AFTER SC LATEST RULLING ON ARREST IN 498A...SOME WHAT RELIEF TO OLD PARENTS

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140704/jsp/bihar/story_18578504.jsp#.U9pLi2ZX5cs to

Relief follows 498A ruling


RAMASHANKARThe Supreme Court ruling on imposing Section 498A without investigation has come as a great relief for many a husband and even senior citizens.The relatives of Awadhesh Pathak, a retired schoolteacher, felt elated after coming to know about the Supreme Court guidelines on Wednesday. Pathak, 67, was arrested and lodged in the Barh sub-divisional jail about three months ago after his daughter-in-law Ragini (27) accused him along with seven other members of the family of harassing her for dowry.The apex court’s ruling has restrained the police from mechanically arresting the accused merely on the basis of lodging of complaints under Section 498A (harassing women for dowry) of the IPC.Pathak’s relatives have been running from pillar to post to secure bail for the retired teacher and his 62-year-old wife Sunita Devi. The couple, originally hailing from Mahua in Vaishali district, had settled in Patna after their son Manoj Kumar, a software engineer, got a job in a telecommunication company. Manoj was married to Rajini, daughter of an engineer of Barh, about three years ago.Ragini lodged a complaint with the Barh police station accusing her husband, in-laws, their two married daughters and their husbands. The police conducted a raid at their rented accommodation at Rajeev Nagar in April this year and took Pathak and his wife into custody. The couple were booked under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.Pathak’s daughter Anamika, whose name also figured in the FIR, said she and her husband had nothing to do with the case but they have been accused of harassing Ragini for more dowry. “We don’t stay in Patna and have not visited my parents’ house after my brother’s wedding. How can we torture her?” she said.Pathak’s bail petition was rejected from the sub-divisional court and is pending with the high court. “Now it’s our turn to seek bail. Our anticipatory bail has already been rejected,” she said.Pathak’s son, Manoj had to lose job as he was behind bars for six months.The story of Shivaji Pandey, a retired engineer of the irrigation department, is more pathetic. Pandey, a resident of Ashiana Nagar, was recently arrested with his wife by a Delhi police team. The couple were charged with harassing their daughter-in-law, Meenaxi. She lodged a complaint against her husband Vivek and other relatives under Section 498A of the IPC.The couple had to spend about two weeks in a high security jail in Delhi despite the fact that their daughter-in-law had hardly stayed with them in Patna. “Vivek, a software engineer, is working with a telecommunication company in US. He used to send money from there. Yet he has been made accused in the case,” a close relative of Pandey said.The relative, who requested anonymity, said the couple would hardly forget the humiliation they had to face in the court.The complainant’s relative is an IPS officer, who allegedly used his influence to get the couple arrested at the earliest. The marriage of Meenaxi was solemnised in 2006.The family members of Sudarshan Mahto, who too are facing dowry charges, are all praise for the Supreme Court for issuing new guidelines. “We hope that the court would grant bail to us in the wake of the recent directive of the apex court. A complaint has been lodged against Mahto, an employee of a nationalised bank, with the Bihta police station,” he added.Share on emailShare on printShare on facebookShare on twitterMore Sharing Services

NEW SISTER COURT OF LOWER COURT WILL JOLT YOU-MIND IT

One side Apex court gives relief to the untouched harrasments coming through decades and at other side the NCW is on the verge of giving a jolt to the indian males.The power of attorney to harrass the innocents will be continued through the vested powers of court to NCW as this commission would send summons and warrants directly to any accused just like a lower courts do.This much awaited drafting of women empowerment will begin soon if every thing goes on right track.The corruption level of india is rooted by the lowest court of India and now one more sister court is going to be release soon....Lets cross our fingers and pray for the acche din of women as well as innocent males who may not become the salt of the taste for these new brand of indian court.

