2-Month Gap Between Case, Arrest In Marriage Cruelty Cases To Stay: Top Court
The Allahabad High Court guidelines that advise going slow with arrest in cases involving matrimonial disputes will stay, the Supreme Court said today while hearing a case where the husband and his father had spent months in jail after the wife filed a slew of false cases against them.
The guidelines framed by the High Court will remain in effect and should be implemented by the authorities, the court said.
Endorsing the safeguards, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih, said the husband was jailed for 109 days and his father for 103 days as a result of the criminal cases filed by the wife.
"What they have suffered cannot be resituated or compensated in any manner" the court said. The woman, who is an IPS officer, has been asked to issue an unconditional public apology, which the court said was just a moral redress.
Under the Allahabad High Court's guidelines, no arrest or police action can take place against the accused without a cooling off period after the First Information Report is filed. This period extends to two months and during this, any further issues will be directed to the district's Family Welfare Committee.
Every district shall have at least one or more Family Welfare Court comprising at least three members.
Only those cases shall be referred to the Family Welfare Committee in which the offence is punishable under Section 498-A (cruelty), along with other sections attracts a sentence of imprisonment of less than 10 years.
The guidelines aim to curb the growing tendency among litigants to implicate the husband and his entire family by making sweeping allegations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
31 minutes ago
- Time of India
Actor Darshan, Pavithra ask SC not to cancel bail in murder case
Bengaluru: Actor Darshan and co-accused Pavithra Gowda urged Supreme Court to uphold the bail granted to them by Karnataka high court in the sensational Renukaswamy murder case. The apex court had reserved its verdict after a lengthy hearing on Karnataka govt's plea seeking to cancel their bail. In his written submission, Darshan (accused no. 2 in the case) argued that bail should only be revoked in cases of serious violations, none of which apply to him. "Cancellation of bail is a harsh step that curtails personal liberty and shouldn't be taken lightly," his plea stated. The actor said he hadn't breached any bail conditions and there was no evidence against him when he was arrested in Mysuru for a crime that allegedly occurred in Bengaluru. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru Darshan claimed his arrest was based on inadmissible late-night disclosures by other accused, who went to the police station on June 10, 2024, and allegedly named him during interrogation. He insisted the crime scene narrative was constructed using handpicked witnesses while key individuals present at the shed on the day of the murder — such as Vijay, Basavaraj and others — were curiously left out by the prosecution. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Accounting Help Made Simple legal directorate Learn More Undo He also highlighted procedural delays, including a three-day gap before the inquest and postmortem were conducted, allegedly due to identity issues. In her written submissions, Pavithra Gowda, accused no. 1, said no exceptional circumstances exist to cancel the bail granted to her. Countering their arguments, the govt pointed to Darshan's post-bail behaviour: He was seen socialising with Chikkanna, a witness, after being granted bail. Further, although he received exemption from court appearance on medical grounds in April (citing back pain), he was spotted at a film screening the very next day. 5th suspect held in Ramya case Cybercrime police arrested 23-year-old Manjunath from Koppal in north Karnataka on charges of sending abusive messages to actor Ramya. Police said Manjunath, a daily- wage labourer, sent her the message from his Instagram account, forever_crickte_lover. This is the fifth suspected to be arrested in the case.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
In Supreme Court, EC may share same draft roll it gave to political parties
New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) is likely to inform the Supreme Court that it had shared the draft electoral rolls of Bihar with various political parties on August 1 and had also circulated lists detailing reasons for the deletion of nearly 6.5 million electors, people familiar with the matter told HT on Wednesday. The Election Commission of India headquarters in New Delhi(File Photo) The top court, which is hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the ECI's ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar, on Wednesday directed the poll body to file to file a reply by August 9 in response to allegations that over 6.5 million names were deleted from the draft rolls. An official aware of the matter, requesting anonymity, said: 'The roll shared with parties on August 1 has detailed classifications of the 65 lakh (6.5 million) deletions. While there is no separate category for those who didn't fill enumeration forms, they have been grouped under 'migrated'. Suspected foreign nationals are also under review and listed under the same head, but they are being separately verified by