Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 4 To September 10, 2023

Nominal Index: Abdul Rehman And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 340Shrenika And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (kar) 341XYZ And ABC. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 342Usman Makandar alias Usmanshah And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 343NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY AND MUGIL ANBU VASANTHA & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 344T Ramesh Babu And The Inquiry Authority & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 345XYZ & ANR AND NIL. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 346Chikkanna And Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 347Mrs Saraswathi S P And The Commissioner & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 348Umapathi S AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 349United Spirits Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 350Judgments/OrdersCan't Let Convict's "Societal Roots" Dry Up During Imprisonment: Karnataka High Court Releases Man On Furlough To Attend Daughter's Nikah Case Title: Abdul Rehman And State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 18712 OF 2023Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 340Observing that “ordinarily every Muslim Marriage involves certain rituals that are done with the participation of the parents,” the Karnataka High Court granted furlogh leave to a convict Abdul Rehman, to attend his daughters nikah which was scheduled yesterday.Bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit remarked that although sporadically, a convict has to keep in contact with the civil society so that his societal roots do not dry up when he languishes in the jail;. "Otherwise, when he returns from the prison after completing the term of sentence, he may be a total stranger and life may prove hard to him; this is not a happy thing to happen in a Welfare State.”DV Act | Daughters Entitled To Maintenance Only Till They Attain Majority, Not Till Marriage: Karnataka High Court Case Title: XYZ And ABCCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 342Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.795 OF 2015 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1031 OF 2015The Karnataka High Court has clarified that under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a father is to pay maintenance amount to his daughters only till they attain majority and maintenance cannot be ordered to be paid till their marriage.Justice Rajendra Badamikar added that upon attaining majority if the daughters are not able to maintain themselves, they can seek maintenance under provisions of the Hindu Adoption Act. “In the instant case, admittedly, the major daughters are not parties and they have not sought any maintenance independently. They have got remedy under the provisions of Hindu Adoption Act to seek the maintenance on attaining majority in case they are unable to maintain themselves. Hence, under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, question of awarding maintenance till marriage of the daughters does not arise at all and the maintenance can be granted till the attainment of age of majority by the child.”Preventive Detention Can Be Quashed If Authority Fails To Provide Documents Relied Upon In Language Known To Detenu: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Shrenika And State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 201957/2023Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (kar) 341The Karnataka High Court has quashed a detention order passed under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act 1985 (Goonda Act) on the ground that authorities failed to provide to detenu, the documents relied on by them, in a language known to the detenue.A Division bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice Rajesh Rai K sitting at Kalaburagi thus ordered immediate release of Huchappa @ Dhanaraj Kalebag. It said, “It is an admitted fact that the detenue has studied upto 3rd standard and does not know English language, as such it is the bounden duty of the detaining authority to provide the translated copies of those documents. Nevertheless, the law contemplates that in order to give an effective representation to the Government and before the Advisory Board, such an opportunity has to be provided to the detenue by the detaining authority. In the case on hand, even the detaining authority has failed to make known the grounds of detention to the detenue within the specified period of 21 days as contemplated under Section 3(3) of the Goonda Act.”Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint Alleging Grave Offences U/S 354A IPC Fatal To Prosecution: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Usman Makandar alias Usmanshah And State of Karnataka. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 343Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100989 OF 2020The Karnataka High Court has quashed a prosecution initiated by a woman alleging offences under Section 354A of IPC (sexual harassment) for having filed the complaint three years after the alleged incident took place.Justice M Nagaprasanna sitting at Dharwad allowed the petition and quashed the prosecution under sections 354A, 354B & 504 of the Indian Penal Code observing that the delay in registering the crime in the peculiar facts of this case was...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 4 To September 10, 2023

Mustafa Plumber

Tags