Below is the rolling stories from publications about the above news: NCW to get civil court status | The Indian Express indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/ncw-to-get-civil-court-status/Jun 25, 2014 - “We are working on the amendments to the NCW Act to extend its ... The commission will be deemed to be a civil court with powers to issue ... powers to
NCW through - NCW::Reviews of Laws relating to Women ncw.nic.in/frmReportLaws21.aspxThe Central Government may, by rules, make provision for the terms and ... under this Act,have all the powers of a Civil court trying a suit under the code of Civil ... The Family Courts Act,1984 - NCW::Reviews of Laws relating to ... ncw.nic.in/frmReportLaws30.aspxWhen exercising jurisdiction under, sub-section 1), the Family Court shall have all the powers of an ordinary civil court of unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction.[PDF] THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR WOMEN ACT, 1990 NO. 20 OF ... www.ncw.nic.in/PDFFiles/ncwact.pdfstanding who have had experience in law or legislation, trade unionism, management of .... sub-section (I), have all the powers of a civil court trying a suit and, ... National Commission for Women proposed to acquire status of Civil ... www.livelaw.in/national-commission-women-proposed-acquire-status-civil-...6 days ago - The Commission will be elevated to the status of a civil court, with its ... Regular meetings will be conducted and it will have the powers to initiate ...

The National Commission for Women (NCW) was constituted on 31st January, ... NCW set to be elevated to the status of civil court - YouTube ► 1:05► 1:05www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAyZ2Al_i8gJun 25, 2014 - Uploaded by newsxliveNCW set to be elevated to the status of civil court ... commission will havethe status of a ... NCW's demand for judicial powers is fundamentally flawed and ... www.merinews.com/article/ncws-demand...powers-is.../15898732.shtml7 days ago - If the NCW's logic of conferring it with powers of a court to hear ... will also be fully justified in demanding civil court powers to their welfare bodies. ... in any case would never stand a chance to get any justice from a court, ...

The Supreme Court of India explains the meaning of Anticipatory Bail

The Supreme Court of India explains the meaning of Anticipatory Bail and lays the conditions for granting it. Here are the 9 guidelines as laid down by a constitution bench, which the Courts are required to keep in mind while dealing with an application for grant of anticipatory bail: i) Though the power conferred under Section 438 of the Code can be described as of an extraordinary character, but this does not justify the conclusion that the power must be exercised in exceptional cases only because it is of an extraordinary character. Nonetheless, the discretion under the Section has to be exercised with due care and circumspection depending on circumstances justifying its exercise. ii) Before power under sub-section (1) of Section 438 of the Code is exercised, the Court must be satisfied that the applicant invoking the provision has reason to believe that he is likely to be arrested for a non-bailable offence and that belief must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere “fear” is not belief, for which reason, it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of vague apprehension that some one is going to make an accusation against him, in pursuance of which he may be arrested. The grounds on which the belief of the applicant is based that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence, must be capable of being examined by the Court objectively. Specific events and facts must be disclosed by the applicant in order to enable the Court to judge of the reasonableness of his belief, the existence of which is the sine qua non of the exercise of power conferred by the Section. iii) The observations made in Balchand Jain’s case (supra), regarding the nature of the power conferred by Section 438 and regarding the question whether the conditions mentioned in Section 437 should be read into Section 438 cannot be treated as conclusive on the point. There is no warrant for reading into Section 438, the conditions subject to which bail can be granted under Section 437(1) of the Code and therefore, anticipatory bail cannot be refused in respect of offences like criminal breach of trust for the mere reason that the punishment provided for is imprisonment for life. Circumstances may broadly justify the grant of bail in such cases too, though of course, the Court is free to refuse anticipatory bail in any case if there is material before it justifying such refusal. iv) No blanket order of bail should be passed and the Court which grants anticipatory bail must take care to specify the offence or the offences in respect of which alone the order will be effective. While granting relief under Section 438(1) of the Code, appropriate conditions can be imposed under Section 438(2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. One such condition can even be that in the event of the police making out a case of a likely discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the recovery. Otherwise, such an order can become a charter of lawlessness and a weapon to stifle prompt investigation into offences which could not possibly be predicated when the order was passed. v) The filing of First Information Report (FIR) is not a condition precedent to the exercise of power under Section 438. The imminence of a likely arrest founded on a reasonable belief can be shown to exist even if an FIR is not yet filed. vi) An anticipatory bail can be granted even after an FIR is filed so long as the applicant has not been arrested. vii) The provisions of Section 438 cannot be invoked after the arrest of the accused. After arrest, the accused must seek his remedy under Section 437 or Section 439 of the Code, if he wants to be released on bail in respect of the offence or offences for which he is arrested. viii) An interim bail order can be passed under Section 438 of the Code without notice to the Public Prosecutor but notice should be issued to the Public Prosecutor or to the Government advocate forthwith and the question of bail should be re-examined in the light of respective contentions of the parties. The ad-interim order too must conform to the requirements of the Section and suitable conditions should be imposed on the applicant even at that stage. ix) Though it is not necessary that the operation of an order passed under Section 438(1) of the Code be limited in point of time but the Court may, if there are reasons for doing so, limit the operation of the order to a short period until after the filing of FIR in respect of the matter covered by the order. The applicant may, in such cases, be directed to obtain an order of bail under Section 437 or 439 of the Code within a reasonable short period after the filing of the FIR. Here is the judgment: SAVITRI AGARWAL Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – 2009

