Court : Madhya Pradesh
..... home forgetting all the alleged incidents of cruelty and ill- treatment. on this very concept, doctrine of condonation has been developed from the provision of section 23(1)(b) of the hindu marriage act,1955. in other words, it can be deduced that the behaviour of appellant was not so bad that it can be termed as physical or ..... or to commit suicide or the harassment was to compel her to fulfill illegal demand for dowry. it is not every type of harassment or cruelty that would attract section 498a of the ipc. sporadic incidents of ill- treatment by husband or relatives do not attract definition of cruelty. therefore, even if the prosecution story is accepted as ..... it is, then too, no case would be 3 cr.a. no.351/1998 made out against the appellant under section 498a of the ipc. moreover, prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 498a of the ipc against the appellant, beyond a reasonable doubt.11. in the result, the appeal stands allowed. impugned conviction and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
..... counsel for the appellant. none for the respondent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- whether approved for reporting: yes / no.judgment 18/07/2013 challenge in this appeal under section 28 of the hindu marriage act, 1955 is made to the judgment and decree-dated 19.12.1996, passed by the 5th additional district judge, rewa in civil suit no. ..... 8-a/1995. by the aforesaid judgment and decree, a suit filed by the appellant/husband for dissolution of the marriage under section 13 of the hindu marriage act, has been dismissed. 2- parties herein were married in the year 1980 and it is the case of the appellant that ever since ..... the marriage, the respondent wife started behaving in a very peculiar manner, she was harassing the appellant and his family members and her acts amounted to act of cruelty. it is stated that initially she sought for partition of the appellant s family property, thereafter made him stay separately from his .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
..... filed civil appeal before the xiith additional district judge, jabalpur registered as civil appeal no.61-a/1995. the appellate court had also upheld the ground under section 12(1)(f) of the act, but had refused the decree on the ground that it would cause inconvenience to other co-owners. 5 f.a.no.537/1999 hafizullah vs. puran ..... any higher forum. in civil suit no.147-a/ 1988 though the court had found bonafide need of the plaintiff established for his profession of advocate under section 12(1)(f) of the act, but refused decree of eviction on the ground that puran chand jain being the co-owner of the property, had purchased the part of the suit accommodation ..... mesne profit. (b) that the plaintiff had also filed an earlier suit for eviction bearing no.147/88 before ixth civil judge class-ii jabalpur under section 12(1)(f) of the act against the tenant late shikhar chand jain. late shikhar chand jain had obtained the suit accommodation by registered lease deed dated 1.5.1968 for a period .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
..... made to it by the respondent no.5 against the petitioner or not and whether such allegations would constitute a cause for making enquiry or investigation under the act ?. section 2(a) of the act defines the word 'allegation' in the following manner : 2.(b) allegation . in relation to a public servant means any affirmation that such public servant,- ..... sharief (supra) may not be applicable in the present case in view of the fact that the investigation in the said case was under section 13(1) (d) of the prevention of corruption act and not under the provisions of investigation of a complaint by the lokayukt. hard and fast rule of evidence may not be applicable in ..... and have contended that since charges levelled against the petitioner have been found proved, a report is submitted by 4 the lokayukt under the provisions of section 12(1) of the act, the state government will make the recovery of the amount from the petitioner as suggested by the lokayukt and will submit a compliance report under .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
..... of the present case as discussed here-in-above, the prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that appellant pramod committed an act punishable under section 436 of indian penal code. evidence of eyewitness sajjan singh (pw/4) is not reliable due to creating new story. second ..... were caused to gumti owners akshay kumar, khemchand and appellant also. report lodged by complainant akshay kumar was registered for offence punishable under section 436 of ipc at police station silwani on rojnamachasana no.783 of 1996. investigating officer prepared the spot map, memo of loss, ..... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- date of hearing :14. 05.2013 date of judgment:08. 07.2013 (judgment) appellant pramod jain @ pinki has filed this appeal under section 374 of criminal procedure code, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18/07/2007 passed by learned additional district judge (fast track court) begumganj, district raisen .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
..... were submitted before learned special judge. 03. on available evidence, learned special judge framed charges against appellant netram punishable under section 352 & 324 of ipc and section 3(1)(x) of the sc/st act who abjured his guilt and claims to be tried. 04. the prosecution examined complainant vishal singh (pw/2), his wife ..... on record held accused/appellant nittu @ netram guilty, convicted and sentenced as mentioned herein above, but acquitted from the charge punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the sc/st act, against which, the respondent/state has not filed any appeal. 07. shri manish tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant argued at length ..... doubt that appellant nittu @ netram committed criminal trespass in the house of complainant vishal singh and committed any act of causing injury to complainant vishal singh, therefore, appellant nittu @ netram is acquitted from charges under sections 425 and 324 of ipc.22. the appeal preferred by the appellant nittu @ netram succeeds and is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
..... required to be examined. the only question would be whether the respondent no.3 could have been granted a relief of classification or not under the provisions of section 31(3) of the act. learned counsel for the petitioners has heavily placed his reliance in the case of state of m.p. and others vs. onkar prasad patel, (2005) ..... labour court, i.e. 31.01.1996 and he be paid the wages of permanent category employee. the award passed by the labour court was challeged under section 65 of the act aforesaid before the industrial court, jabalpur, in an appeal by the 3 petitioners. the respondent no.3 also challenged the said award on the ground that he ..... 3 claiming himself to be an employee of the petitioners, approached the labour court by making an application under section 31(3) read with section 61 and 64-a of the madhya pradesh industrial relations act (herein after referred to as 'act') seeking direction for his classification as supervisor. it was contended by the respondent no.3 that he was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
..... the assessment so the income to be reassessed under section 147 read with section 148 of the income tax act. on the aforesaid ground, the assessment order was re-framed. this order was assailed by the assessee before the commissioner of income tax ..... that the income of the assessee was wrongly shown in the return. the assessment order was an escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of the act. on the aforesaid reasons, the assessing officer had formed an opinion that the assessee had not disclosed truly and fully all material facts necessary for ..... that the assessee had not disclosed the income correctly, had wrongly claimed depreciation of brought forward loss while as per the provisions as contained in section 115j.of the act the same was required to be adjusted from the lower of brought forward loss or unabsorbed depreciation. the assessing officer was of the opinion that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
..... circumstances, both the courts below have rightly observed that the applicant could not prove that she was the wife of the deceased dashru and therefore, her application under section 372 of indian succession act could not be accepted. both the courts below have rightly rejected the application filed by the applicant. there is no reason by which the revision filed by the ..... , whereas, the application of the applicant was dismissed.2. the facts of the case, in short, are that, the respondent no.3 ramkumar has moved an application under section 372 of indian succession act to get a succession certificate due to death of his father dashru rathore. in that application, the applicant contested the matter on the ground that she was the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
..... by them. sentence of fine is affirmed. conviction and sentence awarded to appellants no.2 smt. kusumlata tiwari and no.3 ku.snehlata tiwari under section 4 of the dowry prohibition act is affirmed. their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. a copy of this judgment be kept in the record of criminal appeal no.1431/2005 ..... code, and that smt.kusumlata tiwari and ku. snehlata 18 cr.a.no.1429/2005 cr.a.no.1431/2005 tiwari also committed offence under section 4 of the dowry prohibition act. their conviction on the aforesaid charges is, therefore, affirmed.27. learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the incident had occurred in the year ..... in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. appellants smt. kusumlata tiwari and ku. snehlata tiwari have further been convicted under section 4 of the dowry prohibition act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. all the jail sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3 cr.a.no.1429/2005 cr.a .....
Tag this Judgment!