that can be made from the income of the husband before awarding maintenance, observed as below:
“…19. It was further argued before us that the High Court went wrong in allowing maintenance at 25% of the income of the appellant as found by the Income-tax Department assessment proceedings under the Income-tax Act. It was contended that not only should a deduction be made of income-tax but also of house rent, electricity charges, the expenses for maintaining a car and the contribution out of salary to the provident fund of the appellant. In our view some of these deductions are not allowable for the purpose of assessment of “free income” as envisaged by the Judicial Committee. Income-tax would certainly be deductible and so would contributions to the provident fund which have to be made compulsorily. No deduction is permissible for payment of house rent or electricity charges. The expenses for maintaining the car for the purpose of appellant’s practice as a physician would be deductible only so far as allowed by the income-tax authorities i.e. in case the authorities found that it was necessary for the appellant to maintain a car…”
A similar view was taken in the case of Nitin Sharma and Others vs. Sunita Sharma & Others (MANU/DE/0279/2021 : 2021 III AD (Delhi) 210), wherein a bench of this Hon’ble Court was pleased to hold as under:
“24. In the opinion of this Court, while calculating the quantum of maintenance, the income has to be ascertained keeping in mind that the deductions only towards income tax and compulsory contributions like GPF, EPF etc. are permitted and no deductions towards house rent, electric charges, repayment of loan, LIC payments etc. are permitted. On this aspect, the pertinent observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar v. Raj Kumari MANU/SC/0349/1970 : (1970) 3 SCC 129, which have been followed by a Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Seema & Anr. Vs. Gourav Juneja, are as under:-
“12. Section 125 Cr.P.C. stipulates that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, who are otherwise unable to maintain themselves, shall be obligated to do so. A moral duty and a statutory obligation is cast upon the husband to maintain his wife, minor children, parents who otherwise are not capable of maintaining themselves. A person cannot be permitted to wriggle out of his statutory liability by way of availing huge loans and reducing a substantial amount of his salary for repayment of the same every month. Deductions that are made from the gross salary towards long term savings, which a person would get back at the end of his service and such as deductions towards Provident Fund, General Group Insurance Scheme, L.I.C. Premium, State Life Insurance can be deemed to be an asset that he is creating for himself. In arriving at the income of a party only involuntary deductions like income tax, provident fund contribution etc. are to be excluded. Therefore, such deductions cannot be deducted or excluded from his salary while computing his “means” to pay maintenance. In the case of Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar v. Raj Kumari MANU/SC/0349/1970 : (1970) 3 SCC 129: 1971 AIR (SC) 234 while deciding the question of quantum of maintenance to be paid, the argument raised that deduction not only of income-tax but also of house rent, electricity charges, the expenses for maintaining a car and the contribution out of salary to the provident fund of the appellant was not allowed. Only deductions towards income-tax and contributions to provident fund which had to be made compulsorily were allowed. The relevant portion of Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar’s case (supra) reads as under:–
“19. It was further argued before us that the High Court went wrong in allowing maintenance at 25% of the income of the appellant as found by the Income Tax Department in assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act. It was contended that not only should a deduction be made of income-tax but also of house rent, electricity 20-11-2021 (Page 5 of 8) www.manupatra.com Ishaan Sharma charges, the expenses for maintaining a car and the contribution out of salary to the provident fund of the appellant. In our view some of these deductions are not allowed for the purpose of assessment of “free income” as envisaged by the Judicial Committee. Income Tax would certainly be deductible and so would contributions to the provident fund which have to be made compulsorily. No deduction is permissible for payment of house rent or electricity charges. The expenses for maintaining the car for the purpose of appellant’s practice as a physician would be deductible only so far as allowed by the income-tax authorities i.e. in case the authorities found that it was necessary for the appellant to maintain a car…”
In a nutshell, a husband cannot be allowed to shirk his responsibility of paying maintenance to his wife, minor child, and parents by availing loans and paying EMIs thereon, which would lead to a reduction of his carry home salary”
Sarita Bakshi vs. State and Ors. (03.06.2022 – DELHC) : MANU/DE/2076/2022
However the court allowed that the father of the husband who is 79 Years old and dependent on Son as legitimate and considered his share to be deducted.