RIGHT TO FIGHT HIS/HER OWN CASE AS PARTY IN PERSON...!!

Petitioner has right to appear in person

Most of the citizens, who are involved in legal battles, are not aware of the fact that a citizen can plead the case in the court of law in person without engaging a lawyer.
THERE IS an old saying that it is the wearer who knows where the shoe pinches. So if you are an aggrieved or an affected party, and feel that you have a strong case to contest in the court of law, you are the better person who can plead the case and put forth your view point with authority, no matter whether you are an advocate or not. As a petitioner in person, you have a primary right to contest any of your civil or criminal case even without engaging an advocate.

According to Sunil Sethi, former president of Jammu Bar association, it is not necessary at all for a petitioner to engage a lawyer. In fact, an advocate is just a substitute and under order Three of Civil Procedure Code, an advocate is an attorney - a person appointed to act for the petitioner.

Sethi says that to appear in person in the court, one doesn’t require a law degree at all. “Even the petitioner can engage another person to plead the case. That other person also doesn’t require to be a lawyer. Simply, in such a case the permission of the court is required.

If a petitioner doesn’t have resources to engage a lawyer or cannot also plead of his own, in such case, he can approach Legal Aid committee who can engage an advocate for the petitioner on government expenses. These Legal Aid committees are at district level (headed by Sessions Judge) and at state level, headed by a judge of a High Court.

Sethi says that if a person wants to plead the case of his own, he doesn’t need to put on an advocate’s uniform. Further, if he can not write the writ petition, the same can be drafted by engaging an advocate, but the case in the court can be pleaded by the petitioner himself, if he wishes so.

It is not also necessary to engage an advocate for the entire case till it comes to its logical conclusion. “Even the petitioner has the right to change the advocate and engage another at any stage of case, opines senior Jammu and Kashmir High Court advocate SS Anand Lehar.

Dwelling upon criminal cases, Lehar says that no trial begins before an accused is given an opportunity to engage a lawyer. In case the accused is not in a position or doesn’t want to engage a lawyer, the court is bound to give him the services of an ‘Amicus Curie’- an advocate who will be asked by the Court to represent the case and the money for the same will be borne by the court.

If the accused neither engages the advocate nor takes the services of ‘Amicus Curie’, the Judge will be in that case himself examining the witness. Even the accused himself has the right to cross-examine the witnesses.

While giving reference of the law, Lehar says that under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (seeking safeguard of life and liberty of an individual), even a foreigner can approach Indian Courts and that too without an advocate. Even those who have illegally come to India or detained after crossing the border, can seek justice under this provision and can plead for liberty if detained beyond the period of detention.

