जूनियर वकील का दर्द!!

“जूनियर वकील का दर्द…”

1. “जूनियर वकील” को देखते ही एक सूट बूट वाला परेशानी छिपाए मुस्कुराता हुआ इन्सान नज़र आता है…

2. कानून में “जूनियर वकील” नाम का कोई अस्तित्व नहीं है लेकिन ऐसे इन्सान भारत के सभी न्यायालय में पाए जाते हैं, वकालत के पेशे में इनकी संख्या 80% से ज्यादा होती है…

3. अपने सीनियर से बिना गलती के डांट खाने वाला यह “जूनियर वकील” 12वीं कक्षा या स्नातक के बाद अनगिनत परीक्षाएं देकर उत्तीर्ण होता है…

4. वकालत की परीक्षा पास करने के बाद, बार कौंसिल में, पंजीकृत होने के लिए तथा एडवोकेट वेलफेयर फण्ड में हज़ारों रुपये जमा कराता है, उसके बाद बार कौंसिल ऑफ इंडिया की परीक्षा भी पास करता है, उक्त परीक्षा का फॉर्म भरने के लिए “जूनियर वकील साहब” को हज़ारों रुपये देने पड़ते हैं…

5. माता-पिता, अपने बेटे पर इतना बड़ा निवेश करने के बाद वकील बनते ही कमाई की अपेक्षा करने लग जाते हैं…

6. अब खोज शुरू होती है एक अदद “सीनियर वकील” की, जो काफी नखरों के बाद, साथ काम करने की अनुमति देता है, जबकि सीनियर वकील साहब को, एक निःशुल्क कर्मचारी प्राप्त होने की मन में जबर्दस्त खुशी होती है…

7. जूनियर वकील साहब माता-पिता से लिए खर्चे से मोटरसाईकिल में पेट्रोल भरवा कर, सूटेड बूटेड होकर चलते हैं न्यायालय की ओर…

8. सुबह-सुबह पहले सीनियर वकील साहब के चैंबर में फाइलों का बस्ता और कई बार सीनियर वकील साहब को भी बस्ते के साथ मोटरसाईकिल पर बिठाकर कोर्ट ले जाना पड़ता है…

9. सीनियर वकील साहब, डायरी के साथ जूनियर वकील साहब को न्यायालयों में दौड़ाते हैं कि मामलों में तारीखें ले आओ, तो वकील साहब न्यायालय के चपरासी, बाबू, पेशकार, जमादार और मजिस्ट्रेट/जज साहब के हाथ जोड़-जोड़कर तारीखें लाते हैं…फाइलें और डायरी लिए सीनियर वकील साहब के पीछे-पीछे दौड़ना प्रमुख काम होता है…

10. सभी काम सही करने के बावजूद जब तक सीनियर वकील साहब लताड़ नहीं लगाएं तब तक सीनियर वकील साहब का भोजन नहीं पचता है… घर से अपना स्वयं का लंच बॉक्स लाना होता है और कई बार चाय भी माता-पिता के द्वारा दिए गए खर्चे में से पीनी एवं सीनियर वकील साहब को पिलानी भी पड़ती है…

11. न्यायालय के तुरंत बाद सीनियर वकील साहब के चैम्बर में फिर से जाना होता है और कुछ बची हुई गालियां चैम्बर में भी खानी पड़ती है… रात के लगभग 10-11 बजे जूनियर वकील साहब को घर जाने के लिए छोड़ा जाता है…

12. जूनियर वकील साहब घर जाने पर चेहरे पर झूठी मुस्कान रखते हैं ताकि परिवारजनों को तनाव नहीं हो… दूसरे दिन सुबह जल्दी उठकर फिर से वही प्रक्रिया रोजाना के लिए अपनानी पड़ती है…

13. वर्षों तक जूनियरशिप करने के बावजूद सीनियर वकील साहब कोई वेतन या मानदेय नहीं देते हैं…कमाई नहीं लाने के कारण घर-परिवार में ताने सुनने को मिलते हैं और जूनियर वकील साहब की पीड़ा सुनने या समझने की कोई कोशिश ही नहीं करता है…

14. जूनियरशिप के दौरान सीनियर वकील साहब द्वारा कही गई गलत बातों का विरोध करने पर, चैंबर से निकालने की धमकी तुरंत दे दी जाती है…

15. पढ़ाई पूरी होने के पश्चात वकालत करते-करते जूनियर वकील साहब की उम्र शादी लायक हो जाती है लेकिन वकालत के पेशे में आई गिरावट के कारण, विवाह के अच्छे प्रस्ताव नहीं आ पाते हैं…वकालत के पेशे में आई गिरावट का कारण जूनियर वकील नहीं होकर, सीनियर वकील ही होते हैं क्योंकि जूनियर वकील ने तो वकालत शुरू ही की होती है अतः गिरावट वाली कमाई, सीनियरों द्वारा अर्जित की गई होती है…

16. जूनियर वकील साहब के पास कानून देखने के लिए किताबें नहीं होती है अतः उसको सामान्यतः सीनियर वकील साहब के चैम्बर की किताबों पर निर्भर रहना पड़ता है…

17. सुबह जल्दी उठने से लेकर देर रात्रि तक की जाने वाली इस मजदूरी के कारण जूनियर वकील साहब के व्यक्तिगत संबंध, समयाभाव के कारण चल बसते हैं…

18. जूनियर वकील साहब के कहने पर किसी मित्र का मुकदमा, सीनियर वकील साहब फ्री में नहीं लड़ते हैं और साथ में यह ज्ञान भी पेल देते हैं कि वकालत के व्यवसाय में किसी का मामला फ्री में नहीं लड़ना चाहिए…

19. कोई मामला जब जूनियर वकील साहब किसी सीनियर वकील साहब के पास लेकर जाते हैं तो सीनियर वकील साहब पक्षकार से पूर्ण फीस ले लेते हैं और जूनियर वकील साहब को इसके बदले कुछ भी नहीं मिलता है…

20. न्यायालय के समक्ष पैरवी करते समय मजिस्ट्रेट या जज साहब ऐसे जूनियर वकील साहब को, केवल तारीखें लेने वाला वकील समझते हैं और ज्यादा महत्व नहीं देते हैं…

21. समाज और न्यायालय में जूनियर वकील को वकील “साहब” कहा जाता है लेकिन जूनियर वकील अपने मन में जानता है कि सरकार द्वारा निर्धारित न्यूनतम मजदूरी भी वकील साहब कमा नहीं पाते हैं…सुबह जल्दी उठकर रात तक किया जाने वाला काम बंधुआ मजदूरी समझकर, जूनियर वकील साहब वर्षों तक करते रहते हैं और इसी को अपनी नियति समझ लेते हैं…

22. वकालत से आजीविका नहीं चलने पर आजीविका चलाने के लिए यदि वकालत के साथ कोई दूसरा काम कर लिया तो बार कौंसिल वकालत का लाइसेंस रद्द करने के लिए तैयार रहती है…

23. सीनियर वकील साहब की बंधुआ मजदूरी छोड़ देने पर सीनियर वकील साहब, ऐसे जूनियर वकील को बदनाम करने में कोई कसर नहीं छोड़ते हैं क्योंकि अब वर्षों से उनकी बेगार निकालने वाला उनके चैंबर को छोड़कर जा रहा होता है…

24. जब-जब इस योग्य “जूनियर वकील” ने independent(स्वतन्त्र) होकर वकालत शुरू की है तब-तब हमेशा मन में यह मलाल रहता है कि इतने वर्ष तक बस्ते और डायरी उठाने की बजाय अगर अलग से वकालत की होती तो अब तक अच्छे वकील के रूप में स्थापित हो चुके होते..

इस प्रकार यह निरीह प्राणी “जूनियर वकील” वर्षों तक अपनी तकलीफ होठों की झूठी मुस्कान के नीचे दबाकर रखता है…Lockdown ने इन वकील साहब की पीड़ा को अत्यधिक बढ़ा दिया है क्योंकि न सीनियर वकील साहब, न सरकार और न ही बार कौंसिल इनकी सुध ले रही है…केवल इनका मज़ाक बनाने के लिए नोटिफिकेशन जारी किए जा रहे हैं…

आपका अपना

नोट- लेख सोशल मीडिया से प्राप्त

One liner CrPC

One liners of Cr. P. C

1. Crpc came into force on 1st April 1974.
2. Crpc is divided into 37 chapters and 484 sections.
3. Crpc extends to the whole of India except the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Also, the provisions of chapter 8, 10 and 11 under Crpc shall not apply to the state of Nagaland and to the tribal areas, except in cases where the state government by notification applies such provisions to them.
4. Reasons for non-applicability of some of the provisions of Crpc to the state of Nagaland have been stated by the SC in State of Nagaland vs. Rattan Singh.
5. The subject of Crpc falls within the concurrent list; therefore, it can be amended by Parliament or any state legislature.
6. The unique feature of Crpc is separation of Executive from Judiciary.
7. The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1994 was passed by Lok Sabha on 5.5.2005.
8. The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force on 23.6.2006.
9. Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 came into effect on 3.2.2013.
10. The classification of offences has been given under Ist schedule of Crpc.
11. Bailable offence (S. 2(a)) means an offence which is shown as bailable in the Ist schedule under Crpc, or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being in force.
12. Non- Bailable offence (S. 2(a)) means any other offence. Here, grant of bail is a matter of discretion of the court.
13. In a cognizable offence (sec. 2(c)) a police officer may arrest an accused without a warrant. And can investigate without seeking permission from magistrate.
14. In a non-cognizable offence (sec 2(l)) the police officer has no authority to investigate without the order of magistrate and he can’t arrest a person without a warrant.
15. In Crpc the nature of non-cognizable offence is bailable and simple.
16. Complaint as provided under section 2(d) is an allegation made either in writing or oral.
17. Complaint can be made for both cognizable and non-cognizable offences.
18. Complaint doesn’t include a police report.
19. Complaint is made to a magistrate.
20. The term Inquiry has been defined under sec 2(g) of Crpc.
21. Inquiry means every inquiry other than a trial conducted under Crpc by magistrate or court.
22. Inquiry is conducted prior to framing of charges.
23. The term Investigation has been defined under sec 2(h) of Crpc.
24. Investigation is conducted with an object to collect evidence and a magistrate can’t interfere in it.
25. Investigation can be conducted by a police officer and a person who is authorized by magistrate.
26. The foundation of investigation is complaint and FIR.
27. The term offence has been defined under sec 2(n) of Crpc.
28. The term Police report has been defined under sec 2(r) of Crpc.
29. The term Public Prosecutor as defined under sec 2(u) of Crpc means and include, any person appointed under section 24 and any person acting under the direction of public prosecutor.
30. Warrant case {section 2(x)} means a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding 2 years.
31. Summons case {section 2(w)} means a case which is not a warrant case, i.e., a case relating to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.
32. Victim is defined under sec 2(wa) of Crpc, as a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged.
33. Victim includes victim’s guarding or legal heir.
34. Judicial proceeding includes Inquiry and trial.
35. State government may by notification declare any area to be a metropolitan area for the purpose of Crpc whose population exceeds 1 million.
36. Children’s court under Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and Panchayats Adalats are not criminal courts.
37. Court of Sessions shall be established by State government. (Sec. 9)
38. An Assistant Sessions Judge is appointed by the high court of the concerned state (Sec. 10)
39. High court may upon the request of central of state government, confer upon any person who holds or has held

SC releases new roster, PILs to be heard by CJI and 3 senior most judges

    • SC releases new roster, PILs to be heard by CJI and 3 senior most judges

    New Delhi, Nov 29 (PTI)
    The Supreme Court has released a new roster of work saying that PILs would now be heard by Chief Justice of India S A Bobde and three other senior most judges of the apex court.In the roster of allocation of work that took effect from November 26, CJI Bobde has kept Public Interest Litigations and letter petitions to himself along with Justices N V Ramana, Arun Mishra and R F Nariman.The new roster is slightly different from the last time when the outgoing CJI Ranjan Gogoi had kept PIL matters for top five judges of the apex court, including the CJI.Besides PIL matters, CJI Bobde has kept with him matters of contempt, election, habeas corpus, social justice, direct and indirect tax cases, among others.The CJI will also be dealing with criminal matters and cases related to commissions of enquiry, company law, Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Securities and Exchange Board of India and the Reserve Bank of India, among others.As per the new roster, bench headed by Justice Ramana would deal with matters pertaining to armed forces, paramilitary, compensation, criminal and ordinary civil matters and issues related to judicial officers, employees of Supreme Court, high courts, district courts and tribunals, among others.Justice Ramana will also be hearing matters related to eviction under public premises act, special leave petitions challenging arbitration matters, admirality and maritime laws and issues of commercial transactions.Similarly, bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra would also deal with land acquisition and requisition matters, quota in admission to medical colleges, appeal against orders of statutory bodies and issue of establishment and recognition of educational institutions, among others.Justice Mishra will look into indirect tax matters, contempt of court, ordinary civil issues and admission or transfer to engineering and medical colleges.Besides PIL matters, Justice R F Nariman would look into cases of family law and hear matters related to armed and paramilitary forces, cases of leases, contracts by government and local bodies.Justice R Banumathi led bench would hear matters related to labour, rent act, land laws and agricultural tenancies, among others.Besides the CJI, Justices Ramana, Mishra, Nariman and Banumathi are part of the apex court Collegium.

