#Hindu #Law And there definitions

#Hindu #Law And there definitions

 

HINDU LAW – Smart Notes

Advertisements

#SupremeCourt: Customary #gifts are not #dowry.

#SupremeCourt: Customary #gifts are not #dowry.

 

Ss. 3, 4 and 6 – Dowry – What is – Customary gifts exchanged in accord with prevailing practice and custom – Not “dowry” – On a perusal of statement of PW 1, mother of S (deceased wife), it is apparent that the monetary gifts given to D (husband) and his family members, were in the nature of customary gifts exchanged during different ceremonies – Even the family of D, had given four tonnes of sugarcane seeds and a bag of jowar to her family, when family of S visited her matrimonial house, on the occasion of birth of a female child – Both families were engaged in offering gifts to each other, in accord with the pre-vailing practice and tradition – Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 304-B and 498-A.

Case:
State of Karnataka v. Dattaraj.

Citation:
(2016) 12 SCC 331 : AIR 2016 SC 882 : 2016 Cri LJ 1434

Bench Strength: 2
Coram: J. S. Khehar and S. A. Bobde JJ.

Date of decision: 15-02-2016
*********

#Photostat copies of original cannot be received as secondary #evidence in terms of Section 63 of #Evidence Act.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1456410/

Before :- Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 2060 of 2000 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12625 of 2005). D/d. 19.4.2007
IMPORTANT

Photostat copies of a document cannot be received as secondary evidence.

Smt. J. Yashoda – Appellant
Versus
Smt. K. Shobha Rani – Respondent

For the Appellant :- Bina Madhavan, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- M.N. Rao, Sr. Advocate with Prakash Rao and Ms. Promila, Advocates.

A. Evidence Act, Sections 63 and 65 – Secondary evidence – Photostat copies of original cannot be received as secondary evidence in terms of Section 63 of Evidence Act.

[Paras 3, 7 and 9]

B. Evidence Act, Sections 65 and 63 – Secondary evidence – So long as higher or superior evidence is in possession of a party, in the party shall give no inferior proof in relation to it. 1975(4) SCC 664 relied.
[Para 9]

C. Evidence Act, Sections 63 and 65 – Secondary evidence when can be produced – Further held :- (1) Secondary evidence, as a general rule is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence. If the original itself is found to be inadmissible through failure of the party, who files it to prove it to be valid, the same party is not entitled to introduce secondary evidence of its contents.(2) Essentially, secondary evidence is an evidence which may be given in the absence of that better evidence which law requires to be given first, when a proper explanation of its absence is given.

10 Land Mark #divorce cases in favor of #husbands

10 Land Mark #divorce cases in favor of #husbands

1. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Dr. Anita Rani V/s Dr. Suresh Kumar

Wife files false criminal cases against the husband, breaking & throwing mangal sutra, getting husband arrested, neglecting household and ill-treated husband etc. are cruelty. P & H HC affirms lower court decree. Divorce granted by the court.

2. Madras High Court

A.P. Ranga Rao vs Vijayalakshmi

Wife made Suicide attempt as the husband did NOT set up the separate house. Madras HC granted a divorce for a husband. On several occasions wife threatened to commit suicide. She insisted on the husband to start a separate establishment after severing his connection with the other members of his family, namely, mother, brother, brother’s wife and unmarried brother.
3. Bombay High Court

Smt. Nirmala Manohar Jagesha vs Manohar Shivram Jagesha

High Court analyses that the husband has NOT proven cruelty during matrimonial life, also not proven that the wife is of unsound mind and he is entitled to get a divorce on the basis of wild, reckless and baseless allegations of impotency, lack of masculinity made by the wife.

4. Delhi High Court

Chandhok (Lajwanti) vs Chandhok

Wife drives husband out of the matrimonial home, assaulted and abused him, refused to cohabit all cruelty. HC observed that husband subjected to cruelty & has become unendurable and granted divorce to him.

6. Delhi High Court

Smt. Alka vs Dr. R.K. Gautam

Wife Refused to have sex and threatened husband with suicide, ill-treating and uncaring attitude is shown towards relatives of husband. Delhi HC decreed the Divorce.

7. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Anil Yashwant Karande, Vs Smt. Mangal Anil Karande

Wife files a false case on 498a against the husband. Bombay HC accepts the innocence of husband and it ends in discharge of the accused husband and his people and granted him divorce

8. THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

K.SRINIVAS V/s K. SUNITA

Wife files a criminal complaint under section 307 read with 34, 148A, 384, 324 of IPC. Husband and seven members of his family were arrested on this. It was argued that this was solitary criminal complaint and cannot be considered as cruelty.Divorce granted by observing that even one false criminal complaint by wife constitutes matrimonial cruelty.

9. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Shri Mangesh Balkrushna Bhoir Vs Sau. Leena Mangesh Bhoir

Hon HC granted a divorce to the man even though trial court not specifically mentioned 498a filed by women was false. HC observed that the women have filed false cases and treated husband cruelly. Man files for divorce and granted by the civil judge but due to appeals case finally reaches the Bombay HC.

10. HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Rita Bandopadhyay v/s Abhik Bandopadhyay

Wife claims that husband had illicit relations with own sister, abuse him in the office, deserted him and stops him seeing own son. Divorce granted by the court and appreciates statements and evidence that proves cruelty of wife to husband. It takes about 21 years after desertion to get a divorce in this case.