So the next time, when you are engaged in any legal dispute, be it a consumer case, a civil or a matrimonial dispute, if you are sure that you can plead the case of your own, you have the right to appear before the judge - but remember, maintaining the dignity of the court is everybody’s prime duty.

Source : "http://www.merinews.com/article/petitioner-has-right-to-appear-in-person/127492.shtml"

Man seeked Maintenance of Rs. 8000/- from his Liv-in Partner of 10 years

Man seeks alimony from partner

Saswati Mukherjee, TNN | Jul 14, 2010, 03.23AM IST

HYDERABAD: Giving gender equality a fresh twist, a jobless man has sought Rs 8,000 a month as alimony from his 'gainfully' employed partner.

This gender bender case, which has landed at the Andhra Pradesh High Court, however, gets even more curiouser in its detail. The couple in question are not legally wedded but have been in a live-in relationship for the last 10 years and even have a daughter.

The Mahbubnagar-based couple's happily ever after story hit a roadblock when the woman, who is 42, in a fit of rage filed a case of 'dowry harassment' against her jobless live-in partner, who is 51, alleging that he was physically assaulting her.

The woman, a multi-purpose health worker with a government hospital with a decent monthly salary of Rs 20,000 (especially in the context of a small town like Mahbubnagar), even moved out of the house with the child.

With sections 498 A, 506 and 509 of IPC pressed against him, the man moved the AP High Court seeking anticipatory bail stating that the charges were invalid since the two were never legally married. And then he served a googly — he filed a simultaneous petition seeking maintenance of Rs 8,000 from his live-in partner of 10 years.

When the case first came up for hearing at the High Court a few days ago, the counsel representing the man referred to a recent Supreme Court judgment wherein the apex court had granted alimony to a woman in a live-in relationship from her partner citing that the number of years the two had put together were 'considerable', akin to a marriage. The man in this case has now pinned his hope on the apex court verdict with his counsel arguing how he too has put in 10 years of his life into this relationship and is thus a 'considerable' time period for him to earn his alimony from the earning partner.

In the first hearing, the HC judge had asked the man's counsel to look into the merits of the case himself and also consider whether the SC judgment can apply here, given the difference in the gender of the alimony seeker.
A similar case was filed by a Tamil Nadu resident Kalaiselvan who had sought a whopping Rs 25 lakh from his ex-wife, a news story that flashes on many websites catering to aggrieved husbands. But the judgment on the case is awaited.

On Tuesday, the HC posted the Mahbubnagar man's alimony petition case for its next hearing on July 30. Clearly, an unusual gender test for the AP High Court.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Man-seeks-alimony-from-partner/articleshow/6164976.cms?referral=PM

Why To Change India When You can't Change Yourself......!!!

To All fighters,
This is not an issue which has raised today,It's a chronicle issue which has crossed three decades.And non of any Men's NGO's, Govt. or Men's movement has changed these one sided law a bit also.
The reason is simple as lump sum40% of direct vote bank from women are intact.. No political party wants to interfere with this. The NCW, NCWDC, and all small and Big NGO's of woman along with big support of ministry of Woman and child welfare are with these biased law.

More than 10 lacs of lawyer's all over India is benefited by cognizable and Non bailable offense. And this 498A is the easiest of easiest case belonging to this section of IPC to extort money for Bail from the victims as well as fixed money from the petitioners who files these cases..
You would have heard the situations few years back when lawyers of all over India went for protest when time limit of non bailable section was considered to be reduced.

Apart from this the direct false FIR been launched by taking bribes. So,here you have to add the dirtiest citizens of India i.e the corrupt policemen too.

now you can understand where we are lacking.....

"It's not the matter of change rather than the matter to be changed.."

I already stated in my blog's article that these 498a has become a profession rather than a single section under IPC.

