BAIL FORMAT
Item 8 | Shahabuddin @Dablu v. State of Bihar | Diary No. 44173 of 2024
Fresh matter/After Notice– Interim Protection granted
Prayer: Seeking regular bail
In Custody Since: 23/08/2024 | Custody Certificate @83-84
Last order:
Officer Report dt:
Brief facts:
Offence: u/s 302, 120B and 34 IPC
09/12/2022 FIR No. 249 of 2022 was filed against the Petitioner and other accused by the Wife of
the deceased. @22-28
Accused u/s 302, 120B, and 34 IPC along with 25(1-B)a, 27, and 35 of the Arms Act.
Allegation: The complainant (wife of the deceased) alleged that the Petitioner along
with other co-accused persons murdered her husband on 07/12/2022 and his body was
thrown in the grove. This was done with the intention to embezzle money that was
given to the co-accused Javed by the deceased for buying his land.
Petitioner named in the FIR as Accused No. 1.
- Post Mortem Report @18-21
Second Post Mortem Report @29-34
16/02/2023 Case Diary No. 4889 [Para 177] recording the CDR of Petitioner. @35-36
- Chargesheet No. 44/2023 was filed on 28/02/2023. @37-42 [Petitioner not named]
Chargesheet No. 246/2023 was filed on 30/09/2023. @43-48 [Against Petitioner]
03/01/2024 TC rejected the Bail Application filed by the Petitioner. @49-51
Reasoning: Petitioner is named in the FIR and Para 177 of the case diary shows that
the tower location of the mobile petitioner was found to be near the place of occurrence
at the time when the alleged incident is stated to have occurred. [Para 5; Pg. 50]
19/01/2024 Petitioner filed Crl Misc. No. 9522 of 2024 in Patna HC seeking Bail. @52-62
- Bail of Co-Accused persons rejected.
Order dt. 23/02/2024 of Patna HC. @63-68
Order dt. 13/03/2024 of Patna HC. @69-74
26/04/2024 [Impugned Order] HC rejected the Bail Application filed by the Petitioner.
Reasoning:
From Paragraph No. 177 of the case diary, the tower location of the Petitioner's
mobile was found near the place of occurrence at the time when the alleged
incident was stated to have taken place. [Para 8; Pg. 4]
Considering the nature and gravity of the offense coupled with the fact that there is
a direct allegation against the petitioner of murdering the complainant’s husband,
no case for bail is made out. [Para 9; Pg. 4]
1
Name of intern-checked by (name of LC)
Direction to expedite the trial and preferably to conclude the same within one year
was given. [Para 10; Pg. 4]
- Present SLP
Grounds: @10
There is no other incriminating material and HC erred in rejecting the bail solely
on the basis of CDR details. [Ground A]
There is an absence of motive as the sale and purchase of the land in question due to
which the complainant’s husband was murdered was with Co-accused Javed, not
the Petitioner. [Ground B]
2
Name of intern-checked by (name of LC)
ANTICIPATORY BAIL FORMAT
Item 10 | Digambar Pal & Anr. v. State of West Bengal | SLP (Crl) 8152/2024
Fresh matter/ After Notice – Interim Protection granted
Prayer: Seeking anticipatory bail
Last order:
Officer Report dt:
Brief facts: FIR has been filed by the Respondent-Wife against the Petitioner-Husband u/s 498A IPC
alleging that he is not giving her money to maintain herself and their minor daughter, therefore
subjecting her to cruelty. Apprehending arrest in this case, Petitioner preferred an application for AB
which was dismissed vide the impugned order.
Offence u/s 498A IPC
List of Dates:
10.03.2016 Marriage was solemnized between Petitioner No. 2 (Husband) and Respondent No. 2
(Wife).
In 2018, daughter was born out of the said wedlock.
22.03.2024 FIR No. 111/24 was filed by Respondent No. 2 (Wife/Complainant) @16-18 u/s 498A
IPC
Allegation: Petitioner-Husband stays away in Delhi for his service and Respondent
lives with alone with daughter in Kolkata. Petitioner has not given her money for the
last 7 months to maintain herself and child. Father-in-law tortures her. She will commit
suicide with her daughter if complaint not filed.
Petitioner No. 2 was named as Accused No. 1 in the FIR.
23.04.2024 Petitioners filed an application for AB in HC. @19-29
01.05.2024 [Impugned Judgment HC (DB) dismissed the application for Anticipatory Bail filed
by the Petitioners. @1-2
Reasoning:
• Petitioner No. 2 had abandoned the Respondent/Complainant (wife) with the minor
child.
