constitutional validity of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 = where a female Hindu dies intestate, the property would devolve first upon the sons and daughters and the husband and then on the heirs of the husband and it is only thereafter that the mother and the father are recognized. Section 16 specifies that among the heirs referred to under sub-Section (1) of Section 15, those in one entry are to be preferred to those in any succeeding entry. On the other hand, in the case of a male Hindu dying intestate, Section 8 stipulates that the estate will first devolve upon the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule.

1
ITEM NO.3               COURT NO.11               SECTION IX
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 9581/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  08-12-2017
in   AL   No.   423/2017   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at
Bombay)
KAMAL ANANT KHOPKAR                                Petitioner(s)
                                VERSUS
DR ASHISH SIDHRAM HANKARE                          Respondent(s)
(WITH APPLN.(S) FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING AND REFILING AND
EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

WITH
W.P.(C) No. 1517/2018 (X)
(WITH IA No.186057/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES)

Date : 18-02-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Buva Mrunal Dattatraya, Adv.
Mr. Salunkhe Dhairyashil D., Adv.
                   Mr. Anantha Narayana M.G., AOR
                  Mr. Manu T. Ramachandran, AOR
                 
For Respondent(s) Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Adv.
Mr. Y.R. Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR
Ms. Rinchen Wangmo, Adv.
Mr. Vedant Bharadwaj, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                               O R D E R
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 9581/2018
Delay condoned.
The   petitioner   and   the   respondent   have   settled   the
dispute in the course of a mediation through the auspices
of Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel.

2
The   Court   records   its   appreciation   of   the   valuable
assistance   rendered   by   Ms.   Meenakshi   Arora,   learned
senior   counsel   in   enabling   this   family   dispute   to   be
settled.
We appreciate the fair stand taken by the parties as
a   result   of   which   the   dispute   has   been   settled.     The
consent terms signed by the parties and by the respective
advocates are taken on the record.   They have been filed
together   with   the   compilation   of   additional   documents.
There shall be an order in terms of the consent terms.
As   and   by   way   of   a   consequential   order,   we   direct
that:
(i) The parties shall cooperate with each other
in   duly   effecting   the   consent   terms   and   shall   sign
all   relevant   deeds   and   documents   required   to
implement them; and
(ii) All   concerned   authorities   shall   act   on   the
consent terms which have been accepted by this Court.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No. 1517/2018
The   Writ   Petition   under   Article   32   of   the
Constitution   has   been   instituted   in   order   to   challenge
the   constitutional   validity   of   Section   15   of   the   Hindu
Succession   Act,   1956   on   the   ground   that   there   is   a

3
discrimination in the devolution of the estate of a woman
who   dies   intestate,   in   comparison   with   the   rules   for
devolution where a male has died intestate.   In the case
of   a   male   Hindu   dying   intestate,   the   provisions   of
Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 apply. 
The   contention   of   the   petitioner   is   that   where   a
female   Hindu   dies   intestate,   the   property   would   devolve
first   upon   the   sons   and   daughters   and   the   husband   and
then   on   the   heirs   of   the   husband   and   it   is   only
thereafter that the mother and the father are recognized.
Section   16   specifies   that   among   the   heirs   referred   to
under   sub-Section   (1)   of   Section   15,   those   in   one   entry
are to be preferred to those in any succeeding entry.  On
the   other   hand,   in   the   case   of   a   male   Hindu   dying
intestate,   Section   8   stipulates   that   the   estate   will
first devolve upon the relatives specified in Class I of
the Schedule.  
The   Writ   Petition   initially   came   up   with   a   Special
Leave Petition, which was filed by the petitioner against
an order of the Bombay High Court rejecting her caveat on
the ground that she did not have a caveatable interest in
the property of her deceased  daughter, during the life
time of the spouse of the deceased.
During   the   course   of   the   hearing,   the   parties
attempted   to   explore   the   possibility   of   a   settlement.
The   dispute   has   been   settled   with   the   intervention   of
learned   senior   counsel.     Hence,   the   Special   Leave

4
Petition has been disposed of by an order passed today.
However,   the   Writ   Petition   which   has   been   instituted
before   this   Court   under   Article   32   raises   an   important
question   of   gender   equality   and,   hence,   we   are   inclined
to issue notice.
Issue notice returnable in four weeks.
A   copy   of   the   Writ   Petition   be   served   on   the   office
of the Learned Attorney General for India.
We have requested Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior
counsel to continue to assist this Court.
  (SANJAY KUMAR-I)                 (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
     AR-CUM-PS                           COURT MASTER



Note :- 

With great respect to their Highness - 

I felt that there is no discrimination of gender between Sec.8 and Sec.15 & 16 of Hindu Succession Act. 

