Key Points: - The judgment holds that it is not permissible to appraise averments in a complaint/FIR at the stage of quashing; they must be accepted as stated for trial. (!) (!) - The court clarifies that the complainant’s allegations under 498A and 406 IPC can prima facie sustain a case and cannot be interdicted at the threshold; trial should be expeditiously completed. (!) (!) - The decision discusses the maintainability and proper channels for enforcement of maintenance orders under Section 125 IPC, and that Article 32 jurisdiction is not appropriate where effective statutory remedies exist (execution under Section 125 and service abroad). (!) (!) (!) - The court notes that the scope of Section 125(3) allows execution of maintenance orders and directs family court to proceed or transfer to criminal court if needed for early conclusion. (!) (!) - The case references previous Curative Petitions and reiterates that observations in curative petitions are not binding on the merits of appeals when heard afresh. (!) (!) - The Court directs expeditious trial of Complaint No. 287/1A and clarifies that the writ petition under Article 32 is disposed of with directions to proceed in the civil/criminal courts as appropriate. (!) (!) - The judgment confirms that "cruelty" under 498A includes mental cruelty as per Explanation (a) to Sec. 498A IPC. (!) - The appellate court clarifies that quashing cannot be based on a summary assessment of complaint contents; facts must be proven during trial. (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?