    Drunken Driving and Law!

    Drunken Driving –

    Refusal to test due to drunkenness – Police can arrest without warrant. Madras HC.

    Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185 Drunken Driving – Breathalyser – Blood tests are more accurate – If an individual refuses breathalyser they are required to provide a blood sample for a lab test to check blood alcohol levels – If the police suspect, that the reason for refusal is drunkenness, they can put a person under arrest without a warrant.

    K. Shanmugam v. V. Krishnamurthy and others.
    25.10.2019.

    Concept of ancestral property!

    Concepts of Ancestral Property

    March,3,2016: In a Landmark Judgment pronounced by Supreme Court of India yesterday in case titled Uttam vs Subagh Singh, Civil Appeal no. 2360/2016 Dt. 2nd March 2016 has relaid the Law on to the Concept of Ancestral Property.

    Apex Court ruled that a conjoint reading of Sections 4, 8 and 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, after joint family property has been distributed in accordance with section 8 on principles of intestacy, the joint family property ceases to be joint family property in the hands of the various persons who have succeeded to it as they hold the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants.

    The suit was filed by a Son for partition, in Devas, Madhya Pradesh, against his father and his father’s three brothers. He claimed a 1/8th share in the suit property on the footing that the suit property was ancestral property, and that, being a coparcener, he had a right by birth in the said property in accordance with the Mitakshara Law. It was ruled by SC that on the date of the birth of the appellant in 1977 the said ancestral property, not being joint family property, the suit for partition of such property would not be maintainable.

    Concept of Ancestral Property

    Property inherited by a Hindu from his father, father’s father or father’s fathers’ father, is ancestral property.

    Any property acquired by the Hindu great grand father, which then passes undivided down the next three generations up to the present generation of great grand son/daughter.
    1. This property should be four generation old.
    2. It should not have been divided by the users in the joint Hindu family as once a division of the property takes place, the share or portion which each Coparcener gets after the division becomes his or her self acquired property.
    3. The right to a share in ancestral or coparcenary property accrues by birth itself, unlike other forms of inheritance, where inheritance opens only on the death of the owner.
    4. The rights in ancestral property are determined per stripes and not per capita. Share of each generation is first determined and the successive generations in turn sub divide what has been inherited by their respective predecessor.
    5. Properties inherited from mother, grandmother, uncle and even brother is not ancestral property. Property inherited by will and gift are not ancestral properties.

    6.Self acquired property can become ancestral property if it is thrown into the pool of ancestral properties and enjoyed in common.

    In Mulla’s Principles of Hindu Law (15th Edition), it is stated at page 289 :
    “………. if A inherits property, whether movable or immovable, from his father or father’s father, or father’s father’s father, it is ancestral property as regards his male issue. If A has no son, son’s son, or son’s son’s son in existence at the time when he inherits the property, he holds the property as absolute owner thereof, and he can deal with it as he pleases ………. A person inheriting property from his three immediate paternal ancestors holds it, and must hold it, in coparcenary with his sons, sons’ sons and sons’ sons’ sons’ but as regards other relations he holds it and is entitled to hold it, as his absolute property.”

    In case titled Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others Vs. Chander Sen and Others, (1986) 3 SCC 567, it was held that after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the traditional view that on inheritance of an immovable property from paternal ancestors up to three degrees, automatically an HUF came into existence, no longer remained the legal position in view of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

    This judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chander Sen (supra) was thereafter followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204 wherein the Supreme Court reiterated the legal position that after coming into force of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, inheritance of ancestral property after 1956 does not create an HUF property and inheritance of ancestral property after 1956 therefore does not result in creation of an HUF property.

    Thus in law ancestral property can only become an HUF property if inheritance is before 1956, and such HUF property therefore which came into existence before 1956 continues as such even after 1956. In such a case, since an HUF already existed prior to 1956, thereafter, since the same HUF with its properties continues, the status of joint Hindu family/HUF properties continues, and only in such a case, members of such joint Hindu family are coparceners entitling them to a share in the HUF properties.

    Classification of property under Hindu Law
    The property under Hindu Law can be classified under two heads:-

    (i) Coparcenary property; and

    (ii) Separate property.

    Coparcenary property is again divisible into-

    (i) ancestral property and

    (ii) joint family property which is not ancestral.

    This latter kind of property consists of property acquired with the aid of ancestral property and property acquired by the individual coparcener without such aid but treated by them as property of the whole family.

    Law laid by Delhi High Court

    In case titled Surender Kumar vs Dhani Ram CS (OS) No.1737/2012 decided on 18th January, 2016 Hon’ble Mr. J. Valmiki Mehta of Delhi High Court ruled-

    (i) If a person dies after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and there is no HUF existing at the time of the death of such a person, inheritance of an immovable property of such a person by his successors-in-interest is no doubt inheritance of an ‘ancestral’ property but the inheritance is as a self acquired property in the hands of the successor and not as an HUF property although the successor(s) indeed inherits ‘ancestral’ property i.e a property belonging to his paternal ancestor.

    (ii) The only way in which a Hindu Undivided Family/joint Hindu family can come into existence after 1956 (and when a joint Hindu family did not exist prior to 1956) is if an individual’s property is thrown into a common hotchpotch. Also, once a property is thrown into a common hotchpotch, it is necessary that the exact details of the specific date/month/year etc of creation of an HUF for the first time by throwing a property into a common hotchpotch have to be clearly pleaded and mentioned and which requirement is a legal requirement because of Order VI Rule 4 CPC which provides that all necessary factual details of the cause of action must be clearly stated.

    Thus, if an HUF property exists because of its such creation by throwing of self-acquired property by a person in the common hotchpotch, consequently there is entitlement in coparceners etc to a share in such HUF property.

    (iii) An HUF can also exist if paternal ancestral properties are inherited prior to 1956, and such status of parties qua the properties has continued after 1956 with respect to properties inherited prior to 1956 from paternal ancestors. Once that status and position continues even after 1956; of the HUF and of its properties existing; a coparcener etc will have a right to seek partition of the properties.