As a matter of fact - Woman get properties  from two sources - one was from her parents and another was from her husband. 

In the absence of immeidate successors like children and husband -

the property fell  to her parents or their successors if it was acquired by her from her parents 

or  

In the absence of immeidate successors like children and husband -

if the property fell to her by her husband, it goes to husband's successors .

In my view this an advantage but not discrimination . we can not find this advantage under Sec.8 - every thing goes to male successors only - even if the property was given by his parent in laws - the person or their successors who gave property have no recognition in the eye of law .

Maintainance under DVC and Sec.125 can be granted and maintainance - enchancement of Maintainance = the appellant applied for maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 In that proceeding, an amount of Rupees four thousand per month was awarded as maintenance by an order dated 26 August 2015. The appellant also sought maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC in which an order dated 30 March 2015 was passed by the Family Court granting maintenance at the rate of Rupees Three Thousand per month. The appellant is hence receiving maintenance of Rupees Seven Thousand per month in total. =We are of the considered view, having regard to the position of the parties and their circumstances in life, that a total award of maintenance of Rupees Twelve Thousand per month including the amount awarded under the Domestic Violence Act should be granted. Hence, we order and direct that, in addition to the amount which has been awarded by the Family Court, under Section 125 of the CrPC, the appellant would be entitled to a further sum of Rupees Five Thousand per month commencing from the date of the judgment of the Family Court. We accordingly allow the appeals and enhance the monthly maintenance payable under Section 125 of the CrPC from Rupees Three Thousand per month to Rupees Eight Thousand per month with effect from 30 April 2015

1
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
      Criminal Appeal No(s) 1176-1177  of 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos 2511-2512 of 2017)
Monica Morton                                         Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
Durgesh Kumar Pal                   Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
An  award  of maintenance  in  the  amount  of  Rupees  Three  Thousand  per
month   by   the   Family   Court   at   Allahabad   was   confirmed   by   the   High   Court   in
revision.
The appellant seeks an enhancement on the ground that the award under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 1
 is inadequate.
The   appellant   and   the   respondent   married   on   7   January   2000.     The
marriage   has   encountered   difficulties.     Parties   are   residing   separately.   In   2008,
the   appellant   applied   for   maintenance   under   the   Protection   of   Women   from
Domestic   Violence   Act   2005 2
.     In   that   proceeding,   an   amount   of   Rupees   four
thousand  per month  was  awarded  as  maintenance  by  an order dated  26 August
2015.   The appellant also sought maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC in
which   an   order   dated   30   March   2015   was   passed   by   the   Family   Court   granting
1   CrPC
2   Domestic Violence Act

2
maintenance at the rate of Rupees Three Thousand per month.   The appellant is
hence receiving maintenance of Rupees Seven Thousand per month in total.
The   respondent   was   a   Senior   Accountant   in   the   Controller   of   Defence
Accounts   at  Allahabad   and   attained   the   age   of   superannuation   on   31   January
2018. He  secured a divorce  from his earlier marriage before the parties  to these
proceedings were married.
The appeal was filed by drawing the attention of the Court to the fact that
for   August   2016,   the   pay   slip   of   the   respondent   indicated   a   gross   pay   of   Rs
1,11,133.  After deductions of Rs 25,328, the take home pay was Rs 73,427.
Noticing   this   contention,   this   Court,   by   its   order   dated   22   March   2019,
issued   notice   in   these   proceedings.   Pursuant   thereto,   the   respondent   has
appeared and filed his counter affidavit and a compilation of documents.
Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondent   has   submitted
that   the   reliance   which   has   been   placed   by   the   appellant   on   the   pay   slip   for
August 2016 is misguided as the pay slip is not an accurate representation of the
respondents monthly salary and take-home pay for the month of August 2016 as
it included arrears of Rs 50,733.   Bearing this in mind, we have also perused the
pay slips for the months prior to and subsequent to August 2016 which have been
produced on the record. The pay slips indicate the following position:
Month Gross Pay (Rs) Net Pay (Rs)
July 2016 52,988 38,110
September 2016 62,807 43,914
May 2017 62,744 46,084
June 2017 62,744 46,084
The   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   has   submitted
that the appellant is required to undertake expenses for her medical treatment and
is without any other means to maintain herself as she is not employed.

