पति को प्रताड़ित करने पर पत्नी को चुकानी पड़ी कीमत, कोर्ट ने दिलाया हक

पति को प्रताड़ित करने पर पत्नी को चुकानी पड़ी कीमत, कोर्ट ने दिलाया हक

bhaskar news | Feb 02, 2014, 02:47AM IST

भोपाल.पत्नी द्वारा पति पर प्रताडऩा का मामला दर्ज कराने और भरण-पोषण मांगने के प्रकरण तो अक्सर पढऩे-सुनने में आते रहे हैं, लेकिन भोपाल में एक युवक द्वारा अपनी पत्नी से क्षतिपूर्ति राशि वसूलने का मामला सामने आया है। यही नहीं उसने कोर्ट में भरण-पोषण पाने के लिए भी दावा पेश किया है। 

युवक का कहना है पत्नी ने उसे दहेज प्रताडऩा के झूठे मामले में फंसा दिया था। केस तो वह जीत गया, लेकिन इस दौरान उसका कारोबार चौपट हो गया। इसलिए उसने पत्नी से भरण-पोषण राशि की मांग की है।

दरअसल मार्च 2010 में नीलबड़ निवासी नितिन अग्रवाल की शादी जहांगीराबाद में रहने वाली विम्मी ठाकुर से आर्य समाज मंदिर में हुई थी। चार माह बाद ही दोनों में विवाद होने लगे। बात थाने तक पहुंची। नितिन के मुताबिक विम्मी ने उस पर दहेज प्रताडऩा, मारपीट, धमकी देने और घरेलू हिंसा का मामला दर्ज करा दिया।

अदालत ने सुनवाई के बाद उन्हें बरी कर दिया। इसके बाद उन्होंने विम्मी के खिलाफ झूठे प्रकरण दर्ज करने के मामले में कार्रवाई करने के लिए कोर्ट में इस्तगासा लगाया। कोर्ट के आदेश के बाद विम्मी ने नितिन को 70 हजार रुपए क्षतिपूर्ति के रूप में दिए हैं। अब नितिन ने हिंदू मैरिज एक्ट के तहत विम्मी से भरण-पोषण राशि की मांग की है। 

उसका कहना है कि विम्मी कमाती हैं और वह बेरोजगार है। विम्मी के भाई यशवंत ठाकुर का कहना है कि वे इस बारे में कोर्ट में ही जवाब देंगे। कुछ नहीं कहना चाहते। है। इस बारे में उनके वकील ही जवाब देंगे।

पुरुष भी मांग सकते हैं अपना हक

फोरम अगेंस्ट मिसयूज ऑफ सेक्शन 498 ए के अध्यक्ष अशोक दसोरा का कहना है कि पुरुषों को भी अधिकार है कि वे भी क्षतिपूर्ति ले सकते हैं। यही नहीं वे हिंदू मैरिज एक्ट के तहत भरण-पोषण की मांग भी कर सकते हैं। अब तक प्रदेश में 34 पुरुष इस प्रावधान का लाभ ले चुके हैं। इधर, विम्मी के वकील कामता प्रसाद यादव का कहना है कि इस बारे में वे कानून के प्रावधानों के तहत जवाब देंगे।

http://www.bhaskar.com/article/MP-BPL-husband-get-money-from-wife-4509747-PHO.html?seq=1

Mental Cruelty Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: HC

Mental Cruelty Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: HC

04 January 2014 By Umesh R Yadav

The High Court granted divorce to an assistant film producer, accepting his contention that he had been subjected to mental cruelty by his wife.

The word ‘cruelty’ is not defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, but cruelty includes mental cruelty, the High Court observed.

Its order said, “Mental cruelty can particularly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other.”

Kishor had approached the HC, seeking divorce from Ananya (names changed) after his petition was rejected by a family court.

Ananya made unreasonable demands for money, filed motivated complaints against Kishor and his family, threatened and attempted suicide, and refused to consummate the marriage. All these amount to mental cruelty, the HC ruled.

A Division Bench headed by Justice K L Manjunath dissolved the marriage, stating Kishore has sufficiently proved the cruelty meted out to him by his wife, once his “dream girl”.

Demand for `20L

The HC described as unjustified the wife’s demands for `20 lakh as a lump sum, `20,000 as monthly maintenance and a separate house. It also took a stern view of her actions, such as filing a dowry harassment case to coincide with Kishor’s younger brother’s engagement. Following this, members of his family were arrested and whisked away from a marriage hall. This definitely amounts to mental cruelty, the court ruled. Given the mentality of Ananya, it is unrealistic to expect Kishor to live with her, the court remarked.