• Considering the materials in the case diary, the gravity of the offence and the
involvement of the Petitioner herein, the AB was rejected.
- Present SLP
Grounds: @8
• Allegations in the FIR do not make out offence u/s 498A IPC.
• Arrest and Custodial interrogation not required in the present case.
• Petitioner pay for the education of child and accommodation.
Counter Affidavit:
3
Name of intern-checked by (name of LC)
When interim bail was granted by HC, petitioner no.2 joined the investigation
but did not cooperated
Investigation is pending
TP FORMAT
Item 4 | Sabiha Qamar v. Sadiq Razi | TP (C) No. 3001/2024
Fresh matter| After Notice – Interim Stay
Petitioner – Wife
Office Report dt. XX January: Service Complete. No Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent.
Previous Orders:
• 14.11.2024 [Justice N Kotiswar Singh] – Notice Issued. Interim Stay.
Transfer From: Champaran, Bihar
Transfer To: New Delhi
Proceedings: RCR Petition u/s 281 of Mohammedan Law filed by Respondent Husband [Matrimonial
Case No. 132 of 2023]
Grounds: @12
• Distance: 951 kms (Ground A)
• No independent source of Income. (Ground D)
• P-Wife cannot travel alone; no male members to accompany. (Ground E)
• Permanent resident of Delhi.
• Mental and physical cruelty inflicted by R-Husband; Threat to her in Bihar.
• Proceedings pending b/w parties:
Date Case Filed By
2023 [Subject Petition] RCR Petition u/s 281 of Mohammedan Law R-
[Matrimonial Case No. 132 of 2023] – pending in Bihar Husband
31.08.2023 Maintenance Case filed u/s 125 CrPC [Case No. 397 of 2023] – pending in P-Wife
Delhi
23.09.2023 FIR No. 426/2023 filed u/s 498A at Okhla PS P-Wife
31.05.2024 Complaint u/s 12 DV Act [Case No. 3789/2024] - pending in Delhi P-Wife
4
Name of intern-checked by (name of LC)
Item 16 | Diary No. 1182 of 2025 | Fresh Matter| Maintenance
Vijay Kumar Kanojia (Husband) v. Smt. Shalini Kanojia (wife)
Issue: Petitioner-husband is before us disputing the amount of permanent alimony awarded by the HC.
Brief Facts: Petitioner is the husband challenging the order of HC granting maintenance/interim
maintenance to the wife. TC granted 10,000/- per month to wife. HC increased it to 20,000/-.
Challenging this order husband has filed this SLP.
Relevant Facts:
- Both the parties are gainfully employed.
- Occupation of husband: Jr. Engineer, class 3, Indian Railways; Salary Rs. 1,10,000/-
- Occupation of the wife: School teacher; Salary Rs. 1,23,000/-
- Turned out of her matrimonial home on 01.07.2011. has been living separately since then.
Position of parties:
Supreme Court First Appeal Family Court
Vijay Kumar Kanojia (Husband) Petitioner Respondent Petitioner
Shalini Kanojia (Wife) Respondent Appellant Respondent
List of dates:
21.11.2008 Marriage solemnized. Two children born out of wedlock, one of them could not
survive. Birth of second child on 01.07.2011. Pg. 18
01.11.2013 Order in Maintenance Case No. 574 of 2011 by Family Court. Pg. 21-28
Filed by minor daughter u/s 125 CrPC.
Maintenance granted to the daughter as Rs. 6,000/- per month. Both husband & wife
are to bear this maintenance. Hence, Rs. 3000/- per month to be borne by both
equally.
5
Name of intern-checked by (name of LC)
21.02.2015 Matrimonial Petition No. 598 of 2011. Judgment by ADJ, Family Court. Pg. 29-47.
[Order dated 05.10.2012 in Marital Dispute No. 598 of 2011 by Principal Judge, Family
Court. Maintenance of Rs. 3000/- to the child. Pg 16-20]
Issues at Pg. 35
Marriage dissolved u/s 13 of HMA. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Permanent alimony of Rs. 5 lakhs awarded.
09.08.2024 [Impugned Judgment] Judgment in First Appeal No. 157 of 2015 against
Matrimonial Petition of 2015. Pg1-5
Settlement b/w parties failed. Pg. 3.
Awarded 25% of monthly income to daughter or Rs. 25,000/- whichever is higher up
to the date the daughter attains the age of 21.