Also the share of divorce sister were also considered as a deduction.
The father of the respondent may not be present before the Court to ask for maintenance, there is no argument or proof of his being independent or having financial resources to maintain himself. This Court still has to appreciate that even though he has not appeared before this Court it cannot be denied that he has to depend on his son at the age of 79. The father may not have considered filing case for maintenance before a Court of law. At times, parents may feel sad and inferior even at the thought of being maintained by their child and asking for maintenance. Their love and affection for their child is so overpowering that they may decide to live uncomfortably but not ask for maintenance. Parents want to feel independent as they don’t live with their children, their children live with them. With these thoughts in mind, I hold that the needs of the father are not many as he is staying with the respondent but a certain amount of expenditure must be apportioned for his needs.
In the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a divorced sister cannot be held to be dependent on the petitioner. In my opinion, this stand is meritless to the extent that in India, the bond between siblings and their dependence on each other may not always be financial but it is expected that a brother or sister will not abandon or neglect his or her sibling in time of need. I completely agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner’s divorced sister for claim for her maintenance and dependence can file a case against her husband. However, it has not been made clear in the present case as to whether the divorced sister of the respondent is receiving any maintenance or is being maintained by her husband or not. It is also not clear as to whether she is able to maintain herself as no argument has been put forth before this Court and it also does not find any mention in the judgment of the learned Trial Court. Therefore, I am of the view that though the divorced sister can legally and morally claim maintenance from her husband, the respondent, at the same time, must be spending and is expected to spend some amount for his sister on special occasions and in case of any emergent need. Therefore, though while apportioning the income of the respondent, one portion of income of the respondent cannot be apportioned to the sister, some amount as expenditure on yearly basis has to be kept aside for the divorced sister as moral obligation of the respondent. The plea of the petitioner that no amount should be considered to be spent on the divorced sister is meritless especially in the Indian context and the peculiar circumstances of the present case.
Sarita Bakshi vs. State and Ors. (03.06.2022 – DELHC) : MANU/DE/2076/2022
In a recent Judgement of Allahabad High Court the court has passed following guidelines regarding arrest in 498a cases
(i) No arrest or police action to nab the named accused persons shall be made after lodging of the FIR or complaints without concluding the “Cooling-Period” which is two months from the lodging of the FIR or the complaint. During this “Cooling-Period”, the matter would be immediately referred to Family Welfare Committe(hereinafter referred to as FWC) in the each district.
In the case of K. Subba Rao Vs. State of Telangana reported in 2018 (14) SCC 452 , it was observed by Hon’ble the Apex Court that the Court should be extremely careful and vigilant in proceeding against the distant relative of the husband in the crimes pertaining to the dispute even in dowry deaths. All the relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless Specific Instances of the involvement in the crime as alleged and surfaced during investigation with materials certainty. The sweeping and general allegations are very frequent nowadays and if such people are put to trial on such a casual and omnibus allegations, it would bound to lead the disastreous result and unwarranted hardships to those persons. In the instant case where her inlaws Mukesh Bansal and Manju Bansal remained in the company of their warring son and daughterinlaw barely for one year and four months and 25 days, left their company on 30.04.2017. Since, thereafter, the affair is between son and the victim alone. In addition to this, in their respective statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., a casual and sweeping allegations were fastened against them also when they are not in position to demand any additional dowry. It was further argued that victim priot to 03.10.2018, has not made a single whisper regarding dowry relatedd harassment and atrocities upon her by her parentinlaw. Then, the court has got no reason to presume that the inlaws were also active participants in extending dowry related harassment from the distance. It is urged by learned counsel for the revisionist that obnoxious allegations are motivated one, driven by a sheer retaliation without any iota of any sanctity to it.