“If the husband and wife are not living together, it also leads to mental cruelty on the husband,” the order said.

Failed Romance

Kishor married Ananya on March 26, 2006 by giving `1 lakh to her father as demanded by her, but she told him they could make love only after he had produced HIV test results.

An upset Kishor went to a lab soon after and tested negative. She then demanded certificates to prove he had no diabetes or high blood pressure. She reportedly asked him for an overall ‘fitness certificate’.

Kishor underwent all tests, and the results showed he was in good health. Kishor then decided life would be difficult with her since she was full of suspicion and moved out.

SOURCE - http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bangalore/Mental-Cruelty-Sufficient-Grounds-for-Divorce-HC/2014/01/04/article1982198.ece

Supreme Court asks Government to amend law to protect women and children in live-in relationships. Legalising and Promoting Adultery ??

Supreme Court asks Government to amend law to protect women and children in live-in relationships.

Legalising and Promoting Adultery ??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3Y_w82Zkq4

CLICK BELOW LINK FOR FULL TEXT OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT 
http://bit.ly/Ja7Raq

Save Indian Family protests at PM house against proposed Hindu Marriage Act Amendment on wife's rights on Husband's inherited property

Save Indian Family protests at PM house against proposed Hindu Marriage Act Amendment on wife's rights on Husband's inherited property. The protesting activists at 7 RCR, PM house, where the meeting was being held were arrested by Delhi Police and taken to chankyapuri police station where they were later released after about one and half of detension

Brave MEN/HUSBANDS do not tolerate injustice

 

 

Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill referred to GoM

The controversial Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill was on Wednesday referred to a Group of Ministers after differences cropped up over clauses dealing with a woman’s right to marital property in case of divorce.
 

The Union Cabinet, at a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, deliberated at length on the proposed legislation but failed to arrive at a consensus and the matter was then referred to a GoM.
 

The Law Ministry had suggested that a woman be given a share in residential property of the husband, including inherited and inheritable premises, in case of divorce.
 

The Ministry of Women and Child Development has suggested that a woman’s right to inheritable property and property acquired by the husband before marriage be kept out of the purview of the law.
 

The ministers discussed the amendments for over two hours during the meeting of the Cabinet.
 

“When thinking men and women present different opinions, different opinions do not mean difference of opinion,” Finance Minister P. Chidambaram said when asked whether the Cabinet was split on the matter.
 

“Views are expressed in a Cabinet and after expressing views, the Prime Minister takes the final decision. In this case the matter has been referred to a Group of Ministers to look at one or two clauses of the Bill,” he said.
 

The GoM would examine the clauses over the next few days and the Bill will come back before the Cabinet, he said.
 

Even as the Cabinet was discussing the matter, a small group of protestors shouted slogans against the Bill outside the Prime Minister’s official residence.
 

They were rounded up by the police and taken away from the high security zone.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/marriage-laws-amendment-bill-referred-to-gom/article4673576.ece

 

Ministries differ over divorcee’s right to inherited property

01 May 2013

NEW DELHI: Sharp differences have emerged within the government on a woman's right to marital property after a divorce. The law ministry has mooted amendments suggesting that a woman should have a share in a residential property acquired by the husband bought not only during or before marriage, but also inherited and inheritable property. In contrast, the ministry of women and child development (WCD) had recommended that property acquired before marriage or that is expected to be inherited should be excluded from the purview of this law.

The Marriage Laws (amendment) Bill is likely to be taken up for the Union Cabinet's approval on Wednesday. This is the second time that there has been a difference in opinion between the two arms of government. The two ministries had also clashed on the issue of lowering the age of consent in the anti-rape legislation. While the law ministry sought lowering the age of consent to 16 years, the WCD ministry was opposed to the move mooting 18 years as the age of consent.

According to sources, the WCD ministry had argued that there would be practical difficulties in implementing the law that could work against the woman's claim to marital property. The ministry had, therefore, suggested that a woman seeking divorce should not have claim to property that has been acquired before marriage or that which is "inheritable" (expected to be inherited.)

The government also proposes to redefine the phrase 'residential property' to include not just the residential house but also other properties acquired by the husband. In case, others, besides the husband, also have rights in the inherited property and it is impractical to divide it, the wife would have the right to receive an equivalent amount of money in place of her share.

The wife would have an equal share in the property regardless of whether it was acquired before or after marriage and regardless of whether it is only in the husband's name or held jointly.

The changes in the Bill have been brought after considerable pressure from civil society as well as members of Parliament.

The government had earlier introduced the amendment bill in order to alter the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, providing the option of divorce on grounds of 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage' as a ground for divorce.