    (iv) Even before 1956, an HUF can come into existence even without inheritance of ancestral property from paternal ancestors, as HUF could have been created prior to 1956 by throwing of individual property into a common hotchpotch. If such an HUF continues even after 1956, then in such a case a coparcener etc of an HUF was entitled to partition of the HUF property.

    Law laid by Supreme Court now

    The law, therefore, insofar as it applies to joint family property governed by the Mitakshara School, prior to the amendment of 2005, could therefore be summarized as follows:-

    (i) When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, having at the time of his death an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property will devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary (vide Section 6).

    (ii) To proposition (i), an exception is contained in Section 30 Explanation of the Act, making it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara coparcenary property is property that can be disposed of by him by will or other testamentary disposition.

    (iii) A second exception engrafted on proposition (i) is contained in the proviso to Section 6, which states that if such a male Hindu had died leaving behind a female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule or a male relative specified in that Class who claims through such female relative surviving him, then the interest of the deceased in the coparcenary property would devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, and not by survivorship.

    (iv) In order to determine the share of the Hindu male coparcener who is governed by Section 6 proviso, a partition is effected by operation of law immediately before his death. In this partition, all the coparceners and the male Hindu’s widow get a share in the joint family property.

    (v) On the application of Section 8 of the Act, either by reason of the death of a male Hindu leaving self-acquired property or by the application of Section 6 proviso, such property would devolve only by intestacy and not survivorship.

    (vi) On a conjoint reading of Sections 4, 8 and 19 of the Act, after joint family property has been distributed in accordance with section 8 on principles of intestacy, the joint family property ceases to be joint family property in the hands of the various persons who have succeeded to it as they hold the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants

    A list of judgment where maintenance denied to wife!

    List Of Judgments Where Maintenance Denied To Wife

    These are the list of judgments in which Maintenance denied to wives. These judgments will helpful to those husbands who are seeking for justice.

    1. MUMBAI HIGH COURT: Dated 17 July, 1991
    Same relief (maintenance)cannot be asked twice in two different courts

    2. MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT: Madhuri Bai vs Minor Surendra Kumar And Anr. on 24 April, 1998
    Child can claim maintenance u/s 125 from mother

    3. HIGH COURT OF P & H : Dated 28 July 1961
    Maintenance not based on Arithmetic Calculation

    4. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT: Dated 22 September 1992
    Women to Prove legitimacy of child for maintenance

    5. MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT : Dated 24 March 2000
    No Interim/Maintenance for Capable, Working Women

    6. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated 28 July 2008
    She was earning and she had not come to the Court with clean hands.

    7. MADRAS HIGH COURT : Dated 22 Feb 2008
    Wife Troubled -No Maintenance

    8. SUPREME COURT : Dated 23 March, 2009
    SC Judgement on HMA24 – Wife working no maintenance

    9. HIGH COURT OF P & H
    Maintenance awarded in two sections to be offset

    10. HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
    Old Parents, Maintenance reduced.

    11. MUMBAI HIGH COURT: Dated 22 February, 2008
    Perjury in 125 crPc

    12. MUMBAI HIGH COURT : Dated Apr 2008.
    Maintenance not granted as it is proved no reason to leave husbands.

    13. MADRAS HIGH COURT: S.Chandra vs C.V.Sridharan on 21 February 2007
    Claim alimony within 6 Months of Divorce

    14. DELHI HIGH COURT: Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors. vs The State & Anr. on 27 August, 2010
    Unemployed man can not be forced to pay Maintenance

    15. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: Ines Miranda vs Santosh K Swamy dated 14 December 2010
    TRANSFER PETITION – Payment to Husband

    16. MUMBAI HIGH COURT : Dated 4 Feb 2005
    Maintenance not granted as it is proved that wife wants to reside separately.

    17. DELHI COURT : METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NEW DELHI
    Vexatious petition, maintenance, relief is declined

    18. BOMBAY HIGH COURT : Dated 14 March 2011
    Perjury Judgement : Rigorous imprisonment for False Case

    19. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL)TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI: Dated 15 April 2011
    Maintenance claim based on Affidavit dismissed

    20. PUNJAB – HARYANA HIGH COURT: Dated 17 February 2011
    Maintenance claim based on Affidavit dismissed

    21. DELHI HIGH COURT
    Husband Property Not Counted in Maintenance

    22. CHENNAI HIGH COURT : Dated 21 June 2002
    Maintenance Denied

    23. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated 1 September, 2010
    Claim of high status of husband not sufficient for interim maintenance

    24. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated 30 August, 2010
    Multiple Maintenance petitions are not allowed

    25. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 20 July, 2010
    Reduced Interim Maintenance

    26. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 11 June, 1993
    No Maintenance

    27. MUMBAI HIGH COURT : Dated 18 July, 2009
    No Maintenance to Wife if RCR By Husband Succeed

    28. MUMBAI HIGH COURT
    Permanent Alimony Cancelled.

    29. MUMBAI HIGH COURRT: Dated 2010
    Income Tax and Maintenance

    30. MUMBAI HIGH COURRT: Dated 18 November 2010
    Income tax returns cannot decide Maintenance

    31. MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT: Dated 29 August 1991
    Challenging the rejected interim maintenance

    32. PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT: Dated 25 January, 2010
    False affidavit, perjury procedure in 24 HMA

    33. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated 7 September 2006
    Divorce withdrawn – Maintenance to be paid

    34. DELHI HIGH COURT: Dated 16 November 2004
    Father In Law not responsible for Residence

    36. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
    Bank Account Details and confidentiality

    37. BOMBAY HIGH COURT: Dated 15 September, 2004
    Return of Stridhan, Alimony and Hiding Past

    38. GAUHATI HIGH COURT: Dated 23 April, 2004
    Guardianship within 2 Months

    39. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated 9 March, 2010
    Fine for Delaying tactics by Lawyer

    40. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
    Central Information Commission – CIC Order in Passport Details

    41. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated 25 October, 2010
    Petitioner must claim she is unable to maintain herself for relief of maintenance

    42. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT : Dated 25 March, 1976
    Petitioner must claim she is unable to maintain herself for relief of maintenance

    43. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT : Dated 13 February, 1980
    She should prove that she is unable to maintain herself in addition to the facts that
    her husband has sufficient means
    to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her

    44. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT : Dated 22 August, 2005
    No maintenance for earning wife

