In this case appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 01.08.2017 passed by the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati in Criminal Revision Petition No.102 of 2012. The appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The respondent (wife) filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 claiming maintenance from the appellant (husband) for herself and for her minor daughter. By order dated 21.11.2011, the SDJM awarded Rs. 2000/- per month to daughter as maintenance but   didn’t awarded maintenance to wife on ground that she is not the legal wife of appellant. Wife filed for revision in  the Guhati High Court. The High Court erred in remanding the case to the SDJM for fresh inquiry and for fixing the maintenance for the respondent (wife).After discovering the fact  in Para 22 of the impugned order that the respondent(wife) is the legally wedded wife of the appellant , it should not have then remanded the case to the SDJM for any inquiry and instead should have fixed the maintenance payable by the appellant (husband) to the respondent (wife) in the revision itself. The respondent was not having any source of income for maintenance of herself and daughter. According to Hon’ble Supreme  Court case is remanded when some factual inquiry is required to be held to decide any factual issue involved in the case which cannot be undertaken at the revision stage or when it is noticed that there is no finding on any particular factual issue(s) recorded by the SDJM or when additional evidence is filed for the first time at the appellate/revision stage which requires examination by the SDJM in the first instance and to record a finding in the light of such additional evidence. Prolonged litigation is causing harm to wife. As appellant is working as Constable in RPF and his monthly salary is between Rs.30,000/to Rs.35,000/per month.

The court held that the appellant (husband) will pay a total sum of Rs.10,000 (Ten Thousand) every month to the respondent (wife), i.e., Rs.8,000/towards maintenance for the respondent (wife) and Rs.2,000/towards maintenance for minor daughter which is already fixed by the SDJM and which we uphold as being just and proper. With the such modification in the impugned order in favour of the respondent (wife), the appeal thus stands disposed of.

The post SC: There is no need to remand the case, if factual inquiry on factual issue is complete appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

In this case the appellant was enrolled as an advocate in the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh in July, 1988. He applied for transfer of his enrolment to the State of Rajasthan. The Bar Council of India permitted the transfer on 27th May, 1989. The Bar Council of India cancelled the enrollment of the appellant on receiving a complaint by the Bar Council of Rajasthan  that the Appellant’s enrollment in the State of Himachal Pradesh was obtained by suppression of facts and relevant material.  The enrollment was cancelled on 6th November, 1995 by the Bar Council of India. The said order was affirmed by this Court as the Special Leave Petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed on 5th August, 1996. The appellant  approached the High Court of Rajasthan seeking a direction to the Bar Council of Rajasthan to decide his application for exemption from training of one year and enrollment based on earlier experience .The petition was dismissed by a learned single judge .Further in appeal, a Division Bench directed the Bar Council of Rajasthan to consider the application filed by the Appellant. The Bar Council of Rajasthan dismissed the application of the Appellant for enrolment on 16th January, 2000 and referred the matter for confirmation of the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India confirmed the order passed by the Bar Council of Rajasthan on 16th January, 2000. The appellant another application for enrollment as an advocate was rejected on 29^th june, 2003 and confirmed by the Bar Council of India by its resolution dated 3rd January, 2004. C.A. 294 of 2007 is filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated 29.06.2003 of the Bar Council of Rajasthan and the consequential orders dated 02.01.2004 of the Bar Council of India. The legality of the orders dated 14th July, 2012 of the Bar Council of Rajasthan affirmed by the Bar Council of India on 15th September, 2012 is subject matter of Special Leave Petitions (Civil)… CC Nos. 10531-10532 of 2013. In the Special Leave Petitions (Civil)..CC Nos. 10531-10532 of 2013, the Appellant stated that a FIR registered against him at Police Station Dhambola, on 15th 4 April, 1988. He was arrested and sent to judicial custody. He has also shown the judgement of the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, Rajasthan by which his appeal against the conviction under Section 419 IPC was allowed.

The court held that the suppression of facts of government service as a medical doctor and criminal case during the time of enrollment in the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh is sufficient ground to cancel the enrollment of the appellant. Subsequent acquittal cannot come to the rescue of the appellant.  The repeated attempts made by the Appellant later amount to an abuse of process. The Appellant would be better advised not to indulge in pursuing the matter pertaining to his enrollment as Advocate. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.

The post SC: Subsequent acquittal can’t come to rescue, if the enrollment is obtained by suppression of facts appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.