The government also for the first time introduced a legislated right for the wife to a share in the movable and immovable residential properties.

Conflicting views

Law ministry: woman should get share in marital residential property acquired by husband, partly or jointly owned, before, during marriage. She also has a right to property inherited or inheritable.

WCD ministry: woman's claim to property bought before marriage or inheritable should be excluded.

Union Cabinet likely to take up the issue on Wednesday  

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ministries-differ-over-divorcees-right-to-inherited-property/articleshow/19812456.cms

To marry or not to marry...a divorcee!

To marry or not to marry...a divorcee!

IPSHITA MITRA | Nov 24, 2011, 12.00AM IST

To marry or not to marry…a divorcee! (Thinkstock photos/Getty Images)
There was a sweet silence in the house. Kids were away for a vacation and the domestic help was out of sight.

I was busy arranging the champagne glasses to celebrate the romantic evening, my wife surfed TV channels in the meanwhile. The moment of 'cheers' was not far away when she shrieked "Arvind, do you remember how much we loved this TV show?"

Anurag was the new husband she had married after she divorced Arvind years back. This inadvertent forgetfulness left the rest of the evening hostage to an awkward silence.

Second marriages in India are ridden with complexities hard to rationalise sometimes. Marrying a divorcee is a tough proposition, but does it always conclude in bitterness?

Do/Can we trust each other?

Trust is the building block of the institution of marriage. Dr. Kamal Khurana, Relationship Coach at Purple Alley Institute of Relationships, Delhi, explains: "In a marriage where one or both partners are divorced, the couple has to deal with blame games, suspicion and contempt."

Research shows that 75 per cent of second marriages can end up with couples seeking another divorce in the first two years. Second marriages are more vulnerable and fall prey to a web of hostility and quick separation.

Things can get worse if infidelity is the cause behind the first divorce. Elucidates Dr Kamal Khurana: "There was a case where the husband felt that his divorced wife wanted to patch up with her ex and was not clear of her emotions for either of the men." The fear of illicit relations born out of dissatisfaction in the second marriage puts the divorced under constant scrutiny of the other partner.

"The present partner in that case suffers from paranoia and an over-possessive behaviour towards the divorcee he/she has chosen to settle down with," adds Dr. Bhavna Barmi, psychologist and marital therapist.

Dumping the emotional baggage

For a clean slate beginning, the past needs to be wiped off; otherwise the marital union stands at risk. Comparisons with ex-partners are detrimental to a positive development of the second marriage. It is not easy to replace a new face with the old, but an attempt to look for similar qualities or traits in your new life partner can be pressing. Dr. Khurana says, "Loving and respecting the individuality of your current partner will help the marriage flourish."

Bhavna Barmi speaks of an interesting case where a divorced man with kids was not ready to marry a divorced woman because he was insecure that the new mother, (p.s. without kids) would not be able to accept his children fully. Says she: "As the man came from the high end of society, he wished to marry someone without marital history, and thought it easy to come his way, thanks to his affluent status."

The apprehension of a past getting carried forward to the present makes a lot of individuals wary of tying the knot with a divorcee.

So are these marriages based on 'love' or utilitarian in character?

Gender psyche is not an easy study. The above case for example shows us men's psyche which fails to distinguish between a wife and a governess. Psychologist Bhavna Barmi and Sociologist Reeta Brara feel that "men are self-centred and more often than not try to find surrogate mothers for their child that does not promise a healthy husband-wife relationship."

However this is not a universal conclusion. Even if the second marriage begins on a contractual note of an immediate need, it cannot hold for long without love and affection. "It has to grow into affection and respect for each other; strengthening the emotional bond between the spouses," adds Dr. Bhavna.

Will society accept your marriage?

There is still a stigma attached with an individual's 'divorced' status in the matrimonial market. Families and friends perceive them as 'second hand merchandise'.

After suffering an abusive marriage, Reena, 38, gathered courage to move out of her first marriage and begin a new life with another man. She was happy but her new in-laws could not accept her. She laments, "My in-laws feel that I may lodge a police complaint anytime, the way I did in the first marriage. They are a little apprehensive towards me."

Many a times it happens that someone who gets married to a divorcee faces adjustment issues in a social circuit that hesitates to change loyalties with the earlier partner and perceives the current with resentment and hostile behaviour. As a new member he/she gets subjected to embarrassment and neglect.

From a 'nuclear' to 'unclear' family

Asha Prabhakar, aged 52, government employee and a mother of two entered a new alliance 12 years back and was content, until the time her kids (from first marriage) grew up to a level of maturity and wisdom. "My kids have never addressed their new father as dad. I married him out of love but my kids could not see another dad in him. There is still resentment and I don't know how to resolve it."

