Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) – Cruelty and desertion – Petitioner appellant – husband for decree of dissolution of marriage with respondent – wife on grounds of mental cruelty and desertion – Dismissed by District Judge – Dismissal confirmed by High Court – Appeal – Appellant and respondent got married in the year 1972 – After three years of marriage, daughter was born – Because of misunderstandings between them, respondent started living separately from the year 1981 – Respondent filed several criminal proceedings against appellant – Both parties has crossed 49 years of age and were living separately since 1981 – Daughter born in 1975 had already been given in marriage – In such circumstances, held, marriage had been irretrievably broken down with no possibility of the parties living together again – Marriage dissolved by granting decree of divorce, so that parties can live peacefully in remaining part of their life – High Court not justified in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of appellant – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside.

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, Section 25 – Permanent alimony – Appellant-husband was ready and willing to pay lumpsum amount by way of permanent alimony to respondent-wife – Respondent not willing to accept lumpsum amount but expressed her willingness to live with appellant – Held: Respondent’s desire to live with appellant at this stage and at this distance of time was not genuine – Suggestions made by respondent rejected. 2006 (8) SCJ 746 Rishikeh Sharma Vs. Saroj Sharma

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, Sections 34 and 43 – Limitation Act, 1963, Section 14 – Exclusion of time spent in prosecuting remedy before wrong forum – Applicability of such exclusion to Arbitration Act – Adverting to the question as to what extent Section 14 is applicable to 1996 Act and after referring to State of Goa V. M/s Western Builders (2006 (6) SCJ 205), apex Court HELD: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not expressly exclude applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act – Section 43 of Arbitration Act specifically says that Limitation Act shall apply to arbitration. 2006 (8) SCJ 852 United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. J.A. Infra Structure Pvt. Ltd.

Labour Law

LABOUR LAW – Misconduct – Domestic enquiry – Removal from service – Respondent, while working as Mechanic in appellant-Corporation, had committed theft of articles in the garage of Bus Depot – Domestic enquiry conducted – Enquiry Officer found him guilty of charges framed against him – Basing on enquiry report, disciplinary authority removed him from service – Labour Court holding that punishment of removal was justified – Single Judge of High Court, in writ petition, set aside order or removal and directed reinstatement of respondent with continuity of service but without back wages – On appeal, Division Bench upheld the order of single Judge – Appeal – Held: Theft committed by respondent amounted to misconduct – When he was found guilty of theft, appellant – Corporation had lost confidence or faith in him – He had no legal right to continue in appellant-Corporation – Punishment of removal from service was just and reasonable and proportionate to the proved misconduct – Labour Court had exercised its jurisdiction judiciously and fairly – Interference with the order of Labour Court by single Judge and Division Bench was uncalled for – Order of reinstatement passed by single Judge and upheld by Division Bench was contrary to law – Set aside – Order of Labour Court restored.

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Article 226 – Judicial review – Quantum of punishment – Interference with – Held: High Court may modify the punishment only when it finds that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved – No place for generosity or sympathy on the part of judicial forums for interfering with quantum of punishment.

LABOUR LAW – Misconduct – Disciplinary proceedings – Past conduct of workman – Held, is not relevant in departmental proceedings. 2006 (8) SCJ 837 Depot Manager, APSRTC Vs. Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad

Indian Penal Code

INDIAN PENAL CODE: 1860, Sections 498-A and 302- Appeal by sole accused against his conviction, recorded by the High Court, reversing his acquittal by the trial court – case of alleged uxoricide – Appellant, husband of the deceased demanded an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the parents of the deceased for purchase of a tempo- Father of the deceased expressed his inability to meet the demand – Consequently the appellant and his parents harassed, ill-treated and beat the deceased on several occasions and denied her food- Deceased frequently complained to her parents- On the fateful day, appellant and his relatives sent word to the father of the deceased that she died of snake bite – Postmortem revealed that the deceased died of asphyxia as a result of compression of the neck – Not snake bite- Report to police FIR – (On evidence) Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 father and mother of deceased that appellant and his parents were ill-treating the deceased and beating her and denying her food, in connection with their demand of Rs.25,000/- – On the day of occurrences P.Ws.1 and 2, their sons and daughters-in-law went to the house of the accused and found the body of the deceased placed in a sitting posture with her neck on the wall and a strip of cloth tied along her mount – P.W.3 a villager corroborated P.Ws.1 and 2 – Marks of injury of the neck, cheek, hand and other parts of the body – No eye-witnesses in the case – Evidence circumstantial – Extremely difficult to prove all circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused – In such cases accused to explain how the deceased died – Fact within the knowledge of the accused.

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, Section 106, Illustration (b) – Case law considered – Law does not require prosecution to prove the impossible – Legal proof is not perfect proof – Where the accused does not give an explanation or gives a false explanation under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. as to how the deceased died adverse inference to be drawn that the accused is responsible for the crime – Appellant did not offer any explanation as to how the deceased received the injuries on her body – Circumstances unerringly point to the guilt of the appellant. 2006(8) SCJ 821 Trimukh Maroti Kiran v. State of Maharashtra

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, Sections 376, 417 – Appeals by accused against conviction and sentence – Appellant-accused daily visited the house of the prosecutrix P.W.1, who was living with her elder sister P.W.2 and her husband – Prosecutrix used to be alone – Accused promise to marry her, developed intimacy, with her, had sexual intercourse with her promising to marry her – Accused made her pregnant and finally refused to marry her – Panchayat held where accused promised to marry her – Then absconded having said his parents did not agree – Report to police – Trial – Acquittal by trail court – Conviction and sentence on appeal – Question whether the conduct of the accused falls under any of the six descriptions of Sec.375 IPC – Question of consent.

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, Section 90 – (On evidence) In the instant case the intention of the accused as perP.W.1, was right from the beginning not honest and he kept on promising to marry her – This consent is no consent since P.W.1 was under the misconception that he would marry her – Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that before the panchayat elders accused made a false promise to marry P.W.1 – Case law considered on consent and when consent can be considered as voluntary – Consent obtained by misconception while playing a fraud is not a consent (para 9).

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, Section 114-A- Presumption of absence of consent to be raised in certain prosecutions for rape – In the instance case P.W.1 consented as the accused promised to marry her – Not a consent in law – Accused had no intention to marry her right from the beginning and committed sexual intercourse – Conviction and sentence correct – No interference – Appeals dismissed. 2006 (8) SCJ 695 Yedla Srinivasa Rao Vs. State of A.P.

*Source: Supreme Court Journal

Reported Case Laws on High Courts