Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 10 To July 16

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 316 - 330]XXX v. YYY & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 316State of Kerala v. Arumugham and connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 317Abdul Jabbar v. Khadeeja Beevi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 318Smrithy George v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 319K. Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 320Arun A. v. Marriage Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 321M. Sivasankar v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 322Mathrubhumi Printing & Publishing Co. & Ors. v. Station House Officer & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 323Adv. Mohammed Salih P.M. v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 324Suo Motu v. Nipun Cherian 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 325Jayaprakash v. State of Kerala & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 326Varghese Vijesh v. State of Kerala & connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 327Paulose v. Baiju & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 328Amal E & Anr v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 329Rebeka Mathai v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 330X v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 331Judgments/Orders This WeekPrima Facie Evidence Of Long Cohabitation: Kerala High Court Says Refusing Alleged Father's DNA Test May Brand Child As 'Bastard', Mother 'Immoral'Case Title: XXX v. YYY & Anr. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 316The Kerala High Court held that where there is prima facie evidence indicating long cohabitation between a man and a woman, a plea seeking direction to the man to subject himself to DNA Test for determining their alleged child's paternity cannot be brushed aside. "If an order of the nature is declined that would have the impact of bastardizing the minor girl child among the public. Undoubtedly that would caste a social stigma upon the child as well as the mother respectively as ‘bastard’ and ‘immoral’," the Single Judge Bench of Justice Mary Joseph observed.S.361 IPC | Minor's Consent Immaterial, Guardian's Consent Determining Factor In Kidnapping Cases: Kerala High Court ReiteratesCase Title: State of Kerala v. Arumugham and connected matters Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 317The Kerala High Court reiterated that a minor's consent is irrelevant for the offence of kidnapping under Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and that it is the guardian's consent that determines whether the act falls within its scope. Justice K Babu added that the use of force or fraud is not necessary; even persuasion by the accused that leads to the minor willingly leaving the legal guardian's custody is sufficient to invoke the section. If the minor is moved out of the guardian's custody with their consent, without any fraud, force, or deceit, it still constitutes an offence under Section 361.'Gift' Under Mohammedan Law Not Valid In Absence Of Delivery Of Possession To Donee: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Abdul Jabbar v. Khadeeja Beevi & Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 318The Kerala High Court declared as invalid a gift deed under Mohammedan law where the donee was only allowed to enjoy half a cent from a total of 3 cents of the schedule property, and there was no positive assertion by the donor that possession of the rest of the property is handed over to the donee. Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed: "...on a conjoint reading of the whole of the recitals in Ext.A1 (gift deed) does not enable to find or infer that possession of 2½ cents of property was delivered over to the appellant. Such a recital is totally lacking in Ext.A1, whereas, there is a positive assertion that the donor would continue to enjoy the property. From the above the possible deduction is that, the donor did not intend to hand over the possession of 2½ cents of property to the donee immediately".Section 294 CrPC Intended To Expedite Trials, Avoid Delay Caused By Recording Irrelevant Evidence: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Smrithy George v. State of Kerala & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 319The Kerala High Court observed that the object of Section 294 of CrPC was to expedite trials and avoid unnecessary delay by recording irrelevant evidence. Section 294 provides that no formal proof is required for certain documents filed before any court. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V also added that endorsement of admission or denial of such document by the defence counsel or the Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, is sufficient for compliance with Section 294."The object of Section 294 of the Code is to accelerate the pace of the trial by avoiding the time being wasted by the parties in recording unnecessary evidence. Where the genuineness of any document is admitted or its formal proof is dispensed with, the same may be read in evidence. It is not necessary for the court to obtain admission or denial on a document under sub-section (1) to Section 294 of the Code personally from the accused or complainant or the witness. The endorsement of admission or denial made by the counsel for defence on the document filed by the prosecution or on the application/report with which the same is filed is sufficient...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 10 To July 16

Navya Benny

Tags