While deciding on a case of rash driving, the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal awarded the victim a sum of Rs 31,500. Since it was a government vehicle, the state and the driver were the other parties. The state ordered that the money should be recovered from the driver. The driver filed a writ petition challenging the order. Quashing the order, the Allahabad High Court held that before fixing the money liability against the driver, the state should have adopted some procedure of law (Dushyant Kumar vs State of UP and another).
The wife filed a petition for maintenance for herself and her child under Section 125 of the CrPC and also a complaint under Section 498 A of the IPC. Maintenance was granted. A year later, the husband was acquitted of the Section 498 A charges because there was no proof of a valid marriage. The magistrate reversed the order granting maintenance. The wife challenged the order before the sessions judge who restored the maintenance order. The husband challenged it before the high court. The Gauhati High Court held that since it was established that they went through certain ceremonies (under Section 125, only prima facie proof of marriage is needed), cohabited and had a child, maintenance could not be denied (Biswanath Sarkar vs Swapna De ).
The accused, convicted of robbery, preferred an appeal before the high court. He contended that since the test identification parade was held three-and-a-half months after his arrest, it was not possible for the witness to recollect his features after such a long time. The Jharkhand High Court disagreed. It said that the witness had clearly stated that he could identify the person. The court held that he could be convicted on the basis of the evidence given by the witness (Sadique Ansari vs State of Bihar).
SOLON
