JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH | Annual Report 2023

Mohammad Hamid Siddiqui v. Najibun Begum

Case Number: CRLMP No. 1232 of 2023

Date of Decision: 12th September, 2023

Family Courts have jurisdiction to entertain maintenance
applications under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

The Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order of the Judge, Family Court, Sonepur whereby he had rejected an objection filed by the petitioner as to the maintainability of an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. before the Family Court.

An interesting question of law arose before the High Court to adjudicate and answer as to whether a Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain applications filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance or such applications can exclusively be heard by Magistrates only.

An additional question which came for consideration before the Court is whether a Muslim wife can seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. even after she was given ‘dower’ or ‘Mahr’ within the ‘iddat period’.

The Court was of the considered opinion that a Muslim lady, even after her divorce, can opt to be governed by the Cr.P.C. and thus, can seek maintenance under Section 125 as it is a secular provision and more beneficial than that of the provisions under the personal law.

It was further clarified that Family Courts have jurisdiction to entertain applications for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order of the Judge, Family Court, Sonepur was rejected.

Raju Banjara & Ors. v. Bhikaru Gond

Case Number: RSA No. 228 of 2020
Date of Decision: 22nd September, 2023

“Law helps a vigilant, not an indolent”: the Court rejected to
condone delay of 2989 days in filing second appeal.

The appellants filed an application seeking condonation of delay of around 2989 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal. The original decree was passed on 22.02.2014 whereas the appeal was filed only on 31.12.2020, even though the prescribed limitation period for filing such appeal is only 90 days from the date of decree.

The appellants submitted that they obtained the certified copy of the decree and handed over the same to their lawyer for filing of the appeal. However, the lawyer did not care to file the same within the limitation period and due to such callous attitude of their lawyer, they are made to suffer.

The Court, at the outset, cited the Latin maxim Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt which means the law will not help those who sleep on their rights. It was of the view that though the Court is empowered to condone delays even after the expiry of statutory prescribed period but the same can only be done when the party satisfies the Court that he could not file the appeal due to ‘sufficient cause’.

In this case, the Court perused the case records and came to learn that the appellants have, in fact, applied for the certified copy of the decree only on 03.11.2020, which is much beyond the limitation period. The Court was taken aback by the conduct of the appellants in justifying the delay by putting the blame on their lawyer. While denying relief to the appellants, the Court observed as follows:

“It is trite that law helps a vigilant, not an indolent. In the instant case the Appellants have remained completely recalcitrant in espousing his cause and made up his mind one fine morning to agitate the same. The Appellants had absolutely no mind to file Appeal.”

Offence of rape being a crime against the society cannot
be compounded through mutual settlement.

Case Title: Samel Digal @ Saswat Ku. Digal & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Case Number: CRLMC No. 3580 of 2023
Date of Decision: 28th November, 2023

The petitioner filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire criminal proceeding pending against him under Sections 376(2)(n)(3)/313/323/506/34 of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The petitioner allegedly forced the prosecutrix, aged about 16 years, to have sexual intercourse with her repeatedly putting her under the threat that in case the matter is disclosed, he would kill her as well as her family members.

The victim became pregnant due to repeated sexual intercourse for which an FIR was registered against the petitioner. Later on, the petitioner got married to her. Upon the intervention of village gentries, the matter was said to amicably settled between the petitioner and the victim. An affidavit was filed to that respect. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

However, the Court was not convinced by such argument and made it clear that offence under Section 376 of the IPC being a sexual offence would fall in the category of heinous offences, which is to be treated against society and not against an individual. Therefore, it was held, criminal proceedings for offence under Section 376 of IPC cannot be quashed in a proceeding under Section 482, CrPC.

Samel Digal @ Saswat Ku. Digal & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr.

Case Number: CRLMC No. 379 of 2023
Date of Decision: 1st December, 2023

‘Domestic Incident Report’ is not mandatory before granting interim relief
to the applicant under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act.

The Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which sought to quash a criminal proceeding pending against the petitioners before the learned S.D.J.M., Angul.

The Opposite Party No. 2 had filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her in-laws, i.e. the petitioners, accusing them of demanding dowry and causing mental as well as physical harassment to her for such purpose.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the application filed by the lady is not maintainable on the ground that no Domestic Incident Report (DIR) had been obtained from the Protection Officer and in absence thereof, no relief under Section 12 can be granted. On the other hand, the counsel for the State vehemently opposed the above argument raised by the petitioners.

The moot question which arose before the Court for consideration was whether trial Courts are empowered to grant interim relief to applicants even if no DIR is received from Protection Officers.

The Court, after relying upon the decisions of the High Courts of Bombay and Jammu & Kashmir, came to hold that as per the mandate under Section 12(1) of the Act, the Courts are required to take into consideration the DIRs, wherever it is available, before granting interim relief. However, the Court made it clear that DIR is not mandatory and hence, not a prerequisite for grant of interim relief.

Sk. Sadab Kadir & Ors. v. Saher Saniya

Case Number: CRLMC No. 379 of 2023

Date of Decision: 1st December, 2023