Whether Adultery Judgment passed by Supreme Court will operate retrospectively?
Hon'ble Apex Court in Maj. Genl. A.S Gauraya v. S.N Thakur (supra) has held that law laid down by the Supreme Court applies to all pending proceedings even with retrospective effect.
8. There is no dispute about the decision of the Supreme Court in the above cited decisions. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court holding Section 497 of Indian Penal Code is not an offence, the punishment awarded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhiwapur in Summary Criminal Case No. 41/2010 is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, following order.
In the High Court of Bombay
(Before M.G Giratkar, J.)
Rupesh Haribhau Mundle, v. Shri Charandas Fulchand Chandanbawane
Criminal Revision Application No. 2 of 2018
Decided on December 14, 2018
Read full judgment here: Click here
2) Supreme Court Judgment upholding sexual autonomy of married woman(Adultery Judgment)
In view of the aforesaid discussion, and the anomalies in Section 497, as enumerated in para 11 above, it is declared that :
(i) Section 497 is struck down as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
(ii) Section 198(2) of the Cr.P.C. which contains the procedure for prosecution under Chapter XX of the I.P.C. shall be unconstitutional only to the extent that it is applicable to the offence of Adultery under Section 497.
(iii) The decisions in Sowmithri Vishnu (supra), V.
Rewathi (supra) and W. Kalyani (supra) hereby stand overruled.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 194 of 2017 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Decided On: 27.09.2018
Joseph Shine Vs. Union of India (UOI)
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dipak Misra, C.J.I., A.M. Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra, Rohinton Fali Nariman and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
Read full judgment here: Click here
S 6 of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 referred to bench of three judges of Supreme Court
The High Court has granted certificate of fitness to appeal
under Articles 133(1)(a) and 134A of the Constitution of India
having regard to the fact that there are conflicting decisions of
this Court in “Prakash V. Phulavati” (2016) 2 SCC 36, “Danamma @
Suman Surpur Vs. Amar” (2018) 3 SCC 343 and “Mangammal Vs. T.B.
Raju” (2018) SCC online SC 422 on the issue involved in this
petition. Since the matter is to be heard by the Larger Bench i.e.
three Judge Bench and this Bench is comprising of three Judges, we
can hear the matter finally.
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL Diary No(s). 32601/2018
VINEETA SHARMA Vs RAKESH SHARMA
Date : 27-11-2018
This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
under Articles 133(1)(a) and 134A of the Constitution of India
having regard to the fact that there are conflicting decisions of
this Court in “Prakash V. Phulavati” (2016) 2 SCC 36, “Danamma @
Suman Surpur Vs. Amar” (2018) 3 SCC 343 and “Mangammal Vs. T.B.
Raju” (2018) SCC online SC 422 on the issue involved in this
petition. Since the matter is to be heard by the Larger Bench i.e.
three Judge Bench and this Bench is comprising of three Judges, we
can hear the matter finally.
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL Diary No(s). 32601/2018
VINEETA SHARMA Vs RAKESH SHARMA
Date : 27-11-2018
This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Read full judgment here: Click here
No comments:
Post a Comment