    45. DISTRICT COURT , SAKET, DELHI : Dated 18 Nov 2010
    Employable wife not entitled to maintenance.

    46. DISTRICT COURT , SAKET, DELHI : Dated 24 March 2008
    An NRI wins an interim maintenance case

    47. FAMILY COURT , HYDERABAD
    Hyderabad Family court, unclean hands, no maintenance

    48. DELHI HIGH COURT: Dated 17 April 2007
    Conditions when maintenance to be paid

    49. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 11 January, 2011
    All State Amendments in Sec. 125 are invalid

    50. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 17 February, 2006
    Habeas Corpus for girl child custody to Father

    51. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 28 April, 2005
    Habeas Corpus dismissed in Custody Appeal

    52. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 21 November, 2006
    Custody to remarried women

    53. MADRAS HIGH COURT : Dated 25 January, 2006
    Habeas Corpus on Custody to Father

    54. MADRAS HIGH COURT : Dated 6 February, 2006
    Habeas Corpus for Custody on Death

    55. KERALA HIGH COURT : Dated December, 2010
    NBW cannot be issued for non-payment of maintenance

    56. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
    CIC – Income Tax Details of FIL are public

    57. UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT : Dated 17 March, 2011
    HC Quash Maintenance

    58. MUMBAI HIGH COURT :Dated 13 September, 1995
    No multiple maintenance claims

    59. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 9 October, 1985
    Magistrate can grant interim maintenance ?

    61. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 16 February, 2000
    Habeas Corpus in Custody

    62. MADRAS HIGH COURT : Dated 27 March, 2007
    Habeas Corpus in Divorce / Custody Petition

    63.SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 17 October, 1974
    Separate income of the wife can be taken into account in determining the amount of maintenance payable to her

    64. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated 31 January, 2003
    HMA moveable property cannot be termed as Income

    65. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated 18 September, 2008
    Maintenance On Actual Earnings

    66. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated 30 September, 2008
    Parents can kick out their Children

    67. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated 28 March, 2000
    Liability of maintenance of children is co-extensive

    68. GUJRAT HIGH COURT : Dated on 21 October 2010
    No Multiple maintenance

    69. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated 12 October, 2009
    DV can be filed anywhere

    70. MADRAS HIGH COURT : Dated 28 October, 2010
    Magistrate should not blindly call all family members as respondents

    71. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated 4 October, 2010
    DVA only against who are in domestic relationship

    72. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated 20 September, 2010
    How to decide domestic relationship in DVA

    73. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated 8 February, 2010
    Frivolous petition claiming damages dismissed

    74. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated 7 January, 2010
    Maintenance, Women fined, Contempt of Court

    75. ANDHRA HIGH COURT : Dated 15 November, 1995
    Maintenance to illegitimate Child

    76. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
    RTI – Husband can get Wife PF details

    77. ANDHRA HIGH COURT : Dated 31 March, 1989
    Maintenance arrears for 1 year only !

    78. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 6 December, 2005
    Fine for forcibly taking away Child

    79. MADRAS HIGH COURT : Dated 28 February, 2007
    Family Court Jurisdiction

    80. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 2 March 2000
    Wife is not entitled to maintenance who has deserted her husband,

    81. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 03 December 2009
    No Maintenance If Wife Lies

    82. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 28 April 2009
    Take EMI Into Consideration in Maintenance

    83. HIGH COURT OF STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH : Dated 13 March 2009
    No alimony to Women who desert her husband

    84. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 23 February, 2009
    Interim maintenance increase illegal as no income proof produced

    85. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 20 July, 2010
    Interim maintenance amount should be based on status of both part

    86. CHATTISGARAH HIGH COURT : Dated 15 February, 2004
    No maintenance for a deserting wife

    87. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT: Dated 22 January, 1999
    No maintenance for a deserting wife

    88. BOMBAY HIGH COURT : Dated 26 February, 2010
    Interim maintenance cannot be increased based on husband’s salary hike.

    89. GUJARAT HIGH COURT : Dated 9 February, 2011
    Children has to maintain parents.

    90. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 20 July 2011
    Meaning of unable to maintain

    91. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 27 November 2007
    Unable to maintain herself in Maintenance

    92. DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE DELHI : Dated 28th August 2010
    Landmark Judgement for DV Case

    93. CHENNAI HIGH COURT : Dated 26th August 2010
    Perjury Case

    94. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT : Dated 19 January, 2010
    Wife fined 10,000/- in Perjury case but Husband fighting for further action!!

    95. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated 18 August, 2010
    Every allegations do not justify initiation of prosecution under 340 CRPC

    96. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT : Dated 15 March, 2001
    Petition under CrPC 340 must be decided only at the end

    97. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT : Dated 09 January 2003
    Perjury application must be decided first before proceeding with the case

    98. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 14 November, 1994

    No one should indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods : 2 weeks Jail

    99. GUJARAT HIGH COURT : Dated 18 August, 2010
    Petitioner agreed for perjury – Gujrat HC told to deposit 25K as probable fine.

    World Law Day!

    “HAPPY WORLD LAWDAY.”Compilation of words which Lawyers use
    (which makes them a class apart):