[Awarded that atleast 25% of husband’s salary, which will be deducted from husbands
account and deposited in wife’s account.] [Order in First Appeal No. 157 of 2015 as
on 30.05.2017. Pg. 63-64]
SLP Grounds at Pg. 9:
- HC did not examine evidence on record. Pg. 9
- Wife is gainfully employed. Pg. 10
- Petitioner has already paid Rs. 25 lakhs to the wife.
6
Name of intern-checked by (name of LC)
Item 23 | Diary No. 31640 of 2024 |
Rampuria Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Bijay Tractor Spares Pvt. Ltd. | Fresh Matter|
Landlord-Tenant dispute
Issue: Whether the Respondent had unlawfully sublet the suit property to third parties and whether the
Respondent had done unauthorized alteration of the suit Property?
Brief Facts: Petitioner rented an Office Hall and Godown to Respondent in 1972. In 1997, the
Petitioner filed ejectment suits alleging unlawful subletting and unauthorized construction by the
Respondent after noticing name plates of three different entities at the premises. The Trial Court
dismissed the suits in 2003, which was upheld by both the First Appellate Court (2005) and the High
7
Name of intern-checked by (name of LC)
Court (2024), as the Petitioner failed to prove subletting and property damage claims.
Position of Parties:
Name Supreme Court High Court Trial Court
Rampuria Estates Pvt. Ltd (Landlord) Petitioner Respondent Plaintiff
M/S Bijay Tractor Spares Pvt. Ltd. (Tenant) Respondent Appellant Defendant
21.01.1972 The Petitioner is the owner of one Office Hall and one Godown. He gave the Office
Hall and the Godown on rent to the Respondent on 21.01.72 (Pg. 42-45) and
13.06.72 (Pg. 46-48) respectively.
The Petitioner confirmed the terms and conditions contained in the Respondent’s
letter with respect to the tenancy of the Godown on 14.06.72. (Pg. 49)
26.05.1988 The Petitioner sent a letter to the Respondent enquiring about the name plates of
three different entities fixed over the main entrance office door and asking if the
Respondent sub-let the properties to these businesses. (Pg. 50)
In response, the Respondent sent a letter stating that the three companies were its
sister companies and asked Petitioner to give written consent to allow these new
companies to open their offices in the suit properties which the Petitioner gave. (Pg.
51)
08.08.1994 The Petitioner again wrote a letter to the Respondent asking the premises were in
possession of Respondents or is it in possession of other entities. (Pg. 55)
The Respondent sent a reply on 16.08.1994 stating that the rented premises were in
the possession of the original tenant (that is, the Respondent) ((Pg. 56); however,
the Petitioner wrote a letter on 22.08.1994 stating that the contents of the letter of
the Respondent were incorrect. (Pg. 57-57A)
30.04.1997 Consequently, the Petitioner sent two notices for the two tenancies to the
Respondent u/s 13(6) of WBPT Act, 1956 on the grounds of unlawful subletting
and unauthorised construction/alteration of the suit property. (Pg. 58-60 for Office
Hall; Pg. 61-63 for Godown)
17.07.1997 Ejectment Suit No. 309/97 (for Godown) and 310/97 (for Office Hall) were filed by
the Petitioner. (Pg. 64-71)
Subsequently, in 2002, these Suits were transferred to the SCC, Calcutta and
renamed Suit no. 189/2002 (wrt Office Hall) and 190/2002 (wrt Godown).
22.12.2003 The TC dismissed both the suits. (Pg. 97-110)
Issues: (Pg. 99-100)
- Has the Respondent transferred or assigned the tenanted premises or any part
thereof infavour of any outsider?
- Is the Respondent guilty of violation of Section 108 of TPA by causing damage to
the suit property by addition, alteration or by any unauthorized construction?
Reasoning: (Pg. 102-109)
- The Court observed that though the Respondent has not produced documents to
8
Name of intern-checked by (name of LC)
prove the business it is carrying over in the suit properties, however, the same does
not mean that the Respondent does not have possession in the suit properties. The
Petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent accept rent from the other companies.
(Pg. 102- 105)
- PW1 never sent any letter to the Respondent regarding alterations to the property
in question. He claims he learned about the alterations only through Darvan, who
was not called as a witness to testify. (Pg. 107-108)
- During cross-examination, PW2 (the Engineer Commissioner) testified that he
found no cracks in the walls of the property in dispute. (Pg. 108-109)
13.05.2005 On appeal to the FAC, the Court dismissed the appeal and accepted the decision of
the TC. (Pg. 111-120)
Reasoning:
- Even though the Respondent did not produce relevant documents to show that it
carries on its business in the suit property, however, the want of such documents it
cannot be said that the defendant has got no possession in the suit property. (Pg.
