SANDHYA WANKHEDE VS MANOJ BHIMRAO WANKHEDE, (2011) Facts of the CaseIn the case of (Sandhya Wankhede v s Manoj Bhimrao Wankhede) after getting married in 2005, the appellant Sandhya lived with R1, R2, and R3 for nearly a year, and which caused problems in her marriage due to continuous disturbance she filed a police report against her husband under section 498 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting her.
JUDGEMENT OF THIS CASE In this case, Supreme Court had observed and held that resolved the question by ruling that the provision section 2(q) in which it doesn’t exclude women relatives of the husband or men partner from the scope of a complaint that can be submitted under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. According to result, complaints cannot be filed not only against the adult men, but also against the adult women relative.
LALITA TOPPO V/S STATE OF JHARKHAND, (2018) Facts of the Case- In this case, Supreme Court had observed and held that the complainant who was respondents legally wedded wife, she approached the court to seek maintenance under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, addressing that she will not be allowed to seek maintenance under section 125 of code of criminal procedure, 1973. In this instance, the appellant was living in a relationship with whom she had a minor child (whose age under 18) legally considered as a minor in the eyes of law. When she got separated from her husband the appellant sought support from her husband, for which the family court allowed and ready to give her 2000 and 1000 as maintenance to child. Later on it was found that family court ruling to be incorrect and taking part of her partner. After this the wife went to the Supreme Court and decided to take action.
JUDGEMENT GIVEN BY THE COURT In this case the court held that and it observed that a live partner will be obligated to even more relief than that envisaged by section 125 of code of criminal procedure, 1973. In this case, it was observed that according to the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, also includes economic abuse, sexual abuse, physical violence as well as social stress in the family. Some facts and figures regarding increasing cases of Domestic Violence in India are : • High and personal experience of corruption and judiciary • Most women of the Domestic violence are tried out in open courts. • Due to prolonged trials and loopholes of judiciary most victims go hostile. • Often parents and family members of women victim go hostile under mental and social pressure in dowry death cases, rape cases, marital rape and sexual harassment cases. • Lack of evidence in the criminal cases. • Long pending cases resulting 5 to 10 years to deliver justice to the victim. • Almost these cases takes 5 to 8 months to bring case for trial. • Standard of proof and victim speech is very low in Indian courts.
There has been increasing cases of Domestic violence and attention given to specific norms of Domestic Violence, such as Dowry deaths, Marital rape and Illegal marriages. It can assume multiple forms including physical, verbal, emotional, economical and sexual abuse in the family. It shows the effect of violence in the family. An eerie noise in the family which mentally disturb the whole family including as well as mentally disturbance in the family. Children who live in household or with joint family members with violence often show mentally problems and psychological issues which may contribute to traumatic stress disorder from an early age such as mentally stress, threats and dysregulated aggression which may contribute to mental trauma and vicarious traumatisation. Women tend to experience more forms of pain from the early age. A women is not much physically stronger as compare to men.
If we talk about women issues there are many women in the filed who never be able to take action and stand. Sexual abuse, Sexual assault and Marital rape these all crimes which are unreported and never to be justified in the eyes of law. These violence often occurs when the abuser believes that these all are justified and never likely to be reported. In many families women never allow to share their experience with the outside people or sometimes a crime takes place in the room where women is alone and helpless. Sometimes it feels like a commotion in the room where women experience several forms of pain. It is common to be happen in the families with several kinds of physical violence such as wife beating, sexual abuse, wife battering and sexual harassment in the families. In India it is common in most of the families that women are a part of Domestic violence or others forms of violence. Sexual abuse and Domestic violence has become a daily practise. It happens when the husband or Partner believes thatthere is no voice for victim.
It may sometimes due to mental stress or social stress. In many families it found that mostly male partners abuse, hunting and misbehave with other partner to remove their mentally stress. This may include threats, coercion, aggression, violence, abusing and mental stress which may lead to victorious traumatisation. In domestic violence there are many forms such as Physical, Social, Mental, Emotional and Economical. The formal legal system and stereotype society in India bears fear in the hearts and minds. Most crimes in Domestic violence family carried out on women unrecognised due to social stress, fear, police, blackmailing, political and social pressure, caste bearings and gender inequality etc. In many of the cases court becomes insensitive since all the reports and crimes are beyond the doubts and in some cases women never feasible to take action in court. So this creates loopholes and fear in women to approach former legal system and this makes women uncomfortable, hesitant and unwilling. It found that women often choose the courts only for property dispute, relatives dispute, divorce, maintenance and child custody.
