Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery…. Talk to a legal expert on phone and get the advice you need. Legal terrorism in domestic violence — an Indian outlook. Absence of Evidence on Record: March 31, 0. Punjab and Haryana High Court Bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on a supervening event, is made out. Just like any other law is.
Kiran Tulshiram Ingale Vs. Bombay High Court Allegations against husband that Wife committed suicide by jumping out of running Jeep because he quarrelled before incident and threatened her of dire consequences. Under section A of IPC cruelty by itself amounts to an offence whereas under section B the offence is of dowry death and the death must have occurred during the course of seven years of marriage. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. March 31, 0. The Honble Supreme Court did not interfere with respect to the directions pertaining to Red Corner Notice, clubbing of cases and postulating that recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail.
It has also been argued that prior to the lodging of the complaint, the divorce petition was instituted on the ground of cruelty on When main offence is not proved, there would be no question of abetment as envisaged by SectionOpc Act.
The Supreme Court, in the case of 498w v. Delhi High Court Section — Jurisdiction will lie with Police Station having jurisdiction over matrimonial home or some other place where respondent No.
But it has taken a reverse trend now. National Commission for Women, India: Statement covered by Hearsay Rule and does not fall within explanations of Section 32 of Evidence Act.
Important Judgments on Section 498A of IPC
Most Read Contributor in India, April There should be provision for men also to file a case for mental cruelty by his wife. The first part of the statement suggests that women who are harassed should be utilizing this law as a means of protection. Interested in the next Webinar on this Topic? March 3, 0. November 2, 0.
Top five Supreme Court Judgments on misuse of S. A of IPC
Amount voluntarily paid by father of PW1 to accused No. State of Bihar criminal appeal no.
In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy jpc during and prior to trial. Appellants acquitted of charges levelled against them.
Falguni Anirudh Pradhan and Ors. March 20, 0. Bombay High Court The criminal proceedings against Husband so also his conviction quashed in view of the mutual understanding, divorce and compromise between Husband and Wife.
(DOC) Misuse of section A in Indian society | Rahul Jain –
The Court also recognized some areas for remedial steps. The Court opined that merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a stydy to unscrupulous persons to wreak personal vendetta or unleash harassment.
The avowed object is to combat the menace of dowry death and cruelty . The fact that s. Delhi High Court No acceptable material or legal evidence in support of prosecution story about cruelty or cruel acts of such nature meted out by petitioner, resulting in death of caze — Charge framed under Section A, IPC againsit petitioner quashed.
September 19, 0. Victim was 22 years of age. There was no question of her happiness, expectation or content. State of Maharashtra Court: State of Punjab and Ors. Power to grant bail conferred equally on both Courts.
It should be determined by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, etc.
June 30, 0.
Our experience shows that, apart from the husband, all family members are implicated and dragged to the police stations. July 9, 0.