    1. Lawyers don’t “correct” pleadings – They amend them.2. Lawyers don’t merely “think” – They opine.3. Lawyers don’t “outline” remedies or issues – They adumbrate them.4. Lawyers don’t “suggest” to court – They submit.5. Lawyers don’t “lie” – They misguide the audience6. Lawyers don’t “support” with evidence – They corroborate it.7. Lawyers don’t “show” in court – They demonstrate.8. Lawyers don’t “say” anything – They aver.9. Lawyers don’t “disagree with a fact” – They contend it.10. Lawyers don’t “finish submitting” – They rest their case.11. Lawyers don’t use the word “understand” – They use “construe”.12. Lawyers don’t “agree with other people’s opinions” – They concur with them.13. Lawyers don’t “investigate” – They probe.14. Lawyers don’t “disagree with other people’s opinions” – They dissent from them.15. Lawyers don’t “ask for permission” – They seek leave.16. Lawyers don’t “fall sick” – They get indisposed.17. Lawyers don’t “ask court” – They pray.18. Lawyers don’t “increase” anything – They “augment” it.19. Lawyers don’t ask court to “postpone cases” – They ask it to adjourn them.20. Lawyers don’t “find solutions” – They seek remedies.21. Lawyers “know” everything; what you think they don’t know is “what they have not addressed their minds to”.22. Lawyers don’t “go on” – They proceed.23. Lawyers don’t “refuse” – They object.24. Lawyers don’t “ask court to take a step” – They move it.25. Lawyers don’t “leave an issue” – They abandon it.26. Lawyers are not “wordy” – They articulate their point.27. Lawyers don’t “find solutions” – They resolve issues.28. Lawyers call themselves lawyers among “lay men”(all other professions and non professionals) – They call themselves “Learned Friends” when they are addressing themselves.29. Lawyers don’t “disagree” with each other – They just differ.30. Lawyers don’t “seek help” from court – They seek redress.31. Lawyers don’t “speak” in court – They address court.32. Lawyers don’t “agree” to what someone has said – They associate themselves with it.33. Lawyers don’t say something is “irrelevant or useless” – They say it is immaterial.34. Lawyers don’t “arrive” in court – They enter appearance.35. Lawyers don’t “go” to a judge – They appear before him or her.36. Lawyers don’t “die” – They relocate to God’s domicile !37. Lawyers don’t get “late” – They delay.38. Lawyers don’t “disagree” with somebody’s opinion – They dissociate themselves from it.39. Lawyers don’t “stand in for” anyone – They hold brief for them.40. Lawyers don’t ask court to “force” – They ask it to compel.41. Lawyers don’t say something is “the same”; – They say it is parimateria.42. Lawyers don’t say someone is “responsible” – They say he/she is liable.43. Lawyers don’t “explain” what they have said – They substantiate it.44. Lawyers don’t “tell lies” – They amend the facts.45. Lawyers don’t “lie” – They misrepresent.

    LEGAL WORDS ARE MOST HELPFUL FOR LEGAL DRAFTING

    Expedient – To Prioritize , to rush

    Cavil – Argument by which a conclusion evidently false , is drawn from a principle evidently true.

    Elusive – Difficult to find , catch or achieve.

    Scuffle – a short , confused fight or struggle at close quarters.

    Credential – a qualification, achievement , quality, or aspect of a person ‘s background , especially when used to indicate their suitability for something.

    Oblivious – Aware.

    Accustomed – Customary ; usual.

    Treacherous – Guilty of or involving betrayal.

    Erudite – learned.

    Accentuating – More noticeable.

    Crescendo – Progressive increase in intensity.

    Tedious –Too long , slow or dull.

    Dreadful – involving great suffering.

    Enigma – Mysterious or difficult to understand.

    Sceptical – Doubtful.

    Sardonic – grimly mocking or cynical.

    Habeas corpus – a prerogative writ to a person who detains another in custody and which commands him to produce or ‘ have the body of that person before him ‘

    Mesne – middle, intervening or tame by nature.

    Per se – by itself

    Nocumentum – an annoying , unpleasant or obnoxious thing or ptactice.

    Non obstante – notwithstanding

    Prima facie – on the face of it.

    Aequitas – Equity i.e fair or just according to natural law.

    Bona fide – in good faith.

    Certiorari – a writ of a superior court calling forth the records and entire proceedings of an inferior court or a writ by which causes are removed from an inferior court into a superior court.

    Obiter dictum – an incidental and collateral opinion uttered by a judge while delivering a judgement and which is not binding.

    Pari material – on the same material.

    Pendente lite – during the process of litigation.

    Supra – above.

    Status quo – the state in which the things are , or were.

    Volkogeist – general awareness of the people.

    Res judicata – a case or suit already decided.

    RE – in the matter of.

    Ratio Legis – according to spirit of law

    Scienter – knowledge ; an allegation in a pleading that the thing has been done knowingly.

    Ex gratia –as an act of grace or favour.

    In rem – an act , proceeding or right available against the world at large, as opposed to in personam.

    Noscitur a socits – a word known by its associates , i.e the meaning of a word cab be gathered from the context.

    Res sub judicata – a matter under judicial consideration.

    Ad hoc – created or done for a particular purpose as necessary.

    Pertinent – Relevant or applicable to a particular matter , apposite.

    Curative petition – question arises whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against the final judgment / order of the Supreme Court, after dismissal of a review petition

    Erect –rigidly upright or straight.

    Advent – arrival of a notable person or thing.

    Submergence – to cover ; bury.

    Vicinity –the area near or surrounding a particular place.

    Detention –the act of detaining someone or the state of being in official custody.

    Rebuttable – an instance of rebutting evidence or an accusation.

    Preclude – prevent from happening ; make impossible.

    Discrepancy – an illogical or surprising lack of compatibility or similarity between two or more facts.

    Superannuation – pension paid to a retired employee who has contributed to a superannuation fund.

    Ordinance – An authoritative order

    Promulgation – to make known by open declaration; publish ; proclaim formally or put into operation.

    Consortium – the right of association and companionship with one’s husband or wife

    Averred – allege as a fact in support of a plea

    Estoppel – the principle which precludes a person from asserting something contrary to what is implied by a previous action or statement of that person or by a previous pertinent judicial determination.

    Plenary – unqualified ; absolute

    Impugned – dispute the truth , validity or honesty of ( a statement or motive ) ; call into question.

    Prejudiced – harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgement.

    Legal Luminary – a person who inspires or influences others , especially one prominent in a particular sphere.

    Plagiarized – the act of appropriating the literary composition of another , or parts or passages of his writings , or the ideas or language of the same , and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

    Evacuee – A person evacuated from a place of danger.

    Demarcate – Set the boundaries or limits of.

    Unfettered – not confined or restricted

    Discernible – able to be discerned ; perceptible.

    Arenas – a place or scene of activity , debate , or conflict.

    Transgression – An act that goes against a law , or code of conduct ; an offence.

    Construed – interpret in a particular way.

    Consonance – Agreement or compatibility , between opinions or actions.

    Retrospectively – looking back.

    Dissuade – persuade not to take a particular course of action.

    Rationale – set of reasons.

    Embezzlement – Theft or misappropriation of funds placed in one’s trust or belongings to one’s employer.

    Perished – die , especially in a violent or sudden way.

    Inter alia – among other things

    Arbitration – the use of an arbitrator to settle a dispute.

    Action: Shorthand for “cause of action”; for example, a court action to obtain relief, a judicial remedy to enforce or protect a right, or a proceeding by a plaintiff against a defendant to enforce an obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff.

    Acts non facitreum, nisi means sit rear: An act does not make one guilty. Unless he has a guilty mind. (For crime, there must be both act and evil intent.)

    Adhesion contract: A contract drafted by the stronger party, then presented for acceptance to the weaker party, who has no power to modify its terms.