electoral registration officers (EROs).' The top court's order came on a plea filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), a non-profit working on electoral and political reforms, alleging that ECI removed a column titled 'Uncollectable Reason' from the version of the draft roll published on August 1. The petition also sought disclosure of booth-wise deletions and their reasons. The top court asked ECI to inform it when were the draft rolls shared to the parties, which parties received these rolls, as well as to submit the list of deleted names. The official cited above said the draft rolls were handed over to all political parties by district collectors at 11 am on August 1, and published on the ECI's website at 3 pm the same day. Booth-level data, the official added, was shared with political party representatives. In a press note on July 25, the commission had said that 2.2 million electors were found deceased, 700,000 were registered in more than one place, and 3.5 million had either migrated permanently or were untraceable. After top court's direction on Wednesday, ECI issued a press note saying: '…lists of electors found dead, permanently shifted, having duplicate entries, or uncontactable after at least three visits by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) had been shared with all political parties and their BLAs on or before July 20.' It further shared a series of posts with various BLAs saying they have received the draft electoral roll and separately a list of the 6.5 million individuals removed from the roll. ECI also said that between August 1 and August 6 (9 AM), no political party had filed claims or objections related to the draft roll. However, 3,659 individual objections and claims have been submitted directly by electors. The Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) rejected EC's 'no objections' received remarks, saying EC is trying to create an impression that everything is fine with the Bihar SIR and there are no complaints coming in. 'Nothing could be farther from the truth', the opposition party said in a post on X, listing several concerns, including the claim that its leaders had submitted complaints which were not being counted because they were not routed through BLAs. It also questioned the assumption that all 15,000 Form 6 applications received were from first-time voters and not from electors who had been deleted from the rolls. 'We have been repeatedly asking the EC to provide us with booth level lists of deletion specifying the ground thereof, but to no avail,' the Left party added.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Snake venom case: Supreme Court halts trial court proceedings against Elvish Yadav
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted interim relief to YouTuber Elvish Yadav by staying proceedings against him in connection with the snake venom case.A bench led by Justice MM Sundresh issued notice on Yadav's petition challenging the FIR, chargesheet, and the summoning order passed by the trial court. The trial proceedings would not be allowed to procced in the meantime, the bench has approached the top court against the Allahabad High Court's order which had refused to quash the chargesheet and the trial court's cognisance of the case. In his plea filed before the Top court through Advocate Shahrukh Ali, Advocate Raman Yadav and Advocate Aman Jha, Elvish Yadav has argued that and cognisance of the offence under the Wildlife Protection act has been taken without a complaint filed by a competent officer, adding that police have no authority to investigate offences under the WPA or to file a chargesheet in relation with there is no legally admissible complaint against the petitioner, the disclosure statement alone cannot form the basis for prosecution, the court has argued that at the time of the registration of FIR, he was not present at the venue, and no recovery-whether of snakes, venom, or narcotics-has been made from or in connection with plea also claims that the High Court had dismissed the petition for quashing merely on the ground that graver offences were added in the chargesheet, without examining whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were made out against CASE AGAINST ELVISH YADAVThe case dates back to a complaint lodged in November 2023 by members of the NGO People For Animals, who accused Elvish Yadav of organising rave parties where snake venom was used as a recreational intoxicant. In a subsequent police raid at a banquet hall in Noida, nine snakes (including cobras and kraits) and around 20ml of snake venom were was arrested on March 17, 2024, based on the FIR filed under several sections of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, sections 284 and 289 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section120A (criminal conspiracy), and multiple provisions of the NDPS was remanded for 14 days but released on bail shortly after. The chargesheet filed in April 2024 spanned over 1,200 pages and included allegations of exotic snake smuggling, the involvement of foreign nationals in consuming venom, and links to rave the Supreme Court's stay in place, all proceedings before the trial court are paused for now. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on August 29, when responses are sought from the state and the complainant.- EndsTrending Reel