116)
- PW1 never sent any letter to the Respondent wrt to alteration of suit property and
he got to know about the same through Darvan who has not been examined. (Pg.
117) - PW2, the Engineer Commissioner in his cross stated that he did not find any
crack on the wall of the suit premises. (Pg. 117-118)
22.07.2005 On appeal to the HC in S.A. 313 and 316 of 2005, the HC issued notice to the
Respondents. (Pg. 121-126)
16.04.2024 The HC SB in its impugned judgement, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of
the Trial Court. (Pg. 1-15)
Issues: (Pg. 4-5)
Reasoning:
- The Respondent in its reply dated 26.05.1988 clearly stated that the agencies are
his sister companies and their accommodation is free of rent. Therefore, as per rule
of evidence in the case of negative assertion, the burden of proof shifts to the
Petitioner that there existed a subtenancy relationship for which the Respondent was
receiving rent, which the Petitioner failed to prove. (Pg. 12-13)
- W.r.t to parting possession with the suit premises, again the Court noted that the
Petitioner was not able to prove that the Respondents completely parted with suit
properties. Mere occupation by agencies is not sufficient to infer either sub-tenancy
or parting with possession. (Pg. 13-15)
- Fact finding by lower courts which based on proper appreciation of facts (which is
the case in the present case) does not require interference by the HC. (Pg. 15)
18.07.2024 Grounds for SLP: (Pg. 24-35)
- The Respondents have not submitted crucial documents such as the AOA and
MOA of the companies at any part of the proceedings and consequently, there is no
substantial evidence to prove that the companies in question are sister concerns.
- Section 108 of TPA specifically outlines that the lessee cannot make permanent
9
Name of intern-checked by (name of LC)
structural changes to leased property without the lessor’s consent which was not
taken in the present matter.
- Section 13(1)(a) and Section 14 WBPT Act nowhere mentions that “exclusive
possession” has to be provided to attract mischief of transfer, assign or sublet of the
tenancy.
- Since rent payment could have been made secretly, the law does not require such
payment to be proved by affirmative evidence and the court is permitted to draw its
own inference.
Relevant legal provisions:
Legal Research:
Case laws (recent/constitution bench/landmark case)
Item 36| SLP| Monu Choubey and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand| Fresh Matter/After Notice
Concurrent conviction u/s 394 IPC
• Testimony of PW8, 9, 10, 11 not on record/PWs on record/PWs not on record
Last order:
Officer report dt:
Issue – Whether the irregularity in TIP as acknowledged by the HC in its order will vitiate the trial?
Brief Facts – The petitioner herein is accused charged with S394 He is witness to the List of Seizures
prepared on 20.08.2016. in Cross he says that his signature was taken on the plain paper. And
nothing was seized in his presence. TC, FAC, HC confirmed the conviction against which the SLP
has been filed on the ground of irregularity in TIP.
10
Name of intern-checked by (name of LC)
List of Dates:
Dates Facts
20.08.2016 FIR was lodged by the informant “Harpal Singh” against accused (1) Kush Singh
(2) Chandan Chaubey (3) Monu Chaubey and (4) Bholu Singh for causing hurt to
the complainant and Arun Singh (driver)of the truck with knife blows and robbing
them of cash and mobile phones. pg.31-42
13.11.2016 Chargesheet filed u/s 394 and 411 IPC 43-63
09.05.2019 TC – convicted the petitioner/ accused u/s 394 @pg 89-141
Issue – Pg. 107
• Accused person were immediately caught.
• PW8 has identified the accused
• As per the victim, he wrote the bike number from his blood and this is in
confirmation of the testimony given by IO. • Bholu Singh was caught at the spot.
• TIP was conducted in the presence of the Magistrate PW11 where the victim
identified the accused.
