In this edition of the Court Judgements review, we look into the Allahabad HC’s order that disputes over the legal validity of marriage do not take away charges of dowry death caused to wife, Kerala HC’s judgment where it said one cannot compel another to follow his religious practice, Delhi HC ruling that Legal Internships do not amount to Legal Practice, among others.
Allahabad HC: Disputes over the legal validity of Marriage do not take away charges of Dowry Death caused to Wife
In the case of Adarsh Yadav (Applicant) vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr (Respondents), the Allahabad High Court (HC) held that charges of dowry death caused by husband and/or his relatives cannot be taken away merely because marriage solemnized between them is under the question of validity.
The facts of the case were that the Applicant and his relatives were charged with offences under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing the dowry death of his deceased wife. The deceased was already married to Rohit Yadav. In the first information report, it was alleged that after some time of marriage of the deceased with Rohit Yadav, the applicant molested her and later, the deceased was divorced by her husband Rohit Yadav. After this, as per the FIR, the parents of the applicant said they would accept the deceased as the wife of the applicant and the marriage of the deceased with the applicant has taken place through court. Later, the deceased was subjected to dowry harassment, which led her to commit suicide. The Applicant approached the Trial Court, seeking discharge from the charges framed against him. However, the trial court considering all the facts rejected the application. The Applicant then approached the HC. The HC held that FIR clearly states that the marriage has taken place between the Applicant and Wife in the court. Even if the argument for the validity of the marriage is accepted, it does not take away the charges of Dowry Death laid against the Applicant and family. Further, ample evidence placed before the Court shows that Applicant and Wife were living together at the time of death of the deceased. Hence, the Application was rejected by HC.
Kerala HC: One cannot compel another to follow his religious practice
In the case of Abdul Noushad (Petitioner) vs. State of Kerala & Anr (Respondents), the Kerala HC held that the Constitution of India guarantees freedom to profess and practice one’s own religion. However, one cannot impose one’s religious beliefs on another.
The facts of the case were that Respondent No. 2 is a 2nd year law college student and participated in an interactive session organized by her college with the then Minister of Finance. In the same event, along with the other students, she also received an award from the minister and shook hands with him. The event was covered by Media. The Petitioner had circulated photos and videos on the social media of Respondent No. 2 shaking hands with the minister and portrayed them as committing adultery in violation of Shariat Law by the Respondent No. 2. Under Section153 of IPC and section 119 of IPC Kerala Police Act, the Respondent No. 2 filed a case against the Petitioner in the Trial Court, as a matter of causing damage to the dignity of her and family. The Petitioner approached HC and prayed for dismissal of proceedings before the Trial Court with the defence that the alleged offence does not attract relevant sections of IPC and Kerala Police Act and sought the dismissal proceedings initiated against him.
The HC held that the Muslim religion does not force anyone to follow it, therefore whether one follows or not is a personal choice. Accordingly, Respondent No. 2 has her own personal freedom of religious belief. In such a situation, the Constitution guarantees her protection, she is a young brave Muslim girl, and it is the duty of society to protect her. Therefore, the court refused to intervene in the proceedings before the Trial Court and dismissed the petition.
Allahabad HC: Promise of Marriage made by Another to Wife while the Husband is alive is not valid under Law; the physical relationship entered into is adulterous
The facts of the case in Shrey Gupta (Applicant) vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr (Respondents) were that an FIR was filed against the Applicant in the year 2018 on the charges of Cheating, Rape and Extortion. By the time FIR was filed, Respondent No. 2 was aged about 50 years. She was the wife of her ailing husband and had two children of about 27 and 25 years, respectively. The family had their business firm, in which the Applicant was also working. As per Respondent No. 2, her husband was diagnosed with sugar and was unable to move frequently. While he was alive, he introduced her to Applicant and told her that Applicant was faithful. In the course of time, while the husband was alive, Applicant had promised to marry Respondent No. 2, and both have engaged in a physical relationship for over 12-13 years. After the death of the husband in 2017, the Applicant was engaged to another woman in the same year. Further, in the year 2018, on the false pretext of marrying Respondent No. 2 in the temple, the Applicant had extorted and committed rape against her. Accordingly, the FIR was filed against the petitioner and proceedings were initiated in the session court. The petitioner moved HC to quash these proceedings.
The HC noted that the physical relationship entered into by the Applicant and the Respondent No. 2 was consensual and there was no dispute about it. Further, Respondent No. 2 being an elderly woman and having sons aged about the same age as Applicant was in a mature position to understand that she was in no capacity for marriage with the Applicant, since the time she entered into a physical relationship with the Applicant. Therefore, her involvement with the petitioner was out of her lust and cannot blame the Applicant for the same. Moreover, the physical relationship between both was adulterous since it was carried on while her husband was alive, and the promise of marriage made to that effect is no promise in Law. As for the charges of Extortion and Rape, the evidence brought before the court by the prosecution does not substantiate the allegations made. Accordingly, the Application was allowed, the FIR filed, and the proceedings initiated against the Applicant were quashed.
Delhi HC: Legal Internships do not amount to Legal Practice
In the case of Ujwal Ghai (Petitioner) vs. Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) (Respondent), the Delhi HC held that legal internships cannot be construed as legal practice for the sake of computation of legal practice period.
The facts of the case were that the Petitioner is a practising advocate with his enrolment in the Bar Council of Delhi in the year 2021. The DHCLHC invited applications for empanelment for Advocates and Mediators for different panels such as Criminal Panel, Matrimonial Panel, Jail Visiting Panel, Mediator Panel, etc. The petitioner filed the application for his empanelment in the Jail Visiting Panel. It was rejected for the reason of insufficient experience of less than 3 years of legal practice. The petitioner approached HC claiming that Rule 8 (3) of the National Legal Services Authority Regulations stipulates that no “legal practitioner having less than three years’ experience at the Bar shall ordinarily be empanelled.” It was argued that the term “ordinarily” asserts that the regulation does not impose a rigid, inflexible mandate but rather allows for discretion. In addition, it was also argued that his internship experience period of 6 months before his bar enrolment should also be considered in computing the period of 3 years of legal practice experience. Accordingly, he prayed for empanelment of his name in the Jail Visiting Panel.
The court held that if the term “ordinarily” is given liberal interpretation as sought by the petitioner, it will lead to rewriting the regulation, transforming a discretionary exception into a blanket rule that nullifies the prerequisite of having three years of experience. Further, even the argument of consideration of the internship period as a legal practice period would blur the distinction between academic training and professional legal experience, thereby undermining the clear intent of the eligibility requirement. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Madhya Pradesh HC: Directs for Proper stocking of Malkhanas with updating of their status on the Weblink
In the bail application between Ansar Ahmad vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Vijay Nagar Police, Indore, have informed the HC that certain evidence kept at Malkhana (Evidence keeping room) in the police station was damaged by the Rats during the rainy reason. Terming this situation as “Pathetic”, the court observed that it is anybody’s guess as to what the situation of police stations in the smaller places would be since the police station in the present case is one of the busy police stations of Indore.
Accordingly, the court directed the Director General of Police to:
- Take stock of all the Malkhanas of all the police stations, so as to ensure that such incidents are avoided in future in other police stations.
- For this purpose, a web link can also be provided to all the police stations, updating the latest inventory and the status of Malkhana every month.
