Kumble’s wife fined in custody case for delaying tactics

Kumble’s wife fined in custody case for delaying tactics

A city family court on Thursday imposed costs of Rs 2,500 on cricketer Anil Kumble’s wife Chetana, in connection with a child custody case she is fighting with her former husband.

Speaking to Bangalore Mirror, her former husband Kumar Jagirdar claimed the fine imposed by principal judge M G Sudheendra was on account of the ‘delaying tactics’ adopted by her lawyer. In July, she was fined Rs 1,250 by the court, Jagirdar said.
The couple were married in 1986 and divorced two years later. Jagirdar is fighting for custody of their daughter, who is 15 now and stays with the Kumbles.
In 2003, Jagirdar lost his case in the Supreme Court, which felt his single status was not enough to take care of the child but said he could approach a lower court if there was a change in the circumstances of the parties concerned.
In 2006, he moved a city family court for custody, arguing that his former wife had two children from Kumble, that he was married and not single anymore, and that his daughter had reached the age of 15.
The next hearing in the case is on Nov 25, Jagirdar’s counsel P B Appaiah said.
An affidavit filed by Chetana in the court on Thursday said her counsel was held up at the high court on the day of the previous hearing, and expressed regret for the inconvenience. Her advocate C V Nagesh said he would conduct the cross-examination of the petitioner at the next hearing.

http://www.bangaloremirror.com/article/10/20101112201011120809521965029a3e3/Kumble%E2%80%99s-wife-fined-in-custody-case.html

NCW to pay harassed husband for initiating illegal criminal proceedings

NCW not empowered to initiate criminal proceedings, says Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has awarded a compensation of Rs. 40,000 to a man who was off-loaded by immigration authorities from an aircraft here on the basis of a look-out circular issued by the NCW, saying statutory bodies are not empowered to initiate criminal proceedings.

The High Court said that the compensation award has to be equally shared by the National Commission for Women (NCW) and Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) for de-boarding Vikram Sharma, against whom no FIR was lodged in connection with a matrimonial dispute.

Mr. Sharma had approached the court alleging that the FRRO had acted illegally in off-loading and detaining him here in April 2008 at the instance of NCW where his wife had filed a complaint.

“This court is of the view that the action of NCW in writing to the DCP, FRRO for the issuance of LOC (look-out circular) against Sharma was without the authority of law. The consequent action of FRRO (which) resulted in the petitioner (Sharma) being detained at IGI airport on April 8, 2008 was also illegal,” Justice S. Muralidhar said.

The court asked the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to issue clarification orders within three months stating that a request for issuance of LOC cannot emanate from statutory bodies like NCW, NHRC as well as National and State Commission for Protection of Child Rights which are vested with the powers of a civil court.

“The NHRC, the NCW, the NCPCR (National Commission for Protection of Child Rights) have not been vested with the powers of a criminal court and do not have powers to enforce criminal law,” Justice Murlidhar said.

“They should bring the necessary facts to the notice of law enforcement agencies like the police, which will then make a request for issuance of LOC upon an assessment of the situation and strictly in terms of the procedure outlined for the purpose,” he said.

Mr. Sharma had alleged that he was “made to stand in solitary confinement in a toilet” and his passport was stamped with the remarks “Off loaded-deported due to criminal complaint”.

The court while accepting the plea of Sharma ordered removal of remarks from his passport.

When the incident had occurred, the NCW was seized of a complaint against Mr. Sharma in which his wife had expressed apprehension that her husband might flee the country to avoid the mediation process pending before it.

The NCW had sent a request for issuance of the look-out circular when the petitioner expressed his inability to appear before it.

Mr. Sharma had submitted that the Crime Against Women (CAW) cell of Delhi Police had also issued an LOC against him on his wife’s complaint, but the same was later withdrawn after the case was transferred to Anti Extortion Cell of Delhi Police.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article546025.ece

Woman asked to compensate ex-husband for alleging impotency

Woman asked to compensate ex-husband for alleging impotency

By: Agencies
Date:  2010-07-27
Place: Harda

A local court has ordered a woman to give Rs 2 lakh as compensation to her estranged husband for alleging that he was impotent.

District and Sessions Judge Jagdish Prasad Parashar asked Vandana Gurjar to compensate her ex-husband Hemant Chhalotre, while delivering his judgement in a defamation case filed by the latter yesterday.

Hemant had argued that Vandana's false allegation had rendered him "unmarriageable" and sullied his prestige.

The two had tied the nuptial knot nine years ago but separated three months later, after Vandana returned to her parents home following marital discord.

She also lodged a complaint against her husband and in-laws at a police station in Bhopal alleging that they harassed her for dowry and further claimed that she could not have conjugal bliss with Hemant "as he was impotent".

A police case was registered against Hemant and his parents, but a local court acquitted them of all charges in 2004. Following this, Vandana filed a petition in a higher court seeking divorce pleading that Hemant was impotent.

The court accepted her petition and ordered dissolution of the marriage. Enraged on the charge of impotence, Hemant filed a defamation case against Vandana on February 10, 2006 seeking compensation.

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2010/jul/270710-woman-to-pay-ex-husband-for-alleging-impotency.htm

Petitioner fined Rs.30,000 for frivolous suit

Petitioner fined Rs.30,000 for frivolous suit

NEW DELHI – Slapping a fine of Rs.30,000 on a petitioner for a frivolous suit, the Delhi High Court Thursday said such litigation clogs the wheels of justice.

Justice V.B. Gupta hit out at people who file meritless suits and said: “Any litigant, who indulges in mindless litigation and unnecessarily wastes the precious time of the court, should not be spared. He must pay heavy costs for wasting the time of the court.”

“It is well settled that frivolous litigation clogs the wheel of justice, making it difficult for courts to provide easy and speedy justice to genuine litigants. it has also been observed in a large number of cases that meritless litigation should be dealt with a heavy hand,” the court said.

The court passed the order on a plea of a petitioner who approached it 11 years after a trial court passed an order against him. The petitioner pleaded that the trial court had no jurisdiction to pass the order.

Taking strong exception to the plea, Justice Gupta said the objections raised were bogus and frivolous.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Petitioner-fined-Rs-30-000-for-frivolous-suit/Article1-576232.aspx