    Ad item: (Latin: For the suit) A “guardian ad listen” is a guardian appointed to represent a person who is incapable of acting on his own behalf.

    Advance sheets, advance pamphlets: Paperback publications printed and distributed as soon as possible after a judicial decision, in order that the information be available before it appears in a bound volume. (Slip laws are similar publications of acts passed by a legislative body.)

    Affirmative defense: A defense which does more than deny the plain tiffs allegations; it also brings forth new allegations. Aforethought: Arrived at beforehand; a premeditated. Allegation: A statement that a party to a lawsuit intends to prove. Amicus curiae: (Latin: A friend of the court) One who interposes in a legal action.

    Appellant: The party who appeals to a higher court from the judgment against himself in a lower court, sometimes called “petitioner.” appellee: The party against whom a case is appealed from a lower court to a higher court, sometimes called “respondent.” assumpsit’s: A common law action to recover damages for the nonperformance of a contract.

    Attractive nuisance: A condition on one’s premises that is dangerous to children and yet so alluring to them that they may enter.

    Bad faith: The opposite of “bona fide” (in good faith): motivated by ulterior motives or by furtive intent.

    Beyond a reasonable doubt: The proof required of the prosecutor in criminal proceedings.

    Breach: Violation of a duty; the breaking of an obligation. Burden of evidence; the duty of one party to produce evidence to meet or present a prima facie case.

    Burden of proof: The duty to establish in the trial the truth of a proposition or issue by the amount of evidence required.

    Case: A controversy to be decided in a court of justice. case law: The law set forth in the decisions of appellate courts, that is, in cases that have been decided.

    Case in point: A previously decided case that is similar in important respects to the one now being decided.

    Case system: Analysis of actual cases that have been decided, the method used in many law school courses to teach law students.

    cause sine qua non: (Latin: cause without which nothing,) The determining cause, without which a result would not have occurred. cause: An action or suit; sometimes used synonymously with “case.” caveat: (Latin: Let him beware,) Used in phrases like “caveat emptor,” (let the buyer beware).

    Certiorari: Literally, to be made certain? a writ of review or inquiry by an appellate court re-examining an action of an inferior tribunal or to enable the appellate court to obtain further information in a pending cause.

    Change of venue: The removal of a suit for trial from one county to another.

    Charged with crime: Accused of a crime, either formally or informally.

    Chattels: Movable property, in contrast to real estate.

    Chose: From Old French: a thing. An item of personal property, a chattel.

    Civil action: An action to enforce a civil right, as distinguished from a criminal action.

    Class action: An action brought on behalf of a class of persons by one or more nominal plaintiffs.

    Clean hands doctrine: The principle by which the court of equity requires that one who comes to it for relief must not be guilty of wrongful conduct.

    Clear and convincing evidence: A degree of proof higher than that of preponderance of the evidence and lower than that of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Color: Mere semblance of a legal right.

    Common law: Legal rules, principles, and usage that rest upon court decisions rather than upon statutes or other written declarations.

    Condition precedent: A condition that must occur before something else comes into effect.

    Contract: (Williston) An agreement upon sufficient consideration to do or refrain from doing a particular lawful thing.

    Conversion: A wrongful act of dominion over another’s property.

    Convict: (verb) To find a person guilty of the crime charged.

    Court of last resort: The highest court to which a case may be taken, from which no appeal can be made.

    Criterion: The test on which a judgment or a decision is based.

    Damage: Harm resulting from illegal invasion of a legal right.

    Damages: Compensation imposed by the law to one who has suffered harm due to another’s wrongdoing.

    Decision: The conclusion reached by a court in adjudication of a case, or the decision reached by arbitration; sometimes synonymous with judgment.

    Declaratory judgment: A decision stating the rights and duties of the parties, but involving no relief as a result.

    De facto: (Latin: from the fact) In fact or reality, as contrasted with de jure, by right or by law, defamation: Libel or slander.

    Degree of care: A standard, testing conduct to decide whether the conduct is negligent.

    Degree of proof: The amount of evidence required in action to establish the truth of an allegation.

    de minimis non curatlex: (Latin; The law is not concerned with trifles.)

    Demurrer: A statement that even if the facts as stated are true, their legal consequences do not require that the action proceed further.

    Detriment: (in contract law) some forbearance on the part of one party, as consideration for the contract.

    Devise: A testamentary gift of real estate.

    Doctrine: A rule or principle of law developed by court decisions.

    due care: The care that a person of ordinary prudence would take in similar circumstances.

    Due process of law: A course of legal proceedings according to the rule of justice established to enforce and protect private rights.

    Earnest money: A payment of part of the purchase price to bind the contract.

    ejusdem generic: (Latin: of the same kind.)

    Embezzlement: The fraudulent appropriation of property or money entrusted to one person by another.

    Encumbrance: A hindrance or impediment that burdens or obstructs the use of land.

    Entirety: The whole as distinguished from a part, as used to refer to the joint estate of spouses.

    Equal protection: Generally refers to the guaranty under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution that all persons should enjoy the same protection of the law.

    Equity: A principle which provides justice when ordinary law may be inadequate.

    Escheat: The reversion or forfeiture of property to the government because persons who have a legal claim to it are absent.

    Establish: In evidence, to settle a disputed or doubtful fact.

    E stop: (From Old French: to stop up.) To bar, preclude, prohibit.

    Except: (verb) to object; to take exception to a court order or ruling.

    Facial: Pertaining to the language on the face of a document, pleading, statute, or writ.

    For cause: For legal cause, as in the challenge of a juror.

    Four corners: The entire face of a document; thus, the construction of a document itself, as a whole.

    Frivolous: So unmeritorious as to require no argument to convince the court of this fact.

    Fungible goods: Goods of a kind in which all units are identical.

    Fundamental error: In appellate practice, an error so material as to render a judgment void.

    Garnish: To warn, summon, or notify.

    Good cause: Substantial legal reason.

    Good faith: Sincere motivation or behavior lacking fraud or deceit.

    Guardian: One entrusted by law with the control and custody of another person or estate.

    Guilty mind: Criminal intent (Latin: mensrea.) harmless error: In appellate practice, error committed during the trial below, but not prejudicial to the rights of the party assigning it, and because of which, therefore, the court will not reverse the judgment below.

    Hostile possession: Possession of land under a claim of exclusive right. hypothetical fact situation: A fictional legal problem, postulated by law professors, in order to sharpen their students’ analytical skills.

    Id.: Abbreviation of “idem,” (Latin: the same.)

    i.e.: Abbreviation of “id est.,” (Latin: that is.)

