Punjab & Haryana High Court Weekly Round Up : May 16 To May 22, 2022

Nominal Index Manish Singh @ Golu v. State of UT Chandigarh 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 103Raj Bala v. State of Haryana and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 104Mamta Versus State of Haryana, and connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 105RANI versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 106Harbans Kaur v. Joginder Pal [FAO-M-272 of 2017] 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 107Gurpreet Singh Versus State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 108Seema Rani Versus Anurag Verma and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 109Surjit Singh Dhaliwal Versus State of Punjab and another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 110 Judgment/orders of the week1.Ordinarily, Bail Shouldn't Be Granted To Accused If Court Is Of Prima Facie View That He Acted With Cruelty: Punjab & Haryana High CourtCase Title: Manish Singh @ Golu v. State of UT Chandigarh Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 103 Stressing that cruelty is one of the factors in deciding on bails, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that ordinarily, once the courts form a prima facie opinion that the accused acted with cruelty, then such an accused should not be granted bail.2.Child Adopted Post-Retirement Can't Be Denied Family Pension: Punjab & Haryana High Court Case Title: Raj Bala v. State of Haryana and Others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 104 Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an adoption post-retirement would not be a ground to deny the benefit of the family pension to a child. Merely because the adoption is post retirement which is mainly for the purpose of providing dependency and also some light in the evening of the life of the couple. The same would not as such be good enough to deny the said child the benefit of the family pension merely on account of the fact that the decision as such to adopt was taken at a belated stage.3.S.437 CrPC Does Not Give Absolute Right To Bail To A Lady Accused In Multiple FIRs For Duping ₹167 Crores: Punjab & Haryana High Court Case Title: Mamta Versus State of Haryana, and connected matter Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 105 Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a case where the petitioners conspired and duped several victims of an amount of Rs. 167 crores by alluring innocent persons on the pretext of providing them tenders with National Security Guards (NSG), Manesar, held that there are serious allegations of fraud and cheating against the petitioners, and no ground is made out to grant them the concession of regular bail.4. Jurisdiction Of Senior Citizens Maintenance Tribunal Can't Be Invoked When Complainant Woman Is Aged Below 58 Yrs: Punjab & Haryana High CourtCase Title: RANI versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ANR Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 106 Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a challenge to the order of the Additional District Magistrate passed in response to a maintenance petition filed by a woman claiming to be a senior citizen under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, held that the Maintenance Tribunal could not have invoked its jurisdiction for the reason that the age of the woman was less than 58 years on the relevant date i.e. the date of institution of the proceedings before such Tribunal.The bench comprising Justice Arun Monga quashed the impugned order and further held that in the premise, on that short ground alone, Tribunal could not have invoked the jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal under the Act because the respondent was not a senior citizen on the relevant date.5."Enough Mental Cruelty Caused To Husband": PH High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Granted In Favour Of Husband On Grounds Of Cruelty Case title: Harbans Kaur v. Joginder Pal [FAO-M-272 of 2017] Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 107 The Punjab and Haryana High Court noted that the Supreme Court had held that even one complaint lodged by the wife found to be false against the husband and his family members amounted to cruelty. Even if husband and wife are staying together and husband does not speak to the wife, it would cause mental cruelty and a spouse staying away by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial proceedings can make the life of other spouse miserable, the Court added.6.S.82 CrPC | 30 Days Period Between Actual Date Of Effecting Proclamation & Date Nominated For Appearance Is Mandatory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Case Title: Gurpreet Singh Versus State of Punjab Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 108 The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a clear period of 30 days starting from the date when a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is actually affected up to the date nominated for causing appearance is mandatory.7.Punjab & Haryana HC Orders State To Withhold Salary Of Home Secretary Until Payment Of Entire Pensionary Benefits To Widow Of A Class IV Employee Case Title: Seema Rani Versus...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Weekly Round Up : May 16 To May 22, 2022

Drishti Yadav

Tags