BAGGA LEGAL Associates

S. C. : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Guidelines To Address Overlapping Jurisdictions 7nder 125 CrPC, Domestic Violence, HMA.

16.10.2022

Amarjeet Singh v. Union of India WP(C) No. 860/2022

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition seeking guidelines to prevent misuse of maintenance laws by means of conflicting orders and overlapping jurisdictions. The matter was heard by bench comprising Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Hemant Gupta. The bench remarked that the issue raised in the petition had already been dealt with by the Supreme Court. The hearings took place in Hindi and have been translated for the purposes of this article.

As per the petition, the amount for maintenance could be granted under various provisions of law including Section 125 of CrPC, Domestic Violence Act, Hindu Marriage Act etc. This resulted in a multi-pronged situation causing severe inconvenience to parties that were required to pay maintenance. The writ petition sought for all forms of maintenance to be granted under the same umbrella.

At the outset, CJI Lalit stated that there had been a judgement by Justice Indu Malhotra(Rajnesh v Neha) providing that if a woman has been granted maintenance under a specific provision of law, she would not be granted additional maintenance by any other forum. He stated–

"For instance, if a woman has been granted maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC and later approaches the court under the Domestic Violence Act, or Hindu Marriage Act for that matter, the maintenance granted as per the previous award would be duly considered. Only after such due consideration, will new orders be passed."

However, the petitioner continued arguing saying that many persons approached different forums seeking for maintenance despite there existing a single ground. He submitted an example of a case, where based on one ground, two different proceedings in two different courts had been going on. He stated–

"If there is a case in two places on the same ground and two different judges pass two different orders, then it is hundred percent sure that one of the two judges must have given a wrong decision, which is against justice. If both the judges pass the same order, then what is the point of wasting the time of two different judges on the same issue?"

CJI Lalit reiterated that the issue had already been dealt with in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (2021 Vol 2 SCC 324). For context, the said judgement provides guidelines to overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings and thus ensuring uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts. The guidelines read as follows–

a) Where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or set- off, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding;

b) It is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding;

c) If the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding.

Accordingly, while stating that "every fact had already been considered", CJI Lalit dismissed the petition.

***** BLA ******

SC : Section 138 N. I. Act is Quashi Criminal In Nature.

01.03.2021

The Supreme Court has observed that criminal proceedings for the dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, are "quasi-criminal" in nature.

The Court also made an interesting comment that Section 138 proceedings can be called a "civil sheep" in a "criminal wolf's clothing".

A bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph made these observations while deciding the issue whether the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code will bar Section 138 NI Act proceedings against the corporate debtor.

Referring to the judgment in CIT v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas, (1966) 1 SCR 190, the judgment observed that "a civil proceeding is not necessarily a proceeding which begins with the filing of a suit and culminates in ex*****on of a decree".

The Court held that Section 138 proceedings against the corporate debtor will come under the ambit of Section 14 IBC.

**** BLA ****

S.C. : The Maintenance Amount Awarded Must Be Reasonable And Realistic, Objective Of Alimony Is Not To Punish Other Spouse.

08.11.2020

RAJNESH Vs. NEHA
[Cr. A No. 730 OF 2020 ]
Coram :
Justices Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court has observed that the objective of granting interim / permanent alimony/maintenance is to ensure that the dependant spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse.

The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury.

*** BLA *****