Case BriefsForeign Courts

Supreme Court of Pakistan: The Three-Judge Bench of Mian Saqib Nisar, CJ and SH. Azmat Saeed and Ijaz-Ul-Ahsan, JJ. dismissed the appeal filed by a husband challenging the amount awarded to his wife after the dissolution of their marriage.

Appellant (husband) and Respondent 3 (wife) filed a suit for dissolution of marriage vide which their marriage was dissolved. A suit for return of dowry articles was also filed which was decreed by the learned Family Court for an amount of Rs 25,000. The decretal amount was enhanced to Rs 4 lakhs by the First Appellate Court in an appeal filed by Respondent 3. Appellant filed a writ petition in Lahore High Court assailing the order of appellate authority. The petition was partly accepted and amount in lieu of dowry articles was reduced to Rs 3 lakhs. Being still aggrieved, the appellant preferred the instant appeal before this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant Mr Sarfraz Khan Gondal submitted that the Family Court had granted a decree for a sum of Rs 25,000 with regards to claim for dowry. Hence, in view of Section 14(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, no appeal was maintainable against the said Judgment. Therefore, the Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court were wholly without jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned order of Lahore High Court partly affirming the same was also liable to be set aside.

Learned counsel for Respondent 3 Mr Mian Shah Abbas contended that the embargo placed on the right of appeal applied only to the husband and not to a wife dissatisfied with the quantum or denial of relief.

The Court noted that Family Courts are a special forum for adjudication of family disputes in accordance with the special procedure set forth in the 1964 Act, purpose whereof is expeditious settlement and disposal of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs.

It was opined that the purpose of curtailing the Right of Appeal under Section 14 of the Act was to avoid the benefits of the decree being tied up in an appeal before a higher forum. However, the said provision could not be interpreted so as to exclude a right of appeal to a wife whose claim of dower or dowry has been partially or entirely declined as it would defeat the purpose and object of the Act and frustrate its beneficial nature. In view thereof, the appeal was dismissed for being devoid of merit.[Saif-ur-Rehman v. Addl. District Judge, Toba Tek Singh, 2018 SCC OnLine Pak SC 19, decided on 17-04- 2018]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The Court has reserved its order on whether a judicial decision of the Foreigners Tribunal in Assam will supercede the decision of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) on declaring a person as a
foreigner.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi reserved the order on the plea after hearing arguments of petitioner’s advocate Kapil Sibal, and advocates appearing for the Centre and Assam.

During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one Abdul Kuddus, told the bench that Supreme Court should carve an appellate forum for such persons who figure in NRC but are declared foreigner by tribunals.
The court has to decide that if the name of a person has been included in NRC under an executive exercise and the same person has
been judicially determined as a foreigner, and such finding has attained finality by courts at different stages, which of the contrary view will supersede.
Sibal argued that if the name of a person is there in the NRC but he has been declared a foreigner by the tribunal, he should have the right to appeal. He also argued that though the NRC (/search?query=NRC) statute does not have a specific remedy, the Supreme Court can carve out an appeal procedure.
State of Assam and Centre had earlier said that judicial verdict will supercede the NRC executive exercise. The court had, on March 26, directed the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary of Assam to appear before it.

(Source: ANI)


Also read:

Decision of Foreigners Tribunal versus NRC: Senior Assam bureaucrats to appear before SC on March 28

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The Court has directed the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary of Assam to appear before it on March 28 in the matter where it has to decide whether a judicial decision of the Foreigners Tribunal will supersede the decision of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) authorities. State of Assam and Government of India have submittedthat judicial verdict of the tribunal will supersede the NRC executive exercise.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the petitioner has argued that if the name of a person is there in the NRC but he has been declared a foreigner by the tribunal, he should have the right to appeal. He also argued that though the NRC statute does not have a specific remedy, the Supreme Court can carve out an appeal procedure.

CJI Ranjan Gogoi asked petitioners to show how the Supreme Court can pass orders to create a right to appeal and an appellate authority in case of contradicting orders. He asked:

“What happens if the decision of Foreigners Tribunal says one thing and the NRC decides opposite?”

The court will be hearing the matter next on March 28.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In an appeal filed against the decision of the Allahabad High Court where it had rejected the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C on the ground that the additional evidence was filed with malafide intentions for delaying the decision of the appeal, the bench of Ashok Bhushan and KM Joseph, JJ said:

“When Statute grants right to appeal to an accused, he has right to take all steps and take benefit of all powers of the Appellate Court in the ends of the justice. In a criminal case Appellate Court has to consider as to whether conviction of the accused is sustainable or the appellant has made out a case for acquittal. The endeavour of all Courts has to reach to truth and justice.”

Present is the case where the appellant was convicted by a trail court on 07.10.2013 for cheating the complainant with regard to sale of agricultural land of the trust. He had produced a photocopy of the Trust Deed before the trial court, however, it was not proved.  On 08.10.2013, he appealed before the High Court and filed an application before the court to accept the certified copy of the Trust Deed and the Resolution and permit the appellant to lead evidence. The High Court, however, rejected the application and observed that the application was filed with some ulterior malafide motive.

Not agreeing with the view of the High Court, the bench of Ashok Bhushan and KM Joseph, JJ said:

“Filing of the application before the High Court to accept the certified copy of the Trust Deed and the Resolution and permit the appellant to lead evidence can in no manner be said to be malafide motive of the accused, who had been convicted in the appeal, has right to take all the grounds and also lead additional evidence, which in accordance with the Appellate Court is necessary in deciding the appeal.”

On the observation of the High Court that the application to take additional evidence at the appellate stage was filed by appellant for delaying the decision of the appeal to eternity, the bench said:

“when prosecution took twelve years’ time in leading evidence before the trial court and the judgment by trial court was delivered on 07.10.2013, the appeal was filed on 08.10.2013, how can appellant be castigated with the allegation that he intended to delay the appeal to eternity.”

It was noticed that trust Deed and the Resolution, which are foundation and basis for the start of the process of the sale of the land, were documents which ought to have been permitted to be proved to arrive at any conclusion to find out the criminal intent, if any, on the part of the appellant. The Court, hence, held that the High Court had failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and has committed error in rejecting the applications under Section 391 Cr.P.C.

[Brig. Sukhjeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 72, decided on 24.01.2019]