Growing trend of dowry victim indicting husband's kin: SC
dowry victim
arraigning the relatives of the husband, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said and quashed a
dowry harassment
case against a woman's parents-in-law. For a bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra it appeared there were "omnibus and general allegations" against the woman's sister-in-law, husband and father-in-law.
The top court, however, observed the allegation of any physical torture by the appellants was missing.
"The allegation is only of taunt and statement that they are highly placed having political influence and connection with ministers as such they instigated accused 1 (husband) to accused 3 ( husband's parents) to pressurise the de-facto complainant to get additional dowry," it said.
5
5
Next
Stay
Playback speed
1x Normal
Back
0.25x
0.5x
1x Normal
1.5x
2x
5
5
/
Skip
Ads by
The order added, "Considering the growing trend of the dowry victim arraigning the relatives of the husband, this court has deprecated the practice involving the relatives of the husband for the offence under Section
498A IPC
and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act
, 1961."
Referring to its decisions, the bench said it has reiterated and deprecated the practice of involving the relatives of the husband in dowry related matters.
Live Events
In this case, the marriage between the complainant and her husband took place at Guntur, Andhra Pradesh in 2014.
Five months into the marriage, the woman left her husband and started living with her parents.
She went back to her matrimonial home but returned to her parents eventually.
The husband sent a legal notice to her followed by a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in 2015.
During the pendency of this proceeding, she lodged a complaint before the police in 2016.
However, a compromise was arrived at and the husband withdrew the case.
She subsequently left for the US without intimating the husband or his family members and the dispute continued.
The husband moved a petition for dissolution of marriage on June 21, 2016 and as a counterblast she again lodged a police complaint against six accused persons, including the present appellants.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Lathicharge in Kolhapur as mob upset with Mahadevi's relocation vandalizes vehicles
Kolhapur: The police resorted to a mild lathi charge after an enraged mob pelted stones and vandalized vehicles, including an animal ambulance, late on Monday. The unrest started during the relocation of "Mahadevi alias Madhuri", a 36-year-old elephant, from the Swastishri Jinsen Bhattarak Pattacharya Mutt in Nandani village to the Vantara's Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust in Jamnagar (Gujarat). The Supreme Court had, earlier on Monday, dismissed a writ petition filed by the Jain mutt challenging the Bombay high court's July 16 judgment, which mandated the elephant's rehabilitation. Following the court's directive, a large farewell procession for the elephant took place in the village. Over 10,000 emotional villagers, many in tears, gathered to bid goodbye to the beloved animal. Mathadhipati Jinsen Bhattarak Pattacharya, the head of the Jain mutt, urged the crowd to remain calm and respect the court's order. However, when the elephant was being moved into the animal ambulance, the situation escalated with the angry mob turning on police vehicles. While the procession was in its concluding stage, a few youths started an argument with the police personnel. After this, some people from the crowd started pelting stones at the police personnel. Due to the stone pelting, a law and order situation arose, after which the police resorted to lathi charge to disperse the crowd. The elephant was moved into the animal ambulance towards Gujarat at 1.30am. Inspector Pravin Khanapure of Shirol police station said, "A total of 80 people have been booked under various serious sections, while search for other unidentified people is underway. 10 police personnel were injured in stone pelting. Personnel are still deployed in the village."