It found that due to pendency in Indian courts offender and criminal enjoys the loopholes of judiciary in Domestic Violence. As we all know that Indian judiciary is based on the core values, moral, customs and cultural traditions of the Indian society. Pendency in Indian courts and it has increased the number of cases against the Domestic violence and the loopholes in Indian judiciary. A strict action should be taken against the culprit and the crimes increasing in the society should not be unseen and justified. Openly sexual offence, sexual abuse, assault, Domestic violence and physically abuse should not be treated unlikely and it should be reported and reach to provide justice to the women in the family or society. Our judiciary should be strong and make laws and regulations prevent in the society. It should be feasible and supposed to protect every women from lawbreakers, criminals and offenders.
The offence and crimes should be carried immediately and should be likely to be reported. At that time the offender should be punished and legally disqualified from every work under Indian law system. There should be an urgent clarion call to the courts and speedy trial. There should be campaign and protest for women rights and should provide cognizance to every women to take stand for herself in every situation. There should be fast speedy trial in courts and the justice should be deliver to every door.
International organizations and judiciary should provide equality and justice. International bodies and justice should play an important role and crucial role in making justice more clear and visible in the eyes of law and society. There should be a positive action towards the victim and compensation should be provided who suffered from bodily injury and physical assault in the family.
There should be more justice for the victims so that other victim who served his/her pain can be able to stand and raise voice against Domestic violence. There should be a polite attitude towards women specially on those places such as police station, courts and other investigation bodies so that she can easily comfortable to speak and willing to stand for herself. There should be more press freedom of speech and every person get a right to exchange his/her ideas regarding violence.
There should be more clarion call to upper authorities to take action against Domestic violence in the country and question to be raise that why there is too much pendency in Indian courts. A question to be raise that why justice has not delivered in last cases. A question to be raise that why the authority is failed to provide the justice to the victims. There should be a strict action against the real culprits and improve the image of Indian court and an attempt to revamp the justice image in the society. There should be freedom to speech and protest against the wrong activity in family against the Domestic violence in the country.
The Daily Guardian is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@thedailyguardian) and stay updated with the latest headlines.
For the latest news Download The Daily Guardian App.
Disproportionate assets case: Delhi High Court stays Lokpal proceedings initiated against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha chief Shibu Soren
On Monday, the Delhi High Court has stayed the proceedings initiated by Lokpal of India under the provisions of the Lokpal & Lokayuktas Act, 2013 against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) Chief and Rajya Sabha MP Shibu Soren in connection with a disproportionate case of assets.
The bench comprising of Justice Yashwant Varma observed and has passed an order on Soren’s plea challenging the validity of the said proceedings, claiming that the same was ex facie bad in law and without jurisdiction.
In the present case, the proceedings were initiated by Lokpal of India pursuant to a complaint dated August 5, 2020 filed by BJP’s Nishikant Dubey. Therefore, it has been directed by the CBI to make a preliminary enquiry into the Complaint under section 20(1)(a) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. It was claimed by Soren that the said order was not served on him.
While claiming the complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious, Soren in his plea submitted that according to section 53 of the Act and there is a statutory bar against the Lokpal of India assuming jurisdiction to investigate or inquire into any Complaint made after the expiry of seven years from the offence alleged.
The plea reads that the initiation of the proceedings under the Complaint, or at the very least, continuation thereof, once it has been demonstrated by the preliminary inquiry that it pertains to alleged acquisitions prior to the 7-year period and is clearly barred by statute, without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed.
Further, the petition filled submits that the maximum period of 180 days for completion of preliminary enquiry from the date of Complaint expired on February 1, 2021. In this backdrop, it has been stated that by this time, only on July 1, 2021, the comments were sought from Soren which is beyond the prescribed statutory period.
The plea adds that the final preliminary enquiry report was submitted by the CBI on 29.06.2022, about a year and a half after expiry of the 180- day period. Such purported report is void and null and non-est in the eyes of law and cannot be received or considered by the Respondent No.1.
Thus, the court took note of the order passed by Lokpal of India dated August 4, 2022 directing that proceedings under section 20(3) of the Lokpal Act be initiated to determine whether a prima facie case existed to be proceeded against Soren. It is Soren’s case that the order was passed without considering the preliminary objection on jurisdiction being raised by him.
In the said order, the court noted that all the Lokpal of India recorded was that the comments received from the petitioner were forwarded to CBI so as to examine and submit an enquiry report.
It was ordered by the court that the challenge to assumption of jurisdiction by respondent no. 1 (the Lokpal of India) has neither been answered and nor dealt with. Matters require consideration. Subsequently, there will be a stay of proceedings pending before the Lokayukta.
Accordingly, the court will now hear the matter on 14 December.
