A man convicted of rape challenged the order, questioning the authenticity of the FIR that was lodged three months after the rape allegedly took place. The Supreme Court rejected the petition, holding that although there was a precedent where delay in lodging the FIR had cast doubts about the case for the prosecution, it did not apply in this instance. The accused was the drawing teacher of the victim who was a minor. It was natural that she was ashamed and kept silent. After her mother discovered that the girl was pregnant, she pried the story out of her and then reported the matter to the police (Dildar Singh vs State of Punjab).
A sub-wholeseller of kerosene gave her brother the power of attorney to run the depot because she was pregnant and unable to attend to the business daily. The authorities cancelled her licence because of this and also because of alleged irregularities in the accounts that her illiterate brother was responsible for. The woman challenged the cancellation in the Orissa High Court, contending that she had temporarily entrusted the depot to her brother and that it had had no detrimental effect on the supply of kerosene to retailers. The high court quashed the cancellation, holding that since the supply was not affected, minor irregularities in accounts was of no consequence and that cancellation of the licence on such flimsy grounds was unjustified (Meena Swain vs State of Orissa and others).
A man agreed to pay Rs 1,80,000 as alimony in two instalments. When he failed to pay the second instalment on the specified date, the woman petitioned the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The man contended that according to the Hindu Marriage Act, he should not have to pay the woman anything as she had remarried and sought a modification in the divorce decree. The court held that the woman had remarried after her ex-husband had defaulted on his payment. So the man could not now use the changed circumstances to his advantage and had to pay the promised amount (K. Srinivasa Kumar vs K. Sharvani).
SOLON