• Since prosecurtion could not prove that the stolen articles are recovered from
the accused hence no charge of S411. Pg. 112
• Though PW1, PW2, PW3, PW7 have turned hostile but the y have also
heard about the incident and in a way supported the story of the prosecution
Pg. 118
30.05.2019 Petitioner filed criminal appeal No. 36 of 2019 @pg 142-156
02.09.2022 FAC- conviction was confirmed @pg157-172
• Informant has fully supported the story of the prosecution and identified the
accused also. Pg. 164
• The concerned magistrate who conducted the TIP has also said that the witness
has identified the accused. Pg. 165
19.09.2022 Petitioner filed second appeal @189-207
28.06.2024 HC – confirmed the conviction @pg1-20
Issue @ Pg. 2 Para 15
• commission of road robbery is established by the consistent account of the
witnesses. The case was lodged without any delay on the basis of the statement of
the injured victim, and one of the accused viz Bholu Singh was apprehended on
spot. Pg. 2 Para 17
• three of the accused persons identified both in TIP, as well in the Court during
trial by the victim. Pg. 2 Para 18
• Even if it is assumed that there was irregularity in the TIP, which appears to
be in the present case, that will by itself not erode the evidentiary value of the
identification in the Court.
• It has been deposed by IO (PW-10) in Para 2 that accused Bholu Singh was
apprehended on spot andI.O he becomes direct eye witness. Therefore, there
is no purpose of putting him on TIP. Pg. 3 Para 20
SLP – grounds – Pg. 10
• alleged to have been taken place over a public road despite no independent
witness had supported the story of the prosecution
11
Name of intern-checked by (name of LC)
• PW9 - fardbyan was written by Bada Babu, he has put his signature, but what is
written in the fardbyan has not been read over to the witness and due to dark night
he has not identified the persons involved.
• The accused was already introduced to the PW8 before TIP and hence there is
irregularity in the investigation.
Testimony of the Witnesses
Independent Witnesses (Hearsay)
PW 1 Farid Khan Pg. He only heard about the incident a day after and doesn’t know the accused
64 and not witnessed the accused and can’t identify them and in cross he said
that there are 100 houses in my village– turned hostile
PW2 Nabir Ahmed He woke up in the morning and heard about the marpeet last night and said
Pg. 68 that he doesn’t know any accused. In cross he said that Rehla is about 5km
away from his village. Turned hostile
PW3 Sarfaraz Ahmad He came to know about the crime later because he usually remains away
Pg. 72 from home and on the request of the prosecution turned hostile.
PW 6 Sachin Kumar He doesn’t know about the incident and his statement was not recorded by
Paswan Pg. 80 police. - Turned Hostile
PW 7 Kuldeep Singh He heard about the incident from other drivers but he is not bale to identify
Pg. 84 anyone and nor does he recognize anyone. Turned Hostile
Panch Witnesses
PW 4 Anil He is witness to the List of Seizures prepared on 20.08.2016. in Cross he says
Goswami Pg. 76 that his signature was taken on the plain paper. And nothing was seized in his
presence.
PW 5 – Parvesh He is witness to the List of Seizures prepared on 20.08.2016. in Cross he says
Ram – P. 78 that his signature was taken on the plain paper. And nothing was seized in his
presence.
Victim (not on record – being extracted from the TC Judgement)
PW 8 Arun Accused person abused Harpal Singh and then the accsued person came to him and
Singh Pg. assaulted him with knife.. they entered the truck and took away wallet, purse, etc. He
164 noted the motorcuycle number of the accused with the blood and then was taken to
hospital. Identified the three accused and Bhola singh also in the court.
PW 9 Harpal He is the informant and supports the story of the prosecution
Singh
TIP witness
PW 11 Judicial The TIP was conducted in his supervision and the PW8 identified the accused
Magistrate in his presence.
12
Name of intern-checked by (name of LC)
Police Witness
PW 10 Arvind He supports the FIR and the received the information from the complainant.
Kumar IO Arun Singh wrote the motorcycle number of the accused from his blood.
Relevant legal provisions:
Case laws/Legal Research:
Item 39 | Dairy No. 19000/19 | Jagmohan Goswami (Husband) v. Sudha Saxena (Wife)
Fresh Matter/After Notice| Divorce on ground of cruelty
Last order:
Office Report dt.
Issue – Whether marriage between parties should be dissolved on ground of cruelty?
Brief Facts: Petitioner herein is the husband. He filed the divorce petition on ground of cruelty
alleged to be inflicted by the Respondent wife. Petitioner contended that they only stayed for 90
days together and have been living separately since then. TC and HC dismissed the divorce petition
against which the Petitioner/Husband has filed the SLP.
Date Facts
09.05.1997 Arranged Marriage solemnized between petitioner and respondent
Petitioner alleged 6 instances of mental and physical cruelty.- (Find the allegations
and findings of the TC and HC on the same on next pg.)