DELHI HC SETS ASIDE MURDER CONVICTION & LIFE SENTENCE OF MAN WHO WAS UNPRESENTED BY LAWYER; REMANDS CASTE BACK TO TRIAL COURT
The Delhi High Court in the case Narender @ Lala v. State Of NCT Of Delhi observed and has set aside the orders of conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to a man in 2018 who was unrepresented by a lawyer before the Trial Court. Thus, the Delhi High Court has remanded the case back to the Trial Court for cross examination of certain prosecution witnesses.
The division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal observed and was of the view that there had been a grave miscarriage of justice to the man as when number of witnesses were examined, he was not represented by a counsel and that the legal aid counsel, who was present before Trial Court and was appointed on the same day and asked to cross- examine the witnesses on the same day.
On March, 2018, Narender was convicted for offence of murder punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. On 4th May, 2018, he was sentenced by the Trial Court for life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.
In the present case, the case of the prosecution was that the man had committed murder of his wife by strangulating her to death.
In a appeal, it was argued by the man that during the substantial course of trial, he was not represented by a lawyer and hence the trial in the absence of a lawyer had seriously prejudiced him. He thus sought recalling of all the prosecution witnesses and thereby ensuring a fair trial.
The Court observed that the manner in which the trial is conducted, there was a serious denial of fair trial to the appellant and the appellant is required to be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses i.e., the witnesses examined in the absence of the lawyer, or the lawyer having been appointed on the same day from the legal aid and is asked to cross-examine the witnesses.
Further, the court remanded the back to Trial Court for cross-examination of ten prosecution witnesses. Also, the court directed the Trial Court Judge to follow due process of law and also to record the statement of the man under Section 313 CrPC and permit leading the defence evidence if so required.
The Court ordered that the case be listed before the learned Trial Court on 26th September, when Superintendent Tihar Jail will product the appellant before the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within four months.
SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO ENTERTAIN PLEA CHALLENGING EXCLUSION OF SC/ST RESERVATION IN JHARKHAND DISTRICT JUDGES APPOINTMENT
The Supreme Court in the case Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Educational And Cultural Trust v. Hon’ble High Court Jharkhand And Ors. observed and has refused to entertain a plea challenging the non-inclusion of reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes communities in the process of appointment of District Judges in pursuant to an advertisement issued in March, 2022 by the High Court of Jharkhand. The present petition claimed that the exclusion of reservation violates Jharkhand State Reservation Policy and constitutional guarantee under Article 16(4). Apart from this, it is also in derogation of a resolution being passed by the High Court vouching to implement reservation in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service.
The bench comprising of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and the Justice Hima Kohli observed and has granted liberty to the petitioner to file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Jharkhand High Court.
The court while considering that the process of appointment as per the concerned notification is underway, Justice Chandrachud asked the petitioner to approach the High Court with respect to future appointments.
It stated that “For the future you can file a petition before the High Court… We will give you liberty to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
The bench of Justice Chandrachud observed that the Decisions of the Administrative side of the High Court can be challenged before the judicial side of the High Court. You can move the High Court.
In the present case, a writ petition challenging a similar notification was filed in 2017 before the High Court, which was eventually dismissed. It was observed by the High Court that there is no duty vested in the authorities to reserve seats for all posts, more particularly in higher judiciary. Moreover, it had already initiated the appointment process, the High Court opined that it cannot alter the rules midway. Thus, the appeal filed before the Apex Court was also dismissed.
However, in 2018 the Full Court of the Jharkhand High Court had agreed in principle to grant reservation in the recruitment for Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service. The advocates belonging to the SC/ST/OBC communities in 2021 had made representations to the Chief Justice of the High Court requesting for the implementation of the Reservation policy in appointment of District Judges (direct entry from Bar)/ superior judicial service. The impugned notification was issued without incorporating reservation for SC/ST/OBC communities in March 2022.
Mr. Arvind Gupta, Advocate on Record has filled the present petition.
Right to contest election is not a fundamental right; it is only a right conferred by statute: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court in the case Vishwanath Pratap Singh vs Election Commission of India observed that the right to contest an election is not a fundamental right but only a right conferred by a statute.
The bench comprising of Justice Hemant Gupta and the Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed while dismissing a Special Leave Petition filed by Vishwanath Pratap Singh that an individual cannot claim that he has a right to contest election and the said stipulation violates his fundamental right, so as is required under the Act, to file his nomination without any proposer.
Also, the court imposed a cost of Rupees one lakh on Singh.
In the present case, Singh had first approached the Delhi High Court challenging a notification issued by Election Commission of India for election to Rajya Sabha after he was not allowed to file his nomination without a proper proposer being proposing his name. His contentions were rejected by the High Court that his fundamental right of free speech and expression and right to personal liberty has been infringed.
While dismissing the SLP, the Apex Court observed that the writ petition before the High Court was entirely misconceived.
The bench observed while referring to earlier judgments viz Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369 and Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2016) 2 SCC 445 wherein it was stated that the right to contest an election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is a right conferred by a statute.