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Guidelines to protect lawyers from summons is not immunity: Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that the guidelines proposed to protect lawyers from being summoned by investigating agencies for giving legal advice would not confer immunity on legal professionals who commit a crime. A view of Supreme Court (Sonu Mehta/HT FILE PHOTO) A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justice K Vinod Chandran made the observation during its hearing on a suo motu petition to frame guidelines to shield lawyers from investigating agencies summoning them for giving advice to clients facing criminal prosecution. The court asked the country's two top law officers, Attorney General R Venkatramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, to study the suggestions received from lawyer bodies and propose the possible directions that can be issued. The matter was taken up by the court following two instances where senior lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal were summoned by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) probing the grant of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOP) by Care Health Insurance to former Religare Enterprises chairperson Rashmi Saluja. The ESOPs numbering over 22.7 million were valued at ₹250 crore. Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the ED, asked the court not to lay down any guidelines, reasoning that stray incidents such as these were condemnable but should not become the basis for the courts to establish guidelines. 'individual instances should not be sufficient to change the legal framework. As lawyers, we want to be protected. But not everyone may be discharging their duty credibly. There may be a possibility of summoning them within the framework of the law. But any future judicial legislation in this regard will make the task of investigating agencies counter-productive,' Mehta said. The bench said, 'We cannot ignore the recent instances. An eminent lawyer had been issued summons. We have made it clear that there is no protection for any crime. If somebody is assisting the client in destroying evidence, certainly they can be accused of destruction of evidence. But can that be done for giving advice?' The two lawyers' bodies of the Supreme Court - Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) submitted their suggestions to the court. Senior advocate Vikas Singh, who is also SCBA president, submitted that in cases where the investigation agency has direct evidence against a lawyer, the same can be considered by the magistrate. If the magistrate feels that the evidence is admissible, summons can be issued, Singh said. SCBA secretary Pragya Baghel, who submitted the association's submissions, traced the protection afforded under the law to lawyers that protects privileged communication between the lawyer and client under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam that replaced the Indian Evidence Act. Similar protection is also available under the Companies Act. Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, assisting the court, pointed out that the guidelines should also address the issue of receiving fees for the legal opinion tendered to a firm or person facing criminal prosecution. Attorney General R Venkatramani, assisting the court in the suo motu proceedings, assured the court that he will examine all suggestions and report back with his observations. The court asked both AG and SG to examine the suggestions and revert on the next date of hearing on August 12, when the bench will consider passing further directions. SCAORA, which had described the ED summons to the two senior lawyers as a 'chilling signal to the legal community', told the court that the unwarranted summons to advocates to disclose information concerning clients involved in criminal proceedings undermines the sanctity of the lawyer-client relationship and poses a serious threat to the integrity of India's criminal justice system. Senior advocate ANS Nadkarni, who represented SCAORA, pointed out a recent instance from Kolkata where the laptop of a lawyer practising before the Calcutta high court was seized. 'On the laptop, there is not just information about one client but all his clients. It is the lifeline of the lawyer's practice,' Nadkarni said, expressing concern over the search and seizure of lawyers conducted by investigating agencies that need judicial oversight. The submissions handed over by the SCAORA office bearers pointed out that the Bar Council of India rules explicitly prohibit advocates from committing, directly or indirectly, any breach of the obligations to their client, breach of which amounts to professional misconduct. 'The duty to maintain confidentiality is not merely statutory but is deeply embedded in the ethical and professional framework governing advocates in India. Disclosing privileged communication without client consent may constitute professional misconduct and attract disciplinary consequences,' SCAORA said.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Supreme Court Stays Trial In 2 Cases Involving Azam Khan's Son Abdullah
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed an order of the Allahabad High Court directing Rampur's MP-MLA court to proceed with the trial in two cases linked to former MLA and senior Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan's son Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan. A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh also issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government on an appeal filed by Abdullah. On July 23, the high court dismissed two petitions filed by Abdullah challenging the proceedings of criminal cases against him. The first case is related to Abdullah's alleged fake passport and the second case to his obtaining two PAN cards. "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, the instant application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed," the high court said. Abdullah filed separate petitions in the high court concerning the two cases requesting it to set aside the entire criminal proceedings of the ongoing trials in Rampur's MP/MLA court. BJP MLA Akash Saxena had filed a case against Abdullah in Rampur on July 30, 2019, alleging fraud and violation of the Passport Act for allegedly obtaining the travel document using an incorrect date of birth. According to the complaint, Abdullah was issued a passport on January 10, 2018. The passport lists the date of birth as September 30, 1990 but his educational certificates say January 1, 1993. Saxena also filed an FIR against Abdullah and father Azam Khan at the Civil Lines police station in Rampur on December 6, 2019. Saxena alleged that Abdullah had furnished an incorrect PAN number in his election affidavit during the 2017 assembly elections. Saxena also accused Azam Khan of being a fraudster and a liar, claiming that the senior SP leader got two PAN cards made for his son through fraud to enable him to contest elections. According to him, Abdullah allegedly concealed this fact in the affidavit submitted to the Election Commission. He showed one PAN number in the affidavit, but used another number in his income tax return documents.