3
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
has   submitted   that   the   respondent   himself   is   a   senior   citizen   and   therefore,   any
award of maintenance should not jeopardize his ability to maintain himself as well
in his years of retirement.
Though  the  respondent has  three  children  from the  earlier marriage  they
are now majors.   We are of the considered view, having regard to the position of
the   parties   and   their   circumstances   in   life,   that   a   total   award   of   maintenance   of
Rupees   Twelve   Thousand   per   month   including   the   amount   awarded   under   the
Domestic   Violence  Act   should   be   granted.   Hence,   we   order   and   direct   that,   in
addition   to   the   amount   which   has   been   awarded   by   the   Family   Court,   under
Section   125   of   the   CrPC,   the   appellant   would   be   entitled   to   a   further   sum   of
Rupees Five Thousand per month commencing from the date of the judgment of
the Family Court.  
We accordingly allow the appeals and enhance the monthly maintenance
payable under Section 125 of the CrPC from Rupees Three Thousand per month
to Rupees Eight Thousand per month with effect from 30 April 2015.  The arrears
payable   to   the   appellant   shall   be   payable   in   equal   monthly   instalments
commencing   from   the   month   of   August   2019   over   a   period   of   six   months,   in
addition to the regular maintenance as quantified by this order.
......................................................................J.
      (Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud)
......................................................................J.
       (Indira Banerjee)
 New Delhi;

4
 August 01, 2019

5
ITEM NO.6               COURT NO.9               SECTION II
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)  Nos.2511-2512/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  01-09-2016
in CRR No. 1744/2015 and 18-11-2016 in CRLMR No. 284878/2016 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)
MONICA MORTON                                      Petitioner(s)
                                VERSUS
DURGESH KUMAR PAL                                  Respondent(s)
Date : 01-08-2019 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
         HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
         HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anilendra Pandey, AOR
Mr. C.P. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Madhusudan, Adv.
                 
For Respondent(s) Mrs. Mona K. Rajvanshi, AOR
Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Adv.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Adv.
                   
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                               O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
  (SANJAY KUMAR-I)                 (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
     AR-CUM-PS                           COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file) 

Circumstantial Evidence = Sections 302, 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.=The following circumstances were found established against the appellant-accused: 1. relation of the deceased becoming strained with her husband soon after the marriage and the deceased leaving for Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa; 2. accused Kalyan Singh contracting second marriage. 3. accused Kalyan Singh not paying any maintenance allowance to the deceased and her child despite counseling done by the NGO at Rajgarh; 4. deceased moving the court at Shimla against accused Kalyan Singh under Domestic Violence Act and amicable settlement reached at between the parties in the court. 5. apprehension of threat to her life expressed by the deceased soon befoe her disappearance; 6. deceased last seen alive with her husband accused Kalyan Singh; 7. false explanation given by accused Kalyan Singh regarding disappearance of the deceased; 8. demarcation of place in Punjah Khad by both of the accused from where human skeleton was recovered; 9. identification of the skeleton to be that of deceased Satya Devi by her brother and also by DNA report; 10. cause of death of Satya was homicidal; and 11. recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of accused Kalyan Singh. The trial Court as well as the High Court have discussed the evidence elaborately and found the aforesaidcircumstances to be proved. The chain of circumstances is complete and the guilt of the appellant has been proved beyond doubt coupled with no explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 given by the appellant. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

1
   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.481/2019
     [@ SLP [CRL.]NO.3746/2018]
KALYAN SINGH ALIAS BITTU                    Petitioner(s)
                                VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH                   Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The   appeal   arises   out   of   the   judgment   and   order
dated   13.06.2016   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.43   of   2013   passed
by   the   High   Court   of   Himachal   Pradesh   whereby   the   High
Court     has   upheld   the   judgment   of   conviction   and   sentence
passed   by   the   trial   Court   against   the   accused-appellant
and has dismissed his appeal.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Satya
Devi   (deceased)   was   married   to   accused   Kalyan   Singh   on
12.10.2007   in   Renuka   Temple.   Theirs   was   a   love   marriage.
After   her   marriage,   deceased   stayed   in   her   matrimonial
house   at   village   Kuffri.     After   about   two   months   of   the
marriage, accused started maltreating and quarrelling with
deceased   under   the   influence   of   liquor   on   the   ground   that
deceased   belonged   to   a   poor   family.     The   Satya   Devi
disclosed   this   fact   to   her   brothers   Guman   Singh,   Bhim
Singh   and   Inder   Singh.     Thereafter,   she   left   for   Dera
Sacha   Sauda,   Sirsa   and   during   that   period   accused
contracted   second   marriage.     When   Satya   Devi   came   back
from Sirsa she was pregnant for 6-7 months and delivered a

