150 Important Rulings Of Bombay High Court In 2023: Part II

1. Message Has The Tendency To Play With Emotions Of Different Groups: Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Kashmiri Professor Booked For WhatsApp Status Calling Abrogation Of Article 370 "Black Day For J&K" Case Title: Javed Ahmed Hajam v. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 195 The Bombay High Court refused to quash an FIR against a young Kashmiri professor booked for his WhatsApp status terming the abrogation of Article 370 a “black day” for Jammu and Kashmir. A division bench comprising Justices Sunil Shukre and MM Sathaye observed that the status was posted “without giving any reason and without making any critical analysis of the step taken by the Central Government towards abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution.” Therefore prima-facie the professor had committed an offence punishable under Section 153A of the IPC (promotion of enmity between two groups), the bench observed. 2. After 9 Yrs Bombay High Court Discontinues Monitoring Anti-Superstition Crusader Narendra Dabholkar's Murder Probe; Kin Say Masterminds Yet To Be Nabbed Case Title: Mukta Dabholkar & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 201 The Bombay High Court refused to continue monitoring the murder probe of anti-superstition crusader Narendra Dabholkar, who was shot dead for ideological reasons on his morning walk in 2013. The division bench of Justices Ajay S Gadkari and Prakash Naik disposing of two petitions, one filed by Dabholkar's kin for court monitored probe observing that the investigation is complete. 3. Widow Not Liable To Maintain In-Laws Under Section 125 CrPC: Bombay High Court Case Title: Shobha w/o Sanjay Tidke v. Kishanrao S/o. Ramrao Tidke and Anr. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 202 The Bombay High Court held that parents-in-law are not entitled to maintenance from their widowed daughter-in-law under section 125 of CrPC. Justice Kishore C Sant sitting at Aurangabad noted that the list of relatives entitled to claim maintenance under the section is exhaustive and does not include father-in-law and mother-in-law. 4. Indian Court Can Entertain Complaint Against Domestic Violence Committed Abroad: Bombay High Court Case Title: S v. H Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 207 The Bombay High Court held that judicial magistrate in India can take cognizance of domestic violence committed in foreign soil under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). Justice GA Sanap of the Nagpur bench observed that the Act is a social beneficial legislation and the lawmakers worded section 27 of the Act keeping in mind possible domestic violence outside India. 5. Maharashtra Panchayat Act | Collector Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine If Election Candidate Disqualified Due To False Caste Claim: High Court Case Title: Archana W/o. Ananda Shembalwad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 214 The Bombay High Court held that the Collector has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether an electoral candidate is disqualified from Panchayat membership due to submission of false caste certificate under the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958. Justice Arun R Pedneker of the Aurangabad bench, while dismissing a woman's writ petition challenging her disqualification from Panchayat membership due to false caste certificate, held – “Disqualification of a membership is determined under section 16 by the Collector and not by an election petition under section 15. The Collector under section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the issue of submission of a false claim or a false caste certificate at the time of nomination or non submission of caste validity certificate within the period contemplated in section 10-1A of the Village Panchayat Act.” 6. "Considerable Inflow Of Public Income To Deity": Bombay High Court Dismisses Pleas Claiming Jagdamba Tuljapurchi Temple Is 'Private Temple' Case Title: Vijay Arjun Bhagat v. Kisan Lahanu Bhagat (deceased) and Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 216 The Bombay High Court declared that the Jagdamba Tuljapurchi Devi Temple in Burhannagar of Ahmednagar District is a place of public religious worship as historically the public has had free access to it. Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh of Aurangabad bench dismissed three writ petitions by the heirs of the original trustee of the Temple claiming it is a private temple and seeking de-registration of the temple trust. The court noted that there was a substantial flow of public money to Palkhi and there is no mention of any other source of income for the Bhagats' ancestors apart from the offerings made to the temple and the Palkhi. This strongly indicates that the temple was constructed out of public funds, the court said. The...

150 Important Rulings Of Bombay High Court In 2023: Part II

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags