Skip to main content

NBWs should be issued after exhausting other options: Nagpur High Court

A court cannot issue non-bailable warrants (NBWs) against defaulters without first adopting other remedies available under law to recover arrears, the Bombay High Court has held while quashing a warrant issued against a man for failing to pay interim maintenance to his estranged wife.
The Nagpur bench of the high court was hearing a petition filed by Sachin Bodhale challenging an April 2 order by a magistrate court issuing non-bailable warrant against him fter he failed to pay the maintenance amount to his wife.
Sachin’s wife had lodged a complaint against him under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act. The magistrate had passed an interim order granting monetary relief.
Sachin’s lawyer Sudhir Moharir argued that the magistrate while issuing the non bailable warrant was of the view that under section 28 (2) of the DV Act, the court had
the power to adopt any procedure to ensure recovery of the maintenance amount.
Justice M L Tahaliyani was of the view that the there is provision under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) which states how the amount of maintenance is to be recovered.
“The Magistrate, in my opinion, could not have issued  non­bailable warrant directly. Under section 421 of CrPC, the magistrate was under obligation to first issue a warrant for levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property. If the amount was recovered by adopting this procedure then the question of putting the defaulter in prison does not arise,” Justice Tahaliyani said.
The court observed that in case the amount was not recovered, then the court could have imposed a sentence on the defaulter as per provision laid down in the CrPC.
“The stage of issuing a non-bailable warrant comes only after sentencing and not before that,” Justice Tahaliyani said while setting aside the magistrate’s order.

Article referred: http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/nbws-should-be-issued-after-exhausting-other-options-nagpur-high-court/

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even