2
male   child   at   Rajgarh.     Her   brother   Inder   Singh   contacted
accused   and   asked   him   to   take   back   his   sister   and   child
but   the   accused   told   him   that   he   was   ready   to   take   the
child   but   not   Satya   Devi.   In   November,   2008,   Smt.   Meera
Tomar,   Community   Organizer,   Nagar   Panchayat   received   a
letter   from   deceased   in   which   deceased   had   made   a
complaint   against   her   husband.     This   letter   was   sent   to
Mohinder   Bhangalia   who   thereafter   called   the   deceased   and
accused   to   his   NGO   for   counselling   on   08.12.2008   and
10.12.2008.     The   matter   was   settled   amicably   and   the
accused   agreed   to   have   his   wife   and   child   entered   in   the
Panchayat   record   but   he   did   not   do   so.     Then   Satya   Devi
filed   proceedings   against   the   accused   under   the   Domestic
Violence   Act   in   the   Court   of   JMIC   (6),   Shimla.   In   these
proceedings   accused   entered   into   a   compromise   with   Satya
Devi   and   the   matter   was   disposed   of   vide   order   dated
02.07.2009.   Thereafter   the   accused   left   for   his   house
along   with   Satya   Devi   and   their   child.   Brother   of   Satya
Devi,   Guman   Singh   also   left   for   his   house.   When   Guman
Singh came back to his house on third day Satya Devi told
him   that   she   apprehended   danger   to   her   life   from   the
accused.   After 3-4 days, Mohinder Bhangalia also received
a   call   from   Satya   Devi   and   she   told   him   that   accused   had
kept   her   in   Dogari   and   he   was   not   talking   to   her   and   she
apprehended   that   he   would   kill   her.   After   about   three
months,   when   Mohinder   Bhangalia   contacted   accused   and
inquired   about   his   wife,   he   told   him   that   deceased   had

3
gone   to   attend   some   Bhagwat   and   from   there,   she   had   fled
away with some  Sadhu . On being asked, the accused told him
that he had not reported the matter to the police. 
  After   some   time,   the   accused   called   Bhim   Singh,
elder brother of Satya Devi and told him that she had left
for Sirsa but when they inquired at Sirsa, they found that
she was not present there.  When she was not traceable for
a   year   her   brother   Inder   Singh   went   to   the   house   of
accused who told him that she had gone to Renuka for some
religious   affair   and   as   and   when   she   comes   back,   he   will
visit their house along with her. However, when he did not
visit   their   house,   they   got   suspicious   and   reported   the
matter   to   the   police   and   FIR   Ex.PW4/A   was   registered   at
Police Station, Sangrah.
The matter was investigated and accused was arrested
on   08.01.2012.   In   the   police   custody,   accused   made   a
disclosure   statement   that   he   could   demarcate   the   place
where   the   dead   body   of   deceased   was   buried.       When   the
digging   was   conducted,   one   human   skeleton   was   found   which
was identified by Guman Singh to be that of deceased Satya
Devi.   The   post   mortem   examination   Ex.PW30/B   of   the
sekeleton   was   conducted   by   Dr.   Sangeet   Dhillon.     On
13.01.2012,   the   accused   made   a   disclosure   statement   that
he   could   get   one   iron   rod   recovered   from   his   residential
house.  On the basis of the disclosure statement, recovery
of   iron   rod   from   the   upper   story   was   made.   On   22.02.2012
blood samples of the son of the deceased and brother Guman

4
Singh were obtained on FTA cards for DNA profiling. 
The   investigation   further   revealed   that   the   accused
was having a second wife and he did not want to give share
in   his   property   and   maintenance   allowance   to   the   deceased
and,   therefore,   accused   along   with   his   brother   accused
Surinder   Singh   killed   the   deceased   on   the   night   of
15.07.2009   by   giving   her   beatings   with   iron   and   in   order
to   destroy   the   evidence,   they   buried   deceased   body   in
Panjah   Khad.     After   the   completion   of   investigation,
accused   persons   were   tried   under   Sections   302,   201   IPC
read with Section 34 IPC.
The   Sessions   Judge   vide   order   dated   22.01.2013   in
Sessions   Trial   No.18-ST/7   of   2012   convicted   the   accused-
appellant   under   Sections   302   and   201,   IPC   and   sentenced
him   to   undergo   rigorous   imprisonment   for   life   and   to   pay
Rs.5,000- fine and in default of payment to undergo simple
imprisonment   for   six   months   under   Section   302,   IPC.     He
was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment
for   three   months   under   Section   201,   IPC.   The   sentences
were   directed   to   run   concurrently.   Accused   Surinder   Singh
was   acquitted   by   holding   that   the   prosecution   failed   to
prove his guilt.
Aggrieved   by   the   judgment,   the   accused   filed
Criminal appeal No.43/2013 before the High Court which was
dismissed   upholding   the   conviction   and   sentence   imposed