However, the Supreme Court in Javed (supra) had made the following observations: Right to contest an election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right and it is a right conferred by a statute. At the most, in view of Part IX having been added in the Constitution of India that a right to contest election for an office in Panchayat may be said to be a constitutional right and a right originating in the Constitution and given shape by a statute. But even if, it cannot be equated with a fundamental right. It is stated that there is nothing wrong in the same statute which confers the right to contest an election also to provide for the necessary qualifications without which a person cannot offer his candidature for an elective office and also to provide for disqualifications which would disable a person from contesting for, or from holding, an elective statutory office.
It was held in Rajbala (supra) that the right to contest for a seat in either of the two bodies is subject to certain constitutional restrictions and could be restricted further only by a law which the parliament made.
Further, the court added that Singh did not have any right to contest election to the Rajya Sabha in terms of the law made by the Parliament.
The Court stated while dismissing the SLP that the Representation of People Act, 1950 read with the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 has contemplated the name of a candidate to be proposed while filling the nomination form. However, it cannot be claimed by an individual that he has a right to contest election and the said stipulation violates his fundamental right, so as to file his nomination without any proposer as is required under the Act.
Post-conviction compounding of offences is permissible: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case Shri Kantu Ram v Shri Beer Singh recently observed that a court, while exercising powers under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and can proceed to compound the offences even after recording of conviction by the courts below.
The bench comprising of Justice Sandeep Sharma observed in a case where the revision Petitioner, who was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act by the Magistrate Court and was aggrieved by subsequent dismissal of appeal by the Sessions Court and had agreed to pay the amount due and settle the matter.
Thus, the petitioner had sought compounding of offences.
In the present case, the respondent admitted the factum with regard to receipt of the amount due from the accused and expressed that the prayer made on behalf of accused for compounding of offence can be accepted.
However, the High Court allowed the prayer and the offence committed by the Petitioner under Section 138 NI Act was ordered to be compounded.
The Court observed that the Reliance was placed on Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the NI Act and can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of the conviction by the courts below.
‘Pensionary benefits to employee, who is removed from service for misconduct, is not at par with those who retire on superannuation’
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in the case Bashir Ahmad Wani v Jammu and Kashmir Grameen Bank and Another recently observed and stated that an employee who is removed from service for misconduct is not at par with those who is being retired on superannuation.
The bench comprising of Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed while dismissing the pension claim made by a former employee of the J&K Grameen Bank, who was removed from service in 2011.
In the present case, the petitioner had sought benefit of the J&K Grameen Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 2018 whereby provision was made for terminal benefits.
However, the court disallowed the claims on two grounds:
Firstly, that at the time of removal of the petitioner from service when there were no norms, rules or regulations providing for the benefit of pension to the employees of the respondent-Bank.
In the year 2011, the employees of the respondent-Bank were governed by the J&K Grameen Bank ( the Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010… it is abundantly clear that it does not prescribe imposition of a penalty of removal along with the pensionary benefits.
Secondly, it was opined by the court that though the 2018 Regulations had been made applicable to those employees who were in service between 1st day of September, 1987 and 31st day of March, 2010 and the employees retired from the services of the Bank before 31st day of March, 2018, however, this leeway cannot come to aid of the Petitioner.
The Curt observed that the reason for finding that the Petitioner was not an employee who had “retired” on superannuation from the bank. Rather, he was “removed” for misconduct.
The Court stated that the regulations apply to those employees who retired from the service of the Bank before 31.03.2018 and not the employees who were terminated for misconduct. Viewed thus, the order of removal of the petitioner dated 02.09.2011 holding the petitioner entitled to terminable benefits and cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be construed to be an order of removal with the benefit of the pension. Neither, the petitioner, at the time of his removal from service, nor with the promulgation of Pension Regulations of 2018, is entitled to the benefit of pension.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition.
Crypto industry finds middle ground with regulators
Generative AI gives SurveySparrow’s chat surveys a new edge
‘India’s economic narrative brighter, takes global lead’
These ’90s fashion trends are making a comeback in 2017
The old and New Edition cast comes together to perform
The final 6 ‘Game of Thrones’ episodes might feel like a full season
Fashion6 years ago
These ’90s fashion trends are making a comeback in 2017
Entertainment6 years ago
The old and New Edition cast comes together to perform
Entertainment6 years ago
The final 6 ‘Game of Thrones’ episodes might feel like a full season
Opinion1 year ago
Environment day with a missing spring and lost souls
Policy&Politics1 year ago
A successful SME must understand his 5 wives
Business6 years ago
Uber and Lyft are finally available in all of New York State
Uncategorized1 year ago
Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn in straight line
Fashion6 years ago
According to Dior Couture, this taboo fashion accessory is back