Case Briefs

Punjab and Haryana High Court: While dealing with a peculiar set of facts in a petition for protection of life and liberty, Karamjit Singh, J., dismissed the same on the ground of maintainability.

The factual matrix in the instant case is that the present petition has been filed seeking directions to respondent 2 and 3 to provide protection to their life and liberty at the hands of respondents 4 to 7. The petitioner is married to respondent 4 but they have been living separately on account of matrimonial dispute and differences. Later, petitioner 1 started living with petitioner 2, who is already married to someone else.

It is revealed that respective marriages of both the petitioners are still in force and they are in a live-in relationship with one another. Considering this, the petition cannot be maintained.

The Court relied on the judgement in Parvinder Kaur v. State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 1166 where this Court had directed that if the petitioners perceive any threat to their life, they may approach the police authorities who will take cognizance of their request. In a similar fashion, in the present case, if the petitioners approach the police authority concerned, protection might be provided after threat assessment, if necessary.

The Court has remarked that this order shall, in no way serve as validation and recognition of the said live-in relationship and will not entitle them to any protection against legal action. In case the petitioners have committed an offence, then they will be dealt with by following the due procedure under Indian law.

In view of the above, the petition has been disposed of.[Anita Kumari v. State of Punjab, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 1780, decided on 23-10-2020]


Yashvardhan Shrivastav, Editorial Assistant has put this story together

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court has issued a circular dated 27.07.2020 notifying that the Advocate-on-Record and Party-in-Person shall file soft copy of the petition as well as the accompanying documents, filed in physical form at the filing counter of the Registry.

To read the Standard Operating Procedure for the same, click here.


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Hot Off The PressNews

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of D.N. Patel, CJ and C Hari Shankar, J. declined to entertain a petition seeking directions to NHRC to intervene and enquire into the mental and physical state of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case.

Bench stated that the said petition should have been filed in National Human Rights commission (NHRC).

Petition had also referred to the allegations that the four were facing physical abuse in the prison. Petitioner advocate also claimed 4 convicts have been kept in solitary confinement under fear of death “on the whims and fancies” of the authorities and it can affect their mental stability.


[Source: PTI]

Case BriefsForeign Courts

Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka: A Full Bench of Buwaneka Aluwihare, Murdu N. B. Fernando and E. A. G. R. Amarasekera, JJ., dismissed and appeal filed complaining about the violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 11, 12(1) and 13(1).

According to the Petitioner, while he was driving his three-wheeler from Rajagiriya to Malwana two persons who were unknown to him, had blocked his path with their motorcycle and had brought his three-wheeler to a halt and who were dressed in civilian clothing had then forcibly took the Petitioner to the Police Station where he was kept in the police cell for about half an hour without any reasons being given for his arrest. Thereafter the petitioner was handed over to the respondents and he was ordered to drive his three-wheeler to another police station and while he was driving the respondent who was seated at the back of the three-wheeler had beaten the Petitioner on the head and when he parked the vehicle he was again assaulted with such an intensity that he fainted and he was detained in the police station and was set free the other morning after recording of his statement. He contends to have admitted to the hospital while he did not produce any relevant evidence for the same. There were contradictions in the petition and the letter sent by Deputy Inspector General of Police. The Court had observed that the Petitioner had not cited the two police officers who arrested him and the respondents had his custody at the first police station so they were not present at the time of the arrest so they cannot be held liable for unlawful arrest of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had complained of torture at the hands of the Respondents however, records show that there were no external injuries to be seen on the Petitioner.

The Court while dismissing the petition stated that they are of the opinion that the Petitioner was unable to prove the alleged violation. [Arangallage Samantha v. Officer-in-charge, S.C. (F/R) Application No. 458 of 2012, decided on 28-01-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Manipur High Court: Kh. Nobin Singh, J. allowed civil revision petition questioning the validity and correctness of the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal East.

In the present case, a suit was instituted by the petitioner in a land dispute, without the originals of the documents being filed in support of his case. When he realised his mistake, he filed an application praying for leave to file original documents which was rejected on the ground that the sufficient cause for non-production of the documents was not shown and that the provision of law under which the application had been filed, was not mentioned in the application. The second application was filed by the petitioner stating that he simply signed the application drafted by his counsel and due to lack of communication and under the impression that since the copies of the documents had been filed, their originals would be allowed to be filed without any objection. The Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division dismissed the application on the ground that the application was barred by the principles of ‘res judicata’ being a successive application in the same court on the same facts. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the instant civil revision petition before the High Court.

The Court observed, “the earlier application had been rejected on technical grounds and not on merits.” Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kewal Chand Mimani v. S.K. Sen, (2001) 6 SCC 512, where it was held, “if the earlier suit had not been decided on merits, the mere dismissal thereof could be of no help in invoking the principles of res judicata.”

The Court held that the principles of ‘res judicata’ would not be applicable in the instant case as the same applies to a case “where the earlier application or for that matter, a suit or any petition has been decided on merit and that too, between the same parties.”

Thus, the petition was allowed and parties were directed to appear before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal West.[Moiranthem Basanta Singh v. Thockchom Mangol Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine Mani 63, decided on 02-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Bench of Ali Mohammad Magrey, J., dismissed a petition that was filed by the petitioners on the apprehension that they might be transferred.

The petitioner’s claim was within reference to continuation as General Line Teachers at Government High School without any hindrance with reference to the application of Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme and the condition of their regularization order. The relevant part of the scheme is that-“As a matter of policy and consistent with the imperatives of smooth working of Rural Schools, the Rehbar-e-Taleems so regularized shall not be transferred out.”

The High Court held after a perusal of the pleadings and documents on record that there was no order of transfer made by any of the respondents against the petitioners, which could form the basis for challenging the same. Petitioners had filed the petition merely on apprehension. The Court further stated that it is a well-settled law that no relief can be granted in the petition, which has been filed on apprehension. It relied on n the case of Chanan Singh v. Registrar, Co. OP. Societies, Punjab, (1976) 3 SCC 361 and Kunda S. Kadam v. K.K. Soman, (1980) 2 SCC 355. The petition was thus rejected. [Fayaz Ahmad Dar v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine J&K 123, Order dated 13-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: The Single Judge Bench comprising of M.V. Muralidaran J., held that “If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and in a position to support himself, he is under the obligation to support his wife under Section 125 CrPC, for wife’s right to receive maintenance under the Section, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.”

The petition for divorce was first filed by the husband/petitioner subsequently followed by a petition by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights and while these petitions were still pending, the wife of the petitioner filed another petition seeking interim maintenance for which the petitioner was asked to pay Rs. 16,000/- per month to the respondent/wife.

The petitioner in his submission stated that he was unemployed and was living under the shadow of his father which makes him incapable of providing such huge amount of interim maintenance. But for the same stated issue the respondent/wife contended that it was the husband’s duty to maintain his wife/child with the provision of all the basic needs, and also the contention of the petitioner is incorrect as he runs his own business.

The Hon’ble High Court, on noting all the facts and circumstances stated that it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and he cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain his wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning. Therefore, the Criminal Revision was partly allowed by reducing the sum of interim maintenance to Rs. 10,000/- per month by directing the Family Court judge to dispose of the petition without giving any further adjournment. [Vishnuprasad v. Vishnupriya,  2018 SCC OnLine Mad 1306, dated 11-04-2018]