5
upon the appellant-accused by the trial Court.
Hence the appeal.
We   have   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   at
length.
The   following   circumstances   were   found   established
against the appellant-accused:
1.   relation   of   the   deceased   becoming   strained
with her husband soon after the marriage and the
deceased leaving for Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa;
2.   accused   Kalyan   Singh   contracting   second
marriage.
3.   accused   Kalyan   Singh   not   paying   any
maintenance   allowance   to   the   deceased   and   her
child   despite   counseling   done   by   the   NGO   at
Rajgarh;
4.   deceased   moving   the   court   at   Shimla   against
accused Kalyan Singh under Domestic Violence Act
and   amicable   settlement   reached   at   between   the
parties in the court.
5.   apprehension   of   threat   to   her   life   expressed
by the deceased soon befoe her disappearance;
6.   deceased   last   seen   alive   with   her   husband
accused Kalyan Singh;
7.   false   explanation   given   by   accused   Kalyan
Singh regarding disappearance of the deceased;
8. demarcation of place in Punjah Khad by both of
the   accused   from   where   human   skeleton   was
recovered;
9.   identification   of   the   skeleton   to   be   that   of
deceased   Satya   Devi   by   her   brother   and   also   by
DNA report;
10. cause of death of Satya was homicidal; and
11. recovery of weapon of offence at the instance
of accused Kalyan Singh.
The   trial   Court   as   well   as   the   High   Court   have
discussed the  evidence elaborately  and found  the aforesaid

6
circumstances   to   be   proved.   The   chain   of   circumstances   is
complete   and   the   guilt   of   the   appellant   has   been   proved
beyond doubt coupled with no explanation under Section 106
of the Evidence Act, 1872 given by the appellant.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no
ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
�������..J.
[ ARUN MISHRA ]
�������..J.
[ NAVIN SINHA ]
�������..J.
[ M.R. SHAH ]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 28, 2019.

7
ITEM NO.2               COURT NO.5               SECTION II-C
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)  No(s).  3746/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  13-06-2016
in CRLA No. 43/2013 passed by the High Court Of Himachal Pradesh At
Shimla)
KALYAN SINGH ALIAS BITTU                           Petitioner(s)
                                VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH                      Respondent(s)
IA NO.160230/2018- APPLN. FOR BAIL
([CUSTODY MATTER ] )

Date : 28-02-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey, AOR
Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Brahm Kumar Pandey, Adv.
                 
For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikas Mahajan, AAG
Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR
Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.
                   
          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application stands disposed of.
(ASHA SUNDRIYAL)                                (JAGDISH CHANDER)
  COURT MASTER                                   BRANCH OFFICER
[signed order is placed on the file] 

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Sec.12 and Sec.20 - husband died - complaint filed against brother and other family members of her deceased husband - interim Maintainance as there is joint business between deceased and his brohter = Paragraph 10 of the complaint prima facie indicates that the case of the complainants is that the house where the first respondent and her spouse resided, belong to a joint family. The appellant and his brother (who was the spouse of the first respondent and father of the second respondent) carried on a joint business. The appellant resided in the same household. Ultimately, whether the requirements of Section 2(f); Section 2(q); and Section 2(s) are fulfilled is a matter of evidence which will be adjudicated upon at the trial. At this stage, for the purpose of an interim order for maintenance, there was material which justifies the issuance of a direction in regard to the payment of maintenance. However, we clarify that the present order as well as orders which have been passed by the courts below shall not come in the way of a final adjudication on the merits of the complaint in accordance with law.

1
REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 617 OF 2019
     (@SLP(Crl.) No(s). 652 of 2019)
AJAY KUMAR                                     Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
LATA @ SHARUTI & ORS.                          Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This   appeal   arises   from   a   judgment   of   a   learned   Single
Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 10 October
2018. The  High Court  dismissed a  petition against  the judgment
of the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat confirming an interim
order for the award of maintenance to the first respondent and
her minor child under the provisions of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 1
.
The first respondent was married to Vijay Kumar Jindal on
12 December 2010. They have two children.
1  Act

2
The first respondent filed a petition under Section 12 of
the   Act   inter   alia   for   the   purpose   of   seeking   an   award   of
maintenance. The  complaint contains  a recital  of the  fact that
after her marriage, the complainant and her spouse resided at a
house   which   constitutes   ancestral   Hindu   Joint   Family   Property.
She   and   her   husband   resided   on   the   ground   floor   of   the
residential   accommodation.   The   appellant   and   the   deceased
spouse of the first respondent jointly carried on a business of
a   k iryana   store   at   Panipat   from   which,   it   has   been   alleged,
each had an income of about Rs 30,000 per month.
The   complaint   alleges   that   at   the   death   of   Vijay   Kumar,
the first respondent was pregnant and that she gave birth to a
child on 31 January 2013. The travails of the first respondent
are alleged to have commenced after the death of her spouse and
she was not permitted to reside in her matrimonial home.
The   learned   Trial   Judge   by   an   order   dated   3   July   2015
granted   monthly   maintenance   in   the   amount   of   Rs   4,000   to   the
first   respondent   and   Rs   2,000   to   the   second   respondent.   The
award of maintenance was directed against the appellant who was
carrying   on   the   above   business   together   with   the   deceased
spouse   of   the   first   respondent.     This   order   of   the   Judicial
Magistrate,   First   Class,   Panipat   dated   3   July   2015   was
confirmed   by   the   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Panipat   on   14
August   2018.   The   High   Court,   in   a   petition   filed   by   the
appellant, affirmed  the view.   Hence  these proceedings  came to
be instituted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