    In absentia: (Latin: In [someone’s] absence,)

    In banco: (Latin: On the bench); that is, when all judges are sitting.

    Inferior: With less legal power, subordinate.

    Injure: (Latin: in law,)

    Liguria: (Latin: a wrong)] a violation of a legal right.

    In personal: (Latin: involving the person,)

    In rem: (Latin: involving the matter or thing,)

    Inter alia: (Latin: among others,)

    In toto: (Latin: in total)] altogether, wholly.

    Ipso facto: (Latin: by that fact)

    Lessee: One who has leased property from another; tenant.

    lesser: One who has leased property to another; landlord.

    lax talionis: The law of retaliation.

    Malfeasance: Legal misconduct; an act that is legally wrong.

    Material (adjective): Important, of the essence.

    Matter: Those facts that constitute the entire ground or a part of the ground for an action or a defense.

    Misfeasance: The doing of a lawful act in an unlawful manner.

    Moiety: A part of something. (From Old French: moiete; half,)

    Moot question: (1) an academic question; (2) a question which has lost significance because it has already been decided, or for other reasons.

    Mortgagee: One to whom a mortgage is made.

    Mortgagor. One who takes out a mortgage on his property?

    Natural person: A real person, in contrast to a corporation.

    Negligence per se: (Latin: negligence in itself?] negligence as defined by the law.

    Novo contendere: (Latin: I do not wish to contend.)

    Nonfeasance: The failure to act, when action is legally required.

    n.o.v.: Abbreviation of Latin: “non obstinate veredicto,” notwithstanding the verdict

    Notorious possession: Possession of real property openly.

    Nudum pactum: (Latin: a bare pact)] thus a promise lacking consideration.

    Nullity: Something that has no legal effect.

    Parole: Oral, as contrasted to “in writing.”

    Patent ambiguity: Obvious upon ordinary inspection; contrasts with “latent ambiguity.”

    Per curiam: (Latin: by the court)] as a whole.

    Person: Either an individual or an organization, e.g., a corporation.

    Perspires: (Latin: by class); distribution according to the share a deceased ancestor would have taken.

    Plaintiff: The party bringing an action.

    Precatory words: Words expressing desire rather than command.

    Prejudicial: Detrimental to one party in a dispute.

    Preponderance of evidence: The greater weight and value of the evidence adduced.

    Presumption: An assumption about the existence of a fact; a presumption may be either rebuttable or irrefutable (conclusive).

    Prima facie case: A cause of action sufficiently established to justify a favorable verdict if the other party to the action does not rebut the evidence.

    Probable cause: Reasonable cause.

    Proximate cause: that event or occurrence which produces the injury, and without which the injury would not have occurred.

    Punitive damages: Damages beyond compensatory damages, imposed to punish the defendant for his act.

    Quantum meruit: (Latin: As much as it is worth)] the amount deserved.

    Question of fact: A question for the jury to decide, upon conflicting evidence.

    Question of law: A question about the law affecting the case, for the judge to decide.

    Recovery: The amount a claimant receives as a result of a judgment.

    Remedy: The means of enforcing a legal right or redressing a legal injury.

    Res: (Latin: thing)] matter.

    Res ipsa loquitur: (Latin: The thing speaks for itself,)

    Res judicata: (Latin: The thing having been adjudicated.) The earlier judgment thus bars a second action.

    Respondeat superior: (Latin: The superior is responsible,) the doctrine that imposes liability upon an employer for the acts of his employees in the course of their employment.

    Rule: A statement of law that will henceforth act as precedent; a principle established by authority.

    Satisfaction: Performance of the terms of an agreement; discharge of an obligation.

    Scienter: (Latin: knomngly.) Often means defendant’s “guilty knowledge.”

    Seasonable: Within the agreed time or at the agreed time. If no time is stipulated, a “reasonable” time.

    Seisin: Possession coupled with the right of possession.

    Strict construction: Narrow or literal construction of language.

    Sui generis: (Latin; of its own kind)-, thus the only one of its kind.

    Tort: A wrong, for which a civil action is a remedy, outside of contract law.

    Tortfeasor: One who commits a tort; a wrongdoer.

    Vicarious liability: The imposition of liability upon one person for the acts of another.

    Rape accused and certified copy of statement of victim recorded u/s 164……!

    Whether certified copy of statement of victim recorded U/S 164 of crpc can be given to accused prior to filing of chargesheet?

    In this decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has heldthat copy of the statement under Section 164 of the Codeshould be handed over to the investigating officer immediately with a specific direction that the contents of such statement under Section 164 of the Code should not be disclosed to anyperson till the charge sheet/report under Section 173 of the Code is filed. So, it is clear from the dictum that, in the case of rape the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of a prosecutrix has to be kept in secret till the final report is filed.

    That was intended to protect the interest of the prosecutrix and also taking into account the possibility of threat to her life, if such statement has been disclosed to others at that stage. So under such circumstances and also in view of the directiongiven by the Supreme Court in this regard, the dictums laid down in the decisions reported in Raju Janaki Yadav’s Case (cited supra), and also Unnikrishnan Nair ‘s case (cited supra) on this point are no longer good law.

    So in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision cited supra State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police v. Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna

    (2014 KHC 4321), the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in rejecting the prayer for issuing certified copy of Section 164 statement recorded by the Magistrate of the prosecutrix to the accused as he is not entitled for the same at this stage as of right and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. So this petition is liable to be dismissed.

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

    PRESENT:

    MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014

    Crl.MC.No. 2627 of 2014 (D)
    ————————————–

    SHAKKEER.M.K,

    Vs

    STATE OF KERALA,

    Citation;2014 CRLJ4430 kerala

    This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioner

    challenging the order passed by the Judicial First Class

    Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode in PCA.No405/2104 in Crime

    No.589/2012 of Chevayoor police station dismissing

    Advocate Amaresh
    Advocate , Law, Supreme court
    Mobile 919953084083

    A. Amaresh

    Improve your legal knowledge!

    Some links about legal knowledge

    Allahabad HC issues notice to Narendra Modi on petition challenging election from Varanasi

    2,

    http://www.pathlegal.in/Cheque-Bounce:-Compensation-recoverable-even-after-undergoin-blog-1002593

    3,

    Ranchi court withdraws order to distribute Quran for bail over communal post

    4,

    http://www.pathlegal.in/Difference-Between-Stay-Order-And-Injunction-Order-blog-1033512

    Design a site like this with WordPress.com
    Get started