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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more