3
The   submission   which   has   been   urged   on   behalf   of   the
appellant   is   that   there   was   no   basis   under   the   provisions   of
the   Act   to   fasten   liability   on   the   appellant,   who   is   the
brother   of   the   deceased   spouse   of   the   first   respondent.
Learned   counsel   submitted   that   the   sole   basis   on   which
liability   has   been   fastened   is   that   the   appellant   and   his
deceased brother carried on a joint business. It was urged that
this cannot furnish any lawful basis to direct the appellant to
meet the award of maintenance.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents  has relied  upon the  averments in  the complaint
and   submitted   that   at   this   stage,   there   is   no   reason   or
justification   for   the   Court   to   interfere   under   Article   136   of
the Constitution of India particularly against an interlocutory
order.
Section   12(1)   provides   that   an   aggrieved   person   may
present   an   application   to   the   Magistrate   seeking   one   or   more
reliefs under the Act.   Under the provisions of Section 20(1),
the   Magistrate   while   dealing   with   an   application   under   sub-
Section   (1)   of   Section   12   is   empowered   to   direct   the
respondent(s)   to   pay   monetary   relief   to   meet   the   expenses
incurred   and   losses   suffered   by   the   aggrieved   person   and   any
child of the aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence.
This may include but is not limited to an order for maintenance
of   the   aggrieved   person   as   well   as   her   children,   if   any,
including   an   order   under   or   in   addition   to   an   order   for
maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC or any other law for

4
the time being in force.
The expression respondent is defined in Section 2(q) as
follows:-
2(q)  respondent  means   any   adult   male   person
who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship
with   the   aggrieved   person   and   against   whom   the
aggrieved   person   has   sought   any   relief   under
this Act:
Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living
in   a   relationship   in   the   nature   of   a   marriage
may also file a complaint against a relative of
the husband or the male partner;
The   substantive   part   of   Section   2(q)   indicates   that   the
expression respondent  means any  adult male  person who  is, or
has been,  in a  domestic relationship  with the  aggrieved person
and against whom relief has been sought.  The proviso indicates
that   both,   an   aggrieved   wife   or   a   female   living   in   a
relationship   in   the   nature   of   marriage   may   also   file   a
complaint   against   a   relative   of   the   husband   or   the   male
partner, as the case may be.
Section   2(f)   defines   the   expression   domestic
relationship thus:
2(f)   domestic   relationship   means   a
relationship   between   two   persons   who   live   or
have, at any point of time, lived together in a
shared   household,   when   they   are   related   by
consanguinity,   marriage,   or   through   a
relationship   in   the   nature   of   marriage,
adoption   or   are   family   members   living   together
as a joint family;
Section   2(f)   defines   the   expression  domestic   relationship   to
mean   a   relationship   where   two   persons   live   or   have   lived

5
together   at   any   point   of   time   in   a   shared   household   when   they
are   related   by   consanguinity,   marriage   or   through   a
relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are members
living together as a joint family. 
The   expression  shared   household   is   defined   in   Section
2(s) as follows:-
2(s)  shared   household  means   a   household   where
the   person   aggrieved   lives   or   at   any   stage   has
lived in a domestic relationship either singly or
along   with   the   respondent   and   includes   such   a
house   hold   whether   owned   or   tenanted   either
jointly   by   the   aggrieved   person   and   the
respondent,   or   owned   or   tenanted   by   either   of
them   in   respect   of   which   either   the   aggrieved
person   or   the   respondent   or   both   jointly   or
singly have any right, title, interest or equity
and includes such a household which may belong to
the   joint   family   of   which   the   respondent   is   a
member, irrespective of whether the respondent or
the   aggrieved   person   has   any   right,   title   or
interest in the shared household;
All these definitions indicate the width and amplitude of
the   intent   of   Parliament   in   creating   both   an   obligation   and   a
remedy in the terms of the enactment.
In   the   present   case,   at   this   stage,   it   would   be
sufficient   to   advert   to   the   contents   of   paragraph   10   of   the
complaint which read as follows:-
10.   That   the   marriage   between   the
Complainant   No.   1   and   Sh.   Vijay   Kumar   Jindal
was   settled   through   Sh.   Narender   Jain   S/o.
Late   Sh.   Rameshwar   Dass   R/o   Haryana   School-
Wali-Gali,   VIII,   Inder   Garhi,   Tehsil   Gohana,
Distt.   Sonepat,   and   before   marriage   he

