Cruelty - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court: Father’s Hearsay Statement Cannot Overturn a Dying Declaration

14Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Father’s Hearsay Statement Cannot Overturn a Dying Declaration

The Supreme Court held that a High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot re-appreciate evidence to overturn an acquittal. It can only correct glaring errors. Finding no such error and that the dying declaration did not establish the charges, the Court restored the Trial Court's order of acquittal. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an incident on June 14, 2005, in which a woman sustained fatal burn injuries in a fire at her marital home. Her husband (Appellant 1) and another accused (Appellant 2) were charged under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the appellants harassed the deceased and that the fire was a result of a deliberate act. The core of the prosecution's case was a dying declara...

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in 498A Dowry Case: Rules on Delay & False Allegations

The Supreme Court of India quashed an FIR and chargesheet, holding that while the complaint was within the limitation period as per Section 468 CrPC (relevant date for limitation being filing of complaint, not cognizance date), the allegations lacked specific incidents of cruelty and appeared to be a misuse of legal provisions. Facts Of The Case: The present appeal challenges a High Court order dated April 1, 2024, which set aside a Sessions Court order from October 4, 2008. The Sessions Court had discharged the Appellant from charges under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in FIR No. 1098/2002. The case originated from a complaint filed by the Complainant wife (Respondent no. 2) on July 3, 2002, leading to the FIR being registered on December 19, 2002, at PS Malviya Nagar...

Husband’s Income vs Wife’s Rights: Supreme Court’s Decision on Permanent Alimony”

The Supreme Court enhanced the appellant-wife's permanent alimony to ₹50,000 per month with a 5% increase every two years, modifying the High Court's order. The Court held the previous alimony inadequate given the respondent-husband's income and the appellant's need to maintain her standard of living. Financial support for the 26-year-old son was not mandated. Facts Of The Case: Rakhi Sadhukhan (appellant-wife) and Raja Sadhukhan (respondent-husband) were married on June 18, 1997, and had a son on August 5, 1998. In July 2008, the respondent-husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty. The appellant-wife then filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 for interim maintenance, and the Trial Court awarded her ₹8,000 per month and ₹10,000 for litigation expens...