Family scenario is such that the mother has lost all authority over her children. Dr. Khurana says, "The wife has to go through a period of agony in such cases. Kids would call their father by first name to register their objection to the marriage."

Reeta calls this trend a movement from "nuclear family to 'unclear' family" where kids from other parents find it difficult to adjust with new parents. She, however, believes that second marriages need not be strenuous all the time. "There are remedies too. Send the kids to boarding school/hostels or grandparents' place. This way the present matrimonial phase can develop into a stronger bond."

The day our mindset nurtures positive thoughts and learns to be receptive with a changed outlook, things would definitely change for better. 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/man-woman/To-marry-or-not-to-marrya-divorcee/articleshow/10768359.cms

New-age couples take MoU path to break free

New-age couples take MoU path to break free

HYDERABAD: In a curious trend unfolding at the city family courts, new-age couples are citing seemingly contradictory clauses in their divorce petitions to break free from their unsuccessful marriages. This, say advocates, is increasingly being based on a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed between the estranged spouses a few days before they approach the family court seeking legal intervention to end their marriage. "The MoUs are entered into with the sole purpose to catalysing a fast divorce," said a lawyer.

Often times under the MoU, the spouse filing the divorce petition is given a free hand to take refuge under any clause which will help the court declare their marriage as null and void. At the same time, the other partner chooses to remain unavailable for court proceedings thereby ensuring that a legal end to their marriage is pronounced at the earliest.

"By failing to turn up at the court for hearings, the other party shows his or her unwillingness to mend their marriage following which the court usually grants a legal separation without much delay," says P Sundaraiah, senior advocate at Hyderabad family court. A recent petition filed at this court had cited non-consummation of marriage and impotency of the partner as the grounds to declare the marriage null and void under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

"For a person to know the potency status of his or her partner, the marriage needs to be consummated first. But this seldom happens and the petitioners level two blatantly contradictory charges on their estranged spouse," says advocate Anita Jain of Secunderabad family court. While those filing it in agreement with their partners seldom face a problem, in many contested divorce cases, such contradictory charges have earned the petitioner a defamation suit. In one recent case, the husband of a woman seeking divorce on the ground of his impotency, filed a defamation case based on the medical report (which he came armed with to the court). Needless to say, the medical report dismissed charges of impotency levelled against him by his wife.
Reacting to such petitions, the courts often call for an independent medical test to verify the authenticity of the partner's claim. But on grounds of it being a sensitive matter, people often refuse to undergo the test, say advocates.
A section of the lawyers, however, reason in favour of pressing such charges in one petition in genuine cases. "Clubbing these two clauses together goes on to make the case stronger. Behavioural patterns are often an indication of the impotency of spouses, and claiming a marriage dissolution on grounds of non-consummation stand perfectly justified in such cases," says Nischala Siddha Reddy, advocate at Secunderabad family court.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/New-age-couples-take-MoU-path-to-break-free/articleshow/7049696.cms#ixzz17KG0WX2Q

Court: abuse on spur of moment not valid ground for divorce

Court: abuse on spur of moment not valid ground for divorce

 

Making certain statements or using abusive language on the spur of the moment and expressing certain displeasure about the behaviour of elders by the spouse may not be characterised as cruelty, warranting ground for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has held.

A Bench of Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice B.S. Chauhan said, “mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life which happens in day-to-day life in all families would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Sustained unjustifiable and reprehensible conduct affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse may lead to mental cruelty.”

Writing the judgment, Justice Sathasivam said: “The married life should be assessed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a certain period will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be precedent for a fairly lengthy period where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, one party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party no longer may amount to mental cruelty.”

The Bench said, a Hindu marriage solemnised under the Hindu Marriage Act could be dissolved only on any of the grounds specified therein. It said: “Cruelty has not been defined under the Act. It is quite possible that a particular conduct may amount to cruelty in one case but the same conduct necessarily may not amount to cruelty due to change of various factors, in a different set of circumstances. The aggrieved party has to make a specific case that the conduct of which exception is taken amounts to cruelty.”

In the instant case, appellant Gurbux Singh, principal of a college was married to Harminder Kaur, working as librarian in a government institute in November 1997 and a male child was born to them in May 1999. Irked by certain remarks made by his wife against his parents, the appellant moved the trial court seeking divorce on the ground of ‘cruelty.' The trial court rejected the petition and the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed his appeal. The present appeal is directed against that order.

The Bench said: “We are satisfied that on the basis of such instances, marriage cannot be dissolved. An isolated friction on some occasion like the festival of Lohri even in the presence of others cannot be a valid ground for dissolving the marