LawforAll

▼
Monday, March 17, 2025

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A, 506 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – ss.3, 4 – Complainant made specific allegations against her husband and her mother-in-law for demand of dowry and harassment – However, as regards the appellants (complainant’s mother-in-law’s younger sister and her son), the allegation was that they pressurized her to act according to her husband and her mother-in-law’s wishes – High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings against the appellants – Challenge to: Held: Impugned judgements set aside – Charges against the accused including the appellants were sought to be substantiated based on the statements of the complainant, her parents and two panchayat elders – Complainant in her complaints did not assign any specific role to the appellants concerning cruelty, the demands of dowry or her physical and mental harassment except for making a sweeping allegation without specific details – Nothing on record to show that the parents or the two witnesses witnessed any of the incidents of physical harassment of the complainant at the instance of the appellants – Statements of the Panchayat elder is based on the information provided by the complainant’s father and is hearsay evidence – No prima facie case made out against the appellants for continuing the criminal proceedings against them in the trial – Pending criminal proceedings quashed qua the two appellants – Constitution of India – Article 142. [Paras 37, 23, 40] Matrimonial/domestic disputes – Criminalisation of domestic disputes, effect on the institution of family – Tendency to implicate family members/relatives – Duty of Court, discussed – In criminal cases of domestic violence, complaints and charges to be specific. [Paras 31-35]

›
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1 : 2025 INSC 160 Geddam Jhansi & Anr. v. The State of Telangana & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 609 of 2025) 07 Februar...
Friday, March 14, 2025

"Section 39 in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 39. Opinions of experts. (1)When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or any other field, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or any other field, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts and such persons are called experts."

›
APHC010533112024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH...

Having knowledge that wife took divorce in police station from her first husband - married the petitioner second time and gave a birth to the second petitioner, the respondent is not permitted to take U turn and can not throw the wife and children to the street as the very purpose of Sec.125 would be defeated

›
Having knowledge that wife took divorce in police station from her first husband - married the petitioner second time and gave a birth to th...

Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – s.23 – Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances – Appellant-mother sought cancellation of the Gift Deed transferring her property to the respondent-son subject to the condition that he provides for her maintenance – Appellant alleged that the conditions in the promissory note and the gift deed w.r.t her maintenance were grossly unfulfilled and there was a breakdown of peaceful relations inter se the parties – Gift Deed in question, if ought to be quashed: Held: Yes – Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and Anr. [2022] 17 SCR 876, expounded two conditions for attracting the application of Section 23(1), (a) the transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and (b) the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor – In the present case, the conditions for the well-being of the senior citizens were not complied with – Single Judge of the High Court and the tribunals below rightly held the Gift Deed to be cancelled – View of the Division Bench which set aside the judgment of the Single Judge and took a strict view of a beneficial legislation, not agreed with – Impugned judgment set aside – Gift Deed quashed – Possession of the premises be restored to the Appellant. [Paras 21, 23, 26] Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – s.23 – Jurisdiction of the Tribunal – If can order eviction and transfer of possession of the property – Impugned order observed that Section 23 is a standalone provision of the Act and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is only to find out whether the condition in the gift deed or otherwise contained a clause providing for basic amenities and whether the transferee has refused or failed to provide them and there is no other jurisdiction vested with the Tribunal – Correctness: Held: Tribunals under the Act may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizen – It cannot be said that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23, cannot order possession to be transferred – This would defeat the purpose and object of the Act to provide speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies for the elderly – The relief available to senior citizens under Section 23 is intrinsically linked with the statement of objects and reasons of the Act, that elderly citizens of the country, in some cases, are not being looked after – It is directly in furtherance of the objectives of the Act and empowers senior citizens to secure their rights promptly when they transfer a property subject to the condition of being maintained by the transferee. [Paras 24, 25]

›
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 105 : 2025 INSC 20 Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 10927 of 2024) 02 January 2025 [C.T. Raviku...

Succession Act, 1925 – s.63 – SR-Testator was the owner of 1/4th share of a land – The Testator had no children and resided with his nephew appellant-GK – He executed a Will on 07.11.2005 and passed away the next day on 08.11.2005 – Having received the said land/property by the virtue of the said Will, the appellant transferred the same in favour of his four sons – Thereafter, the said property was sold jointly – Respondent nos.1 to 7 herein filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect inter alia that the Will dated 07.11.2005 was forged and fabricated – Trial Court held that the Will cannot be relied on – The Will was held to be valid and genuine by the Lower Appellate Court, so also it was held that the consequent sale deeds cannot be held invalid – However, the High Court held that the Will had not been proved – Correctness: Held: The view taken by the High Court is that the attesting witness, in his deposition, did not state that the act of affixing his thumb impression on the Will subject matter of dispute was at the direction of the Testator and, therefore, the requirement stipulated u/s. 63 of the Act was not met – The language of Section 63(c) of the Act uses the word ‘OR’ – It states that each Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses who have seen the Testator sign or affix his mark on the Will OR has seen some other persons sign the Will in the presence and by the direction of the Testator OR has received a personal acknowledgment from the Testator of his signature or mark etc – What flows therefrom is that the witnesses who have attested the Will ought to have seen the Testator sign or attest his mark OR have seen some other persons sign the Will in the presence of and on the direction of the Testator – In the instant case, the testimony of DW-1 is clear that he had seen the deceased affix his mark on the Will – That alone would ensure compliance of Section 63(c) – The part of the Section that employs the term ‘direction’ would come into play only when the attestor to the Will would have to see some other person signing the Will – Such signing would explicitly have to be in the presence and upon the direction of the Testator – The requirement of law while undoubtedly present, was not of concern in the instant dispute – On that count, the High Court to have erred in law – As such the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside – The Judgment of the First Appellant Court stand restored – Consequently, the Will of SR is valid and so are the subsequent Sale Deeds executed by GK. [Paras 11, 13, 14, 15]

›
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 93 : 2025 INSC 18 Gopal Krishan & Ors. v. Daulat Ram & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 13192 of 2024) 02 January 2025 [C.T. R...