So, you can count the heads which are supporting these draconian law.

Shocked Naaaaaaaa,

Yes, that's true..!!

This is the reality of 498a.

But, how to change the worst?

where is the answer?

Do you have.....?

You will say yes.

But don't you think that answer which you have given has already been utilized.But what was the result?

A BIG NO......OOOOOOOOOOOO


Though a big No has already been seen by ex fighters but there contribution is still alive.......which every coming generation is following.

Now,

If we go through this particular thread, I got 4 different views:

1. PIL
2. DHARNAS
3. SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE OF BIASED LAW ON EVERY SOCIAL MEDIA
4. PROETST?     but not specified what kind of Protest?

Dear fighters, I believe in action rather than imagination. I don't stick with future but always rest on present. See what you can do to pure the one ocean which has been polluted by the above gentle men's and that is our India.

Why we say India need change why can't we say we Indian need's change. That's because India is one and we Indians are more than 120 crores. We feel difficulty to change ourselves rather than changing one India and that also by mere words. What an illogical approach we have.

If one person think to change himself, automatically he is changing India but again action has to be there rather than mere words.
So, in this frivolous 498A too we have to change ourselves from an innocent husband to a fighter husband as well as a fighter friend to a fighter lawyer.
Because every sufferer ultimately becomes a saviour after so many pain and harassment.And such sufferer’s are real gold which glitters after getting the torturous heat by fire.

I request all, to Join ESIS and become a Fighter not only for themselves but for whole India.

Don't point fingers........Make a Punch
It's Time for Unity..........Have a crunch

Your's,

(ESIS)

Accused cannot be subjected to any irrelevant condition for his grant of Anticipatory Bail