6
(Mediator namely Sh. Narender Jain) told that
previously   there   was   a   residential   house
situated   near   Railway   Fathak,   Jatal   Road,
Panipat,   which   was   constructed   by   Sh.   Mai
Dhan   (Grandfather   of   Sh.   Vijay   Kumar   Jindal
and   Respondent   No.   2)   and   after   the   death   of
said   Sh.   Mai   Dhan,   his   son   Sh.   Brahmanand
Jindal   (Father   of   Sh.   Vijay   Kumar   Jindal   and
Respondent   No.   2)   became   the   owner   in
possession of the said house and later on Sh.
Brahmanand   Jindal,   sold   away   the   said   house
and   purchased   H   No.   149,   Eight   Marla   Colony,
Kranti   Nagar,   Near   Radha   Krishna   Mandir,
Panipat   in   the   name   of   his   wife   Smt.   Rajo
Devi   (Respondent   No.   1)   about   8   years   ago.
Thus   the   said   house   i.e.   H   No.   149,   Eight
Marla   Colony,   Kranti   Nagar,   Near   Radha
Krishna   Mandir,   Panipat   is   ancestral   Joint
Hindu   Family   property   /   residential   house
standing   in   the   name   of   Respondent   No.   1   qua
the present complainants.
In paragraph 12 and 13, it has been averred as follows:-
12.   That   after   marriage   between   the
Complainant No. 1 and Sh. Vijay Kumar Jindal,
the   Respondents   provided   the   ground   floor   of
H   No.   149,   Eight   Marla   Colony,   Kranti   Nagar,
Near   Radha   Krishna   Mandir,   Panipat   to   the
newly   wedded   couple   (i.e.   Complainant   No.   1
and Sh. Vijay Kumar Jindal) and they kept all
dowry   articles,   house   hold   articles   etc.
mentioned   above   in   the   said   residential
accommodation   (ground   floor   of   said   house)
and   she   (i.e.   Complainant   No.   1)   also
consummated   her   marriage   with   her   husband   in
the   Ground   floor   of   said   house   and   Kirti
Jindal   (Complainant   No.   2)   was   born   out   of
the   said   wedlock.       It   is   pertinent   to
mention   here   that   all   dowry   articles,
istridhan,   household   articles,   furniture   etc.
etc.   are   still   kept   in   said   house   /
matrimonial   house   of   Complainant   No.   1   and
the   golden   ornaments   and   jewelry   etc.,   all
are yet in possession of the Respondents.
13.       That   it   is   worthwhile   to   mention   here
that after the marriage of Complainant No. 1,
both   brother   Sh.   Vijay   Kumar   Jindal   and   Ajay
Kumar   Jindal   were   running   their   joint

7
business   of   M/s.   Ajay   Kumar   Vijay   Kumar
Kiryana   Store,   at   Jatal   Road,   Sanjay   Chowk
Panipat, very smoothly and both brothers were
taking / deciding Rs. 30,000/- P.M. each, out
of   the   income   of   the   said   business,   for   the
maintenance   of   their   respective   families.
However   after   the   death   of   Sh.   Vijay   Kumar,
the   Respondent   No.   2   has   been   running   the
said   business   and   the   Complainants   are
equally   entitled   to   the   amount   which   the
respondent   No.   2   has   been   deducting   from   the
said   joint   business   or   at   least   Rs.   30,000/-
P.M.   which   the   Complainant   No.   1   has   been
receiving   during   the   life   time   of   Sh.   Vijay
Kumar Jindal.
At   the   present   stage,   there   are   sufficient   averments   in
the   complaint   to   sustain   the   order   for   the   award   of   interim
maintenance.   Paragraph   10   of   the   complaint   prima   facie
indicates   that   the   case   of   the   complainants   is   that   the   house
where the first respondent and her spouse resided, belong to a
joint family. The   appellant   and   his   brother   (who   was   the
spouse   of   the   first   respondent   and   father   of   the   second
respondent) carried on a joint business.  The appellant resided
in the same household.  Ultimately, whether the requirements of
Section 2(f); Section 2(q); and Section 2(s) are fulfilled is a
matter of evidence which will be adjudicated upon at the trial.
At   this   stage,   for   the   purpose   of   an   interim   order   for
maintenance, there was material which justifies the issuance of
a direction in regard to the payment of maintenance.
However,   we   clarify   that   the   present   order   as   well   as
orders   which   have   been   passed   by   the   courts   below   shall   not
come   in   the   way   of   a   final   adjudication   on   the   merits   of   the
complaint in accordance with law.