02.03.1998 Respondent/ wife- filed FIR being FIR No. 615 of 1997 u/s 406 & 498A IPC
22.12.1998 Petitioner filed for divorce petition u/s 13(1)(a) of HMA 1956. @pg.27-61
13
Name of intern-checked by (name of LC)
Wife filed W.S. @pg.62-84
05.09.2002 Petitioner filed a fresh Replication to the amended WS. @pg. 85-125
17.09.2003 TC- dismissed the petition. @pg.126-172
1. husband had failed to prove the second and third incidents.
2. that cruel behaviour attributed to the respondent wife is not believable as
newly wedded couples are not expected to behave in such a way
06.11.2003. Petitioner filed an Appeal being F.A.O. 784 of 2003 @pg.173-205
04.12.2010 Petitioner acquitted in FIR No. 615 of 1997 under S 406 & 498A IPC
20.08.2018 HC – dismissed the appeal- impugned
1. husbadn indeed is found to have not proved the second and third incidents in
the manner required by law. Pg. 4
2. although staying apart for over fifteen years has eroded the very foundation
of their matrimony but the jurisdiction to dissolve marriage on such a ground
of irretrievable break- down only vests in the Supreme Court Pg. 8
20.05.2019 SLP – grounds – pg. 12
1. cruelty already established and the burden of proof is preponderance of
probabilities in matrimonial cases.
2. No witness came to depose in wife’s favour
3. R has never reached the P for settlement in 20 years of pending litigation.
There is a deadlock and no chance of re-union.
Allegation TC and HC Pg.
11.05.97- R refused to attend photographs of the parties taken during the HC – 4
reception but agreed after honeymoon showed the parties in a 'happy and TC- 161
persuasion, on conditions that she enjoying state';
would wear choora and her brother
would not attend. despite the incident deposed by him, the parties
16.05.97- P and R went to Manali, remained at Manali and continued honeymoon
for honeymoon where R compared
P as a waiter. that the comments which were made at the club
28.05.97- At a clubhouse, 3-4 men house against the respondent wife had not been
made sarcastic remarks at R. disclosed in the examination-in- chief of the
Feeling humiliated, he asked R to appellant husband and had been disclosed only when
leave, but she refused, played asked so in · the cross-examination.
badminton with them. P took her to
the hotel room, quarrel broke out,
and the R hit him, causing chest pain.
20.06.97- At 9 PM, the R's sister complaint was dated 21.06 1997 and submitted on HC – 5
visited with another person, and a 23.06.1997 i.e. 3 days after the incident TC- 162
quarrel ensued when P objected to Husband claimed that his sister was also present
their late outing, leading to the
14
Name of intern-checked by (name of LC)
sister assaulting the P, who then but had not examined the said sister
filed a police complaint. Said incident didn’t find place in notice issued
before the divorce petition
20.06.97- R appeared at P’s PW-2, a witness deposed by P, was not examined HC- 6
workplace, created a scene, and regarding the incident of 18th February, 1998. TC- 164,
threatened him, causing humiliation PW-3, stationed at the Reception Counter, 165
in presence of colleagues. claimed R abused and threatened P but he only
mentioned a scene being created, not the
specific words, suggesting inconsistency.
PW-3 failed to prove his posting at the Reception
Counter on that date, and the Visitor's Register
entry at serial No. 4, listing both K.K. Puri and
the R, appeared manipulated since the latter’s
name should have been at serial No. 5.
As a government official, wife would have made
a proper entry, not written her name alongside
another visitor. These discrepancies raise doubts
about the incident’s occurrence.
28.09.98- R when the P visited the However, in the cross examination he has TC- 167
in-laws' house to retrieve belongings, stated that he went to take his educational
refused to hand over any articles and certificates. Even in the cross examination it
threatened to kill him if he has been stated that they were assaulted but
returned. R then threw a slipper at P no report was lodged.
hitting his eyes.
Research Note
1. A. Jayachandra Vs. Aneel Kaur 2005 (2) SCC 22
Para 10 Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found
out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of
the acts or omissions of the other.
2. Naveen Kholi Vs. Neelu Kholi 2006 (4) SCC 558
Para 85,87,88- Undoubtedly, it is the obligation of the Court and all concerned that the marriage status
should, as far as possible, as long as possible and whenever possible, be maintained, but when the
marriage is totally dead, in that event, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a
marriage ·- which in fact has ceased to exist.
3. Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel (2010) 4 SCC 393
Para 11 where the Court finds that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond
salvage and has broken down irretrievably, even if the facts of the case do not provide a ground in law
on which the divorce could be granted.
15
Name of intern-checked by (name of LC)
16
Name of intern-checked by (name of LC)