Supreme Court of India

Munish Bhasin & Ors. vs State on 20 February, 2009

Author: J Panchal

Bench: R.V. Raveendran, J.M. Panchal

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 637 of 2008) Munish Bhasin & Ors. ... Appellants Versus
State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr. ... Respondents JUDGMENT
J.M. PANCHAL, J.
Leave granted. The complainant (wife of first appellant) to whom notice was ordered on 25.01.2008 is impleaded as second respondent.
2. Heard Counsel.
2
3. The appellant (accused no. 1) assails the condition imposed by the High Court requiring him to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/- as maintenance to his wife and child while granting anticipatory bail to him and his parents with reference to the complaint filed by his wife for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The marriage of the appellant was solemnized with Ms. Renuka on December 05, 2004. She has filed a complaint in November 2006, against the appellant and his parents for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code on the grounds that after marriage she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty for bringing less dowry and that her stri-dhan entrusted to them has been dishonestly misappropriated by them.
3
5. Apprehending arrest, the appellant and his parents moved High Court of Delhi for anticipatory bail. The application came up for consideration before a Learned Single Judge of the High Court on 22.02.2007. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepted notice and submitted that the matter was essentially a matrimonial dispute and therefore the parties should be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Cell of the Delhi High Court. The Learned Judge agreed with the suggestion made by the Additional Public Prosecutor and directed the parties to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Cell of the Delhi High Court on March 02, 2007. The case was ordered to be listed on 10.05.2007. The Learned Judge further directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant and his parents, before the next date of hearing, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/ Arresting Officer concerned, subject however, to the condition that the appellant and 4
his parents shall surrender their passports to the Investigating Officer and shall file affidavits in the Court that they would not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
6. From the records, it appears that the conciliation proceedings failed and therefore the bail application was taken up for hearing on merits. On representation made by the wife of the appellant, the counsel of the appellant was directed to produce appellant's salary slip. Accordingly, the salary slip of the appellant was produced before the Court which indicated that the appellant was drawing gross salary of Rs.41,598/- and after deductions of advance tax etc., his net salary was Rs.33,000/-. The Learned Single Judge of the High Court took the notice of the fact that the appellant had the duty to maintain his wife and the child and therefore as a condition for grant of anticipatory bail, directed the appellant, by the order dated 07.08.2007 to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/- per month by way of maintenance to his 5
wife and child. The Learned Single Judge also directed to pay arrears at the rate of Rs. 12,500/- per month from August 2005, that is Rs. 3,00,000/- within six months. The imposition of these conditions for grant of anticipatory bail is the subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal.
7. From the perusal of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 438, it is evident that when the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub- section (1) to release an accused alleged to have committed non-bailable offence, the Court may include such conditions in such direction in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including (i) a condition that a person shall make himself available for interrogation by police officer as and when required, (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any 6
police officer, (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and (iv) such other conditions as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section. Sub-section (3) of Section 437, inter alia, provides that when a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section (1), the Court shall impose the following conditions-
(a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter,
(b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and
7
(c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
The Court may also impose, in the interests of justice, such other conditions as it considers necessary.
8. It is well settled that while exercising discretion to release an accused under Section 438 of the Code neither the High Court nor the Session Court would be justified in imposing freakish conditions. There is no manner of doubt that the Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case can impose necessary, just and efficacious conditions while enlarging an accused on bail under Section 438 of the Code. However, the accused cannot be subjected to any irrelevant condition at all. The conditions which can be imposed by the Court while granting anticipatory bail are 8
enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 and sub- section (3) of Section 437 of the Code. Normally, conditions can be imposed (i) to secure the presence of the accused before the investigating officer or before the Court, (ii) to prevent him from fleeing the course of justice, (iii) to prevent him from tampering with the evidence or to prevent him from inducing or intimidating the witnesses so as to dissuade them from disclosing the facts before the police or Court or (iv) restricting the movements of the accused in a particular area or locality or to maintain law and order etc. To subject an accused to any other condition would be beyond jurisdiction of the power conferred on Court under section 438 of the Code. While imposing conditions on an accused who approaches the Court under section 438 of the Code, the Court should be extremely chary in imposing conditions and should not transgress its jurisdiction or power by imposing the conditions which are not called for at all. There is no manner of doubt that the conditions to be imposed under section 438 of the Code cannot be harsh, 9
onerous or excessive so as to frustrate the very object of grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code. In the instant case, the question before the Court was whether having regard to the averments made by Ms. Renuka in her complaint, the appellant and his parents were entitled to bail under section 438 of the Code. When the High Court had found that a case for grant of bail under section 438 was made out, it was not open to the Court to direct the appellant to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- for past maintenance and a sum of Rs.12,500/- per month as future maintenance to his wife and child. In a proceeding under section 438 of the Code, the Court would not be justified in awarding maintenance to the wife and child. The case of the appellant is that his wife Renuka is employed and receiving a handsome salary and therefore is not entitled to maintenance. Normally, the question of grant of maintenance should be left to be decided by the competent Court in an appropriate proceedings where the parties can adduce evidence in support of their respective case, after which liability of 10
husband to pay maintenance could be determined and appropriate order would be passed directing the husband to pay amount of maintenance to his wife. The record of the instant case indicates that the wife of the appellant has already approached appropriate Court for grant of maintenance and therefore the High Court should have refrained from granting maintenance to the wife and child of the appellant while exercising powers under section 438 of the Code. The condition imposed by the High court directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/- per month as maintenance to his wife and child is onerous, unwarranted and is liable to be set aside.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds. The direction contained in order dated August 07, 2007 rendered by Learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in Bail Application No. 423 of 2007 requiring the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/- per month by way of maintenance (both past and future) to his wife and child 11
is hereby deleted. Rest of the directions contained in the said order are maintained. It is however clarified that any amount received by the wife of the appellant pursuant to the order of the High Court need not be refunded by her to the appellant and will be adjusted subject to the result of application for maintenance filed by wife of the appellant under Section 125 of the Code before the appropriate Court.
10. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. ..............................J.
[R.V. Raveendran]
..............................J.
[J.M. Panchal]
New Delhi;
February 20, 2009.
12