Yet coming to another aspect of the issue which is disturbing and mindboggling to the Court. After reading the FIR allegedly lodged by Ms. Shivangi Bansal after 18 days of the incident, which is everabhorring, full of dirt and filth. The graphical description portrayed by her in her FIR is deplorable to be condemned in its strongest terms. The FIR is the place where the informant gives the story mobilizing the State Machinery engaging in the commission of cognizable offence. It is not soft porn literature where the graphical description should be made. Hon’ble the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Priti Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand, 2010(71) SCC 667 has fastened the liability upon the counsels, paragraph nos.30, 31, 32 and 33 are quoted hereinbelow : “30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.
The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.
The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration (22) while dealing with matrimonial cases. 34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.
The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society.”
Here is the analysis of some of the Judgements related to 498A quashing
498A Quashed because wife failed to mention allegations of dowry demand in written statement filed by her in the Divorce Case filed by Husband
It appears that marriage of informant-opposite party No. 2 and petitioner e No. 3 was solemnised on 1.7.1998 and out of their wedlock they were blessed with a girl child on 15.6.1999. On 15.3.2000 petitioner No. 3 filed matrimonial (divorce) case on the ground of cruelty and adultery and thereafter opposite party No. 2 filed the present case under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the entire family of petitioner No. 3, her husband leveling general and vague allegation against them. It has been stated that the allegation made in the First Information Report does not find place in the written statement filed by the informant-opposite party No. 2 in Matrimonial Case No. 49/ 2000, which was filed earlier to lodging of the FIR, which fact has not been disputed in the counter affidavit. The facts aforementioned goes to show that the present case has been maliciously instituted by the informant with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance due to personal grudge.Thus, in my opinion, continuance of criminal proceeding against the petitioners will be sheer abuse of the process of the Court.
Sanjay Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (19.12.2005 – PATNAHC) : MANU/BH/0429/2005
No specific time frame and allegation mentioned related to 498a FIR quashed
A bare reading of the complaint generated by respondent No. 1 reveals that there is no specific accusation, there is no exact period, during which the offence is committed and the same is at a grossly bleated stage, without a whisper about the delay under which circumstance it had occurred. The allegations prima facie, are absolutely general and vague in nature and it appears that with a view to take revenge or to secure custody of child this attempt is made by alleging the offence against the petitioner and therefore, the criminal law may not be allowed to put to motion in such a casual and cavalier way by any citizen and time and again decisions are taken to the effect that process of criminal law is precious in nature and therefore, it may not be allowed to be put in motion in a routine or casual manner. This background of facts clearly establishes that prima facie, no offence having been committed. The ultimate conclusion would lead to a situation that the Court is constrained to dispose of the petition in the foregoing background.
It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that to put criminal law into motion in a casual manner by a litigant, the same is to be viewed seriously and not to encourage such attempt. The case on hand has, no doubt, a disheartened element under which rift has emerged between husband and wife, but to ventilate the said grievance of respondent No. 1 by way of putting criminal law in motion by filing such a casual complaint, the said attempt appears to be not genuine and therefore, it is noticed by the Court that the same is nothing but an abuse of process of law. In the background of the aforesaid fact and considering the averments of the complaint and contention raised by the respective parties the Court is of the opinion that to allow the complaint to precipitate further would tantamount to abuse of process of law and therefore, the complaint in question, viz. C.R. No. I-86 of 2013 dated 03.05.2013 registered at Gandhidham-A Police Station, Bhuj-Kachchh for the offence punishable under section 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby ordered to be quashed and set aside. It is needless to say that the Court has examined the complaint only in view of the a particular offence under sections 498A and 115 of the IPC and therefore, without expressing any opinion with respect to other aspects about the dispute between the applicants and respondent No. 1 herein, the present petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Harshad Dolatram Geariya and Ors. vs. Heenaben Harshadbhai Geraiya and Ors. (22.07.2016 – GUJHC) : MANU/GJ/1245/2016
498A filed as a counterblast to divorce proceedings.
