Jyoti Yadav vs. Neeraj Yadav (Delhi High Court, MAT - APP. (F.C.) 111/2019) (21/03/2022)

Jyoti Yadav Vs. Neeraj Yadav (Delhi High Court, MAT.APP.
(F.C.) 111/2019) (21/03/2022)
Introduction
A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice Dinesh
Kumar Sharma on Monday in an Appeal filed against the order of the Family Court in
relation to a relief for Divorce under the ground of Cruelty by the Husband has observed that
“The marriage is solemn relation and it’s purity must be maintained for a healthy society.”
The observation was made by the Hon’ble Chief Justice in the context, the learned Chief
Justice found no reason to set aside the judgement of the Family Court wherein no evidence
was placed by the Appellant to substantiate her claim.
Background
 The Appellant/wife and the Respondent/husband were married in the year 2014,
post which the relations among the both turned sour and the Appellant filed Police
Compliants against the Repsondent and her Father-in-Law and FIRs were registered
against them for Cruelty.
 The case of the Respondent was that the Appellant had an extremely strange attitude
towards her inlaws and the Respondent in order to lighten things along with the
Appellant moved to rented accomodation along with the Respondent away from the in
laws. However, the Respondent did not see any change in the attitude of the Appellant
towards her inlaws. Further, the Appellant has been Mala Fidely levying allegations
of sexual harrasment against her inlaws. Further the same were withdrawn by the
Appellant in the written submissions made to Inquiry Officer ( IO ) on 25.06.2016
 The case of the Appellant was that the Respondent had inflicted cruelty on her and
had made several demands for dowry and in some instances the father in law had even
sexually assaulted her.
Synopsis
 The Family Court found that the Appellant had even published an Article in the
Dainik Jagran, wherein the Appellant had levied an allegation of sexual assault over
the father in law, which the Appellant during the course of proceedings before the
trial court, but failed to produce any evidence to back the same.
 The Family Court inter alia observed that the allegations made by the appellant
regarding extra marital affairs, were unfounded and had resulted in causing mental
cruelty upon the respondent.
 The plea of the Appellant during the Appeal before the Delhi High Court was that the
Trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence presented before it and had
wrongfully acquitted the Respondent and the Father in Law. To this, the Respondents
contended that the Family Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and has
passed a reasoned judgment on the basis of material on record.
 The Delhi High Court observed that the Appellant claims were completely unfounded
and the Appellant had placed no evidence on record to establish that either sexual
assault by the father in law nor extra marital affair by the Respondent. The Court
observed that “accusations of unchastity or extra marital relationship is a grave
assault on character, status, reputation as well as health of the spouse against whom
such allegations were made. It causes mental pain, agony suffering and tantamount to
cruelty. The allegations of extra marital affairs in relationship are serious
allegations, which have to be made with all seriousness. The tendency of making false
allegations has to be deprecated by the Courts.”
Directions
The Court found that the appellant has made serious allegations, but the same were not
substantiated during the trial. The appellant also filed a serious complaint against the father of
the husband, which also resulted in acquittal. In this regard the Delhi High Court did not
interfere with the order passed by the Family Court.
Koteshwari Orungati Vs. State of NCT Delhi (Delhi High Court,

W.P.(CRL) 570/2022) (22/03/2022)
Introduction
A Single Bench comprising Justice Asha Menon of the Delhi High Court ruled that that mere
recovery with no other suspicious circumstances, would not suffice to bring home any charge
against the alleged offender and that as a single cartridge, without any fire arm, it would be a
minor ammunition, which is protected under clause (d) of Section 45 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Background
The Petitioner was a Resident of USA and was on her way to Andhra Pradesh. However, the
security of the IGI Airport, New Delhi raised an alarm when it found a single cartridge in the
baggage of the Petitioner. The case of the Petitioner was that just a single cartridge was found
without any fire arm and hence is not guilty under section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the
FIR be quashed.
Synopsis
 The plea of the prosecution was that the petitioner had no valid documents nor a
licenced weapon, justifying the carrying of such a live ammunition.
 The plea of the Petitioner was that where there was no “conscious possession”, the
courts have been quashing the FIRs and in support of their contentions relied on
Davinder Singh Dhindsa v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7895.
Further in the case of Chan Hong Saik Thr. Spa: Arvinder Singh v. State, 2012 SCC
OnLine Del 3320; wherein it was observed that “Single live cartridge cannot be used
for any threat purpose without fire arms. Value of the same in the market is also not
attractive. It cannot be used for any third purpose. If the intention of the petitioner
was not of either of the purpose mentioned above, then he cannot be held guilty”.
 In this, regard the Delhi High Court found no Mala Fide intention on the Petitioner
and also found that the instant case is confined to a Single Catridge without presence
of a Fire Arm. In that regard, the Court quashed the FIR registered.
Directions
The Delhi High Court ordered quashing of the FIR filed and all proceedings so emanated
against the Petitioner.

Jyoti Yadav vs. Neeraj Yadav (Delhi High Court, MAT - APP. (F.C.) 111/2019) (21/03/2022)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jyoti Yadav vs. Neeraj Yadav (Delhi High Court, MAT - APP. (F.C.) 111/2019) (21/03/2022)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jyoti Yadav vs. Neeraj Yadav (Delhi High Court, MAT - APP. (F.C.) 111/2019) (21/03/2022)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jyoti Yadav Vs. Neeraj Yadav (Delhi High Court, MAT.APP.

(F.C.) 111/2019) (21/03/2022)

Koteshwari Orungati Vs. State of NCT Delhi (Delhi High Court,

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.