8
The   arrears   shall   be   paid   over   within   a   period   of   four
months from today by equal monthly installments.
The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
...............................J.
     (DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD)
...............................J.
     (HEMANT GUPTA)
 NEW DELHI
 APRIL 8, 2019

9
ITEM NO.63               COURT NO.11               SECTION II-B
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)  No(s).  652/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  10-10-2018
in CRM No. 44823/2018 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
At Chandigarh)
AJAY KUMAR                                         Petitioner(s)
                                VERSUS
LATA@ SHARUTI & ORS.                               Respondent(s)

Date : 08-04-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
         HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Anil Singal, Adv.
                    Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, AOR
                 
For Respondent(s)
                    Dr.  Nirmal Chopra, AOR
                   
          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
Leave granted.
The   appeal   is   disposed   of   in   terms   of   the   signed   reportable
order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MANISH SETHI)                              (SUNIL KUMAR RAJVANSHI)
COURT MASTER (SH)                               BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed reportable order is placed on the file) 

Cheque bounce case - Sec.219 of Cr.P.C. - Conslidation of proceedings = Whether four cheque bounce cases of which single notice was given cases had been heard together or separately, they would have been decided by now only because of the interim proceedings, even the evidence has not been recorded. The main ground raised is that in terms of Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the offences took place during the period of one year, the cases should be dealt together. Even if Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was to apply, there have to be two trials because not more than three cases can be tried together even if they occurred in one year. The only other contention is that since one notice has been issued, four separate trials should not take place and one trial should take place. There is no provision of consolidation of cases in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The only relief that can be granted to the appellant is that we direct the Trial Magistrate to fix all the four cases on one date so that it is convenient to both the parties to attend the hearing of all the four cases on one date.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).587-590 OF 2010
VANI AGRO ENTERPRISES                    APPELLANT(S)
                             VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.                    RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R
The appellant herein is alleged to have issued four
cheques   to   the   respondent   no.2   which   allegedly   bounced.
The   respondent   no.2   sent   one   notice   in   terms   of   Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments At, 1881 with regard to
bouncing   of   all   the   four   cheques.   Thereafter,   complaints
were   filed   in   the   year   1999   and   these   complaints   have
dragged   on   for   20   years   only   on   the   application   of   the
appellant   herein   that   all   the   four   complaints   should   be
consolidated and heard together.
Whether   these   cases   had   been   heard   together   or
separately,   they   would   have   been   decided   by   now   only
because of the interim proceedings, even the evidence has
1

not been recorded. 
The   main   ground   raised   is   that   in   terms   of   Section
219  of   the  Code   of  Criminal   Procedure  since   the  offences
took   place   during   the   period   of   one   year,   the   cases
should be dealt together. Even if Section 219 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure was to apply, there have to be two
trials   because   not   more   than   three   cases   can   be   tried
together even if they occurred in one year. 
The   only   other   contention   is   that   since   one   notice
has   been   issued,   four   separate   trials   should   not   take
place   and   one   trial   should   take   place.   There   is   no
provision   of   consolidation   of   cases   in   the   Code   of
Criminal Procedure. 
The   only   relief   that   can   be   granted   to   the
appellant   is   that   we   direct   the   Trial   Magistrate   to   fix
all   the   four   cases   on   one   date   so   that   it   is   convenient
to both the parties to attend the hearing of all the four
cases on one date.  
It   shall   be   open   to   the   trial   Court   to   record   the
evidence  in   the  manner   it  feels   like.  Since   the  original
complaints   were   filed   in   the   year   1999,   we   direct   the
2

Magistrate   to   fix   day   to   day   hearing   in   the   matters   and
dispose of these complaints latest by 31.12.2019.
In terms of the above, the appeals are disposed of.
   
...................J.
 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
...................J.
 (ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
New Delhi
September 05, 2019
3

ITEM NO.105               COURT NO.13               SECTION II-B
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s).587-590/2010
VANI AGRO ENTERPRISES                              Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.                         Respondent(s)
Date : 05-09-2019 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
For Appellant(s)
Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv.
Ms. Sucheta Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Seth, Adv.
Ms. Himadri Haksar, Adv.
Ms. Minakshi Vij, AOR
                 
For Respondent(s)
                    Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR
Mr. A. Rajarajan, ADv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Gurkamal Hora, Adv.
Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR
                   
          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order,
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT)                                   (RENU KAPOOR)
COURT MASTER (SH)                               BRANCH OFFICER
4