Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., while addressing the present revision petition expressed that:

“A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of the evidence.”

The instant revision petition was filed under Section 397/401 CrPC against the Order passed by Additional Sessions Judge. Further, the petitioner has also challenged the Order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate in an application for claiming interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act.

Facts leading to the present revision petition:

After marriage, Respondent/wife was inducted as a whole-time Director in the company run by the petitioner/husband. Later, the respondent-wife started living separately claiming that she was deserted by the petitioner after which she filed an application under Section 23 of the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for seeking interim maintenance.

Since the respondent was continuing as the Director in the said company of the husband she wasn’t able to take up any other job and was not even getting any salary from the husband’s company which all lead to her not being able to maintain herself.

Initially, she was granted interim maintenance of Rs 1,00,000 but it was rejected by the lower court.

Respondent also approached the Company Law Board for a direction that she should be paid salary during the period she served as the Director of the Company to which the Company Law directed the above-stated company to pay the salary to the respondent.

When the petitioner moved an application under Section 25 of the Domestic Violence Act for the modification in the maintenance order since now the respondent was getting a salary from the Company, the said request was rejected.

Analysis and Decision

Bench opined that the scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow.

Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case.

 Court noted that the findings of the Metropolitan Magistrate as upheld by the Sessions Court was that the petitioner was not providing adequate maintenance to the respondent and since the said maintenance was not being paid, petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs 1,00,000 towards maintenance.

Further, the Company which was being run by the petitioner did not release her salary. The respondent had to move the Court and fight for getting her legitimate salary.

To the above, Bench stated that even though the company is distinct from the petitioner but the company is being run by the petitioner and it can be assumed that the salary was not being paid to the respondent only at the instance of the petitioner.

While concluding, the Court held that it is open for the petitioner to raise all the contentions in the matrimonial proceedings pending between the husband and wife while deciding the issue of grant of alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. [Taron Mohan v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 312, decided on 25-01-2021]


Advocates for the parties:

Petitioner: Vishesh Wadhwa, Advocate

Respondents: Hirein Sharma, APP for the State

Joel, Advocate for the respondent 2.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench of S.A. Bobde, CJ and L. Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran, JJ., dismissed a review petition while directing the Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar, to conduct proceedings by video conferencing.

Petitioner preferred the instant petition seeking transfer of HMA No. 487 of 2015 filed by the respondent from Principle Jude, Family Court, District Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket District, New Delhi.

The transfer petition was dismissed the and Court directed the trial to be conducted at Gautambudh Nagar, Family Court through Video conferencing.

Reasoning placed by the petitioner for filing the present petition was that there was no video conferencing facility at Gautambudh Nagar, District Courts. Another ground was that video conferencing is not permissible in matrimonial matters in light of the Supreme Court decision in Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh, (2018) 1 SCC 62.

 Since March 2020, due to the physical functioning of the Courts were stopped. Hence, proceedings in all Courts are being conducted only through video conferencing.

Bench stated that in the normal course, it would not have directed video conferencing in respect of matrimonial matters as per the above-referred Judgment, but in the present matter, since all the proceedings are being conducted in video conferencing, Court directed the Family Court, District Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. to conduct the trial through video conferencing.

In light of the above, the review petition was dismissed. [Anjali Brahmawar Chauhan v. Navin Chauhan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 38, decided on 22-01-2021]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sunil Gaur, J. allowed a petition for quashing an FIR filed under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC and the proceedings arising therefrom.

The quashing of FIR was sought on the basis of mediated settlement reached at between the parties. The complainant was present in the Court and she was identified by the Assistant Sub-Inspector on the basis of her identity proof. She submitted that the dispute between the parties had been amicably resolved vide mediated settlement dated 20-3-2018 and the terms thereof had been fully acted upon. She affirmed the contents of her affidavit filed in support of the present petition and submitted that now no dispute with the petitioners survive and therefore, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question may be brought to an end.

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 wherein the parameters for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIRs/complainants were reiterated. Allowing the petition, the Court stated, “Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.” The petitioners were directed to deposit costs of Rs 25,000 with the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. [Vipin Mittal v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7635, decided on 15-3-2019]