In this edition of Court Judgements review, we look SC’s ruling that in cases of serious charges against accused, prosecution is all the more required to complete trial speedily, Lokpal refusing to investigate claims of corruption made during election speech as devoid of any material proof, SC decision that a Muslim women divorced with illegal triple talaq can claim maintenance under CrPC, among others.
Uttarakhand HC: Section 377 of IPC relating to Unnatural Sex does not operate against Section 375 of IPC relating to Sexual Intercourse in Marriage
In the case of Dr. Kriti Bhushan (Petitioner) vs. State of Uttarakhand (Respondent No. 1) & Anr (Respondent No. 2), the Uttarakhand High Court (HC) held that Section IPC 377, prescribing punishment for sex against the order of the nature, does not apply in the case of unnatural sexual intercourse by husband against wife, who are legally married.
The brief facts of the case were that Petitioner, Husband, and Respondent No. 2, Wife, were legally married in 2010, and have a child. The allegations against the husband were that after marriage, he had committed carnal intercourse with his wife, against the order of nature. These included forceful anal sex, physical assault, and others, as a result of which the wife sustained serious internal injuries. Within a month after marriage, the Husband left for Germany and was later joined by the wife. But, due to the continued sexual abuse, the wife returned to India in 2013. In 2015, the Husband was appointed to IIT, Roorkee. The sexual abuse in the form of unnatural sex continued by the Husband against the Wife. Further, to force the wife into unnatural sex, the Husband would show sexual content on the laptop to the child, expose his private parts to the child, and urinate in the room, among other things.
The police case was filed against the husband under sections 375 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the charges of rape and unnatural sex, along with sections 11 & 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (PoCSO) Act. Citing numerous judgments of the Supreme Court (SC) and other courts, the HC held that sections 377 and 375 operate independently. Though section 375 includes a wider definition of rape, it excludes sexual relationships between husband and wife, legally married. Accordingly, the husband was not held guilty. However, he was held guilty under the PoCSO Act for showing sexual content and exhibiting pertinent behaviour before the child.
SC: In cases of serious charges against accused, prosecution is all the more required to complete trial speedily
In the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal (Applicant) vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Respondent), the SC held that even when the charges laid against the Accused are serious, they are entitled even more to a speedy trial, which is traceable to the Fundamental Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
The brief facts of the case were that the Applicant, a Nepal citizen is accused of counterfeiting Indian currency in the Indo-Nepal border. He was arrested in 2015 under sections 498B and 498C of IPC for possessing and counterfeiting Indian currency and under section 16 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for ‘Economic Terrorism’. Since then, the Applicant has been in prison, while the trial is still ongoing without completion. In the course of the trial, the prosecution obtained sanction from the Governor of Uttar Pradesh (UP) to prosecute the Applicant under UAPA, along with IPC. Applicant’s bail application before the UP HC was rejected citing that the charges laid against him are serious and being a foreign national, he is likely to abscond.
Thus, the Applicant approached SC for bail. The SC noted that despite the Applicant being in prison for more than 9 years, the trial is not completed yet and that only two witnesses were examined. Further, the court also noted that the trial is not likely to be completed soon. Accordingly, it held that merely because the charges laid against the accused are serious, the prosecution cannot oppose the bail, when the trial is not completed for longer periods. Hence, bail was granted subject to certain conditions.
SC: Orders a payment of Rs. 2 crores as one time settlement of Maintenance, while granting Divorce
In the case of Kiran Jyot Maini (Appellant-wife) vs. Anish Pramod Patel (Respondent-Husband), the SC was dealing with questions of granting Divorce and settlement of one-time maintenance with the reason of non-cohabitation of Husband and Wife for 9 years.
The brief facts of the case were the Appellant-Wife and Respondent-Husband were married in 2015 and have a Child. Within a year of marriage, both of them started living separately. An FIR was filed against the Husband by Wife under Sections 323, 498A & 504 of IPC, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with the charges of Cruelty, Hurt and Dowry. Over time, both the parties have filed other cases against each other. Along with this, a petition was filed by the Wife before the Judicial Magistrate, seeking maintenance from the Husband. The court granted an amount of Rs. 35,000 as maintenance from Husband. This was challenged in the higher courts and eventually came before the SC.
The court noted that the parties have lived together for only a year and have been separated for 9 years. Therefore, as held in several verdicts of SC, the court granted a decree of Divorce to the couple, since the marriage was irrevocably broken with the multiple cases by parties against each other, and despite multiple reconciliation efforts made. On the question of maintenance, the court noted that both the Husband and Wife are well qualified economically, as the Husband draws a salary of about Rs. 8 lakhs per month and the Wife about Rs. 1,39,000 per month. As one settlement of maintenance, the Wife sought Rs. 5 crores, while the Husband agreed to pay Rs. 50 lakhs. The court held that while the demand made by the Wife is too high, the amount agreed to be paid by the Husband is too low. Hence, it ordered for one-time maintenance of Rs. 2 crores and disposed of the Appeals.
Lokpal: Refuses to Investigate Claims of Corruption made during Election Speech, as devoid of any material proof
In an anonymous complaint before it, the Lokpal refused to investigate the corruption claims made by the Prime Minister (PM) against the Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The brief facts were that during an election speech in Telangana, PM Modi said, “Rahul Gandhi had accused my government of the Rafale scam, and also favouring 5 industrialists, which eventually reduced to 2 industrialists. With the onset of elections, Rahul Gandhi is not talking about these two industrialists. Therefore, I ask Rahul Gandhi how many bags of black money were received from two industrialists”.
This speech complained against, seeking the investigation by Lokpal. The Lokpal held that the speech was more an election propaganda, devoid of any information and replete with unverifiable allegations. It is further held that it is unfathomable as to how a person who has accused another of corruption could be considered as accused. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed
SC: Muslim Women Divorced with illegal Triple Talaq can claim Maintenance under CrPC
In the case of Mohd. Abdul Samad (Husband) vs. State of Telangana & Anr (Wife), the SC dealt with the question of the right to maintenance available under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to the Muslim women divorced by Triple Talaq.
The brief facts of the case were that the Husband and Wife were married in 2012 under Muslim Personal Law. In 2016, the Wife left the Husband’s place and lodged an FIR against him under sections 498A and 406 of IPC. On 25 September 2017, Husband pronounced Triple Talaq, which was granted ex-parte by the office of Quzath on 28 September 2017. In the meantime, the SC in its judgment in 2017 held Triple Talaq as unconstitutional. The Husband sought to provide maintenance of Rs. 15,000 to the Wife during the Iddat Period. This was refused by the Wife, and she filed a petition for interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before the family court. The same court granted a maintenance amount Rs. 20,000 per month to the Wife, which on appeal was reduced to Rs. 10,000 per month by the Telangana HC by its order in 2023. This order of Telangana HC was contested by the Husband in SC with the claim that by operation of Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Divorce) Act (MWA), the maintenance can only be claimed until the Iddat period. Thus, the petition filed under CrPC does not prevail.
The SC held that in the catena of judgments passed by the same court earlier, the provisions of MWA have been held as supplementary to Section 125 of CrPC. Thus, the Right to Maintenance of Divorced Muslim Women, including those divorced under Triple Talaq, is not restricted only to the Iddat period but a lifetime, subject to her remarriage.