ow, we revert back to the allegations made in the complaint Under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. Few facts have to be noticed before we look into the allegations made in the complaint in the above regard. The complaint has been filed by the Respondent No. 2 before the C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar on 10.05.2015, before which date, the petition for divorce has already been filed by Nayan Chopra on 23.10.2014 before the Circuit Court for the County of Kalamazoo Family Division, Michigan. It is on the record that at the time of filing of the complaint Vanishka Bobal was living at Canada whereas Nayan Chopra was living at U.S.A. Both were separately living. It was pleaded in the application for divorce that husband and wife had separated on or around November, 2013. It is on the record that on the day criminal complaint was filed on 10.05.2015 in the Court of C.J.M. Gautam Budh Nagar by Respondent No. 2, neither Vanishka was in India nor she was in India at the time when statements were recorded in complaint of complainant as well as his two witnesses. The complaint is not by Vanishka but it has been filed by father of Vanishka, Respondent No. 2. In the divorce application filed in the State of Michigan, Vanishka Bobal was represented by her attorney. The divorce was granted with orders relating to alimony, pension benefits and retirement benefits, life insurance, property settlement and provision in lieu of dower, mutual release of claims and other aspects on 24.02.2016.
There is nothing on the record to indicate that orders of divorce between the parties was brought into the notice of the Magistrate when he issued process against the Appellants. We, however, are in agreement with the submission of Shri Santosh Krishan that decree of divorce between Nayan Chopra and Vanshika shall not wipe out any criminal offence, which has been committed within the meaning of Indian Penal Code or D.P. Act and the criminal offence committed in jurisdictional court has to be examined despite the divorce decree having been granted.
Coming back to the allegations in the complaint pertaining to Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the allegations against the Appellants for offence Under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act are general and sweeping. No specific incident dates or details of any incident has been mentioned in the complaint. The complaint having been filed after proceeding for divorce was initiated by Nayan Chopra in State of Michigan, where Vanshika participated and divorce was ultimately granted. A few months after filing of the divorce petition, the complaint has been filed in the Court of C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar with the allegations as noticed above. The sequence of the events and facts and circumstances of the case leads us to conclude that the complaint Under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act have been filed as counter blast to divorce petition proceeding in State of Michigan by Nayan Chopra. Rashmi Chopra and Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (30.04.2019 – SC) : MANU/SC/0625/2019
Vague Allegations against relatives
The allegations against relatives are vague and general. No specific allegations against Mother in law, Father in Law and sister in law. FIR of 307/498a and 323 IPC was quashed
It was held that the petitioner and complainant has entered into a compromise and Rs. 4 Lakhs were transferred in the favor of the complainant and the extent of relationship whether consensual or otherwise is a matter of trial therefore bail was grant.
In the Judgement of Prashant Kumar Singh Vs. State
That the victim and the petitioner were in the relationship since 2009 and they had relationship for 7 long years. Even after the marriage cannot be solemnized by the brother of the prosecutrix FIR was lodged after marriage of petitioner was fixed.
The most common question these days for the NRI citizens is that if they come to India can their passport be impounded?
The Answer to this is neither the court nor the police has power to impound the passport..
In a recent case decided by the Delhi High Court in which the passport of a NRI was seized by the police..
The court held that under section 102 CrPC the police has power to seize the document that is to take possession of the thing for the moment and not to retain it for longer periods of time. Therefore an application of return of passport is maintainable. As it is the passport authority who has power to impound the passport under section 10(3). The impounding of passport involves civil action.
Hence, while the police may have power to seize a passport under Section 102 CrPC if it is permissible within the authority given under Section 102 CrPC, it does not have power to retain or impound the same, because that can only be done by the Passport Authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. Hence, if the police seizes a passport (which it has power to do under Section 102 CrPC), thereafter the police must send it along with a letter to the Passport Authority clearly stating that the seized passport deserves to be impounded for one of the reasons mentioned in Section 10(3) of the Act. It is thereafter for the Passport Authority to decide whether to impound the passport or not. Since impounding of a passport has civil consequences, the Passport Authority must give an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned before impounding his passport. It is well settled that any order which has civil consequences must be passed after giving opportunity of hearing to a party (vide State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei [MANU/SC/0332/1967 : AIR 1967 SC 1269])