Court, Stories, Supreme Court
 

Review: SC Rules that All Essential Ingredients Must be Proved to Establish Dowry Death

0

In this edition of Court Judgements review, we look at the Supreme Court’s judgement that to establish dowry death, all the essential ingredients must be proved, Kerala HC’s order that an employee cannot bequeath his family pension in favour of another, other than the one who is entitled to it, Bombay HC’s order that directed the State to seriously consider issuing directions for auto-fixation of decibel limit of sound emitting gadgets used in religious places, among others.

Kerala HC: An employee cannot bequeath his family pension in favour of another, other than the one who is entitled to it

In Union of India & Ors (Petitioners) vs. S. Sathikumari Amma & Ors (Respondents), the Kerala High Court (HC) held that an employee cannot prevent eligible family members from receiving the family pension.

The facts of the case were that the late Gopalakrishna Pillai, Husband of Respondent-wife, was a retired employee with the postal department. While he was alive, he filed an application to the government to remove the names of his wife and daughter as eligible people from getting family pension after his lifetime, with the claim that he had divorced his wife in the year 1991. After his death, his wife and daughter claimed his family pension and petitioned before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to receive the same. The CAT ordered in favour of the wife and daughter, directing for issue of family pension to them. The petitioners approached HC against this order.

The HC held that as already noted in numerous judicial pronouncements, the family pension is not an estate or property of the employee. A representation made by an employee, claiming that his legally wedded wife or other dependants are not entitled to claim the family pension, is not sustainable in law. Unlike Provident Fund, gratuity, etc. family pension is not a matter of testamentary deposition of an employee during his lifetime. Rather, it is the legal entitlement of dependants of the employee. It is also not a debt or security, and hence the executive authorities cannot insist on the production of a succession certificate for the grant of a family pension. Accordingly, the HC upheld the order of CAT and dismissed the appeal of the petitioners.

SC: To establish dowry death, all the essential ingredients must be proved

In Karan Singh (Appellant) vs. State of Haryana (Respondent), the Supreme Court (SC) held that to establish dowry death, all the essential ingredients of section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) must be proved by the prosecution.

The facts of the case were that the Appellant was convicted by the trial court under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for causing cruelty and dowry death of his wife, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The conviction was also upheld by the HC, which is now in appeal in the SC.

The prosecution relied on testimonies from the deceased wife’s mother (PW-6) and brother (PW-7), who alleged dowry demands, including cash for a jeep, a motorcycle, and household items, by the husband. However, the appellant highlighted significant omissions and contradictions in their statements, recorded at different stages of the investigation. For example, missing critical allegations from initial police statements, which appeared only in later testimonies, etc. As per the appellant, such things are suggestive of afterthoughts rather than evidence required to establish the alleged offences.

The SC held that for a conviction under Section 304-B, the prosecution must prove that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death, directly linked to dowry demands. In this case, such evidence was insufficient. Additionally, vague allegations without specific instances of cruelty failed to meet the threshold for causing cruelty under Section 498-A.

Accordingly, the SC acquitted the Appellant by noting that the prosecution did not establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. It also noted that despite repeated instructions given on the required ingredients for conviction of dowry death, the trial courts are committing the same mistakes repeatedly. Therefore, it is for the State Judicial Academies to step in these matters.

SC: Directs for filing of affidavits on steps taken to stop manual scavenging in 6 metropolitan cities

In its order in Dr. Balam Singh vs. Union of India & Ors, the SC was informed that out of the 775 districts in India, 465 districts have no manual scavenging and manual sewer carried out. Based on its earlier 20 October 2023 order, whereby it directed the states to eradicate manual scavenging in a phased manner, the SC took note that modern scientific machinery and tools are available for scavenging and sewer cleaning. Hence, active human participation in the same should not be required. Therefore, it directed for filing of affidavits by chief executive officers of 6 metropolitan cities viz. Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, and Hyderabad, explaining how and when manual scavenging and manual sewer cleaning was stopped in their metropolitan cities.  

Kerala HC: Marriages performed in foreign countries can be registered in India through Foreign Marriage Act

The facts of the case in Vipin P G (Petitioner) & Anr vs. State of Kerala & Ors (Respondents), were that Petitioner, Husband, married an Indonesian citizen in the same country. After marriage, they started living in Thrissur, Kerala and sought to register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act (SMA) in India. The government refused it, and hence they approached HC.

The HC held that the refusal of the government to register the marriage under the SMA is justified since it does not deal with cases such as that of the petitioner’s. However, the court held that the registration of such marriages is facilitated by the Foreign Marriages Act (FMA), even through the online mode. Accordingly, the court directed the petitioner to submit an online application to the marriage officer appointed under FMA for the registration of their marriage.

Bombay HC: Directs the State to seriously consider issuing directions for auto-fixation of decibel limit of sound emitting gadgets used in religious places

In the Jaago Nehru Nagar Residents Welfare Association & Ors (Petitioners) vs. The Commissioner of Police & Ors (Respondents), the Bombay HC held that police and statutory authorities are bound to take action against the use of loudspeakers, in violation of Noise Pollution Rules (NP Rules) and other laws.

The facts of the case were that petitioners sought the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing police authorities to register FIRs against individuals using loudspeakers without permission, violating the NP Rules. The petitioners claimed persistent noise pollution from mosques in Kurla East, Mumbai, especially during early mornings and late nights, was disturbing residential peace and violating silent zone restrictions near hospitals and schools. Such use of loudspeakers without proper permission was illegal, and police inaction violated their fundamental right to life under Article 21. They highlighted that loudspeakers were used five times daily, with sound levels exceeding permissible decibel limits, especially during prohibited hours. Religious freedom does not justify the violation of environmental laws and public peace. Despite numerous complaints made to the police, including through social media and RTI applications, authorities failed to act, citing the religious sensitivity of the issue.

The police authorities claimed that corrective measures were taken, including meetings with mosque representatives, asking for regulation of decibel levels, and then the permission was granted under strict conditions. The complaints received were addressed through legal procedures, periodic sound checks, and coordination with the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB), which had filed cases against violators.

The HC held that no religion permits practices that disturb public tranquillity, affirming that freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 is subject to public order, morality, and health. The religious rights do not extend to causing noise pollution, infringing others’ right to a peaceful environment under Article 21. Accordingly, it directed that police are bound to take action against the offenders in accordance with NP Rules read with the Environment Protection Act, and other applicable laws. It also directed the state government to seriously consider issuing directions for auto-fixation of the decibel limit of sound-emitting gadgets used in religious places.

Share.

About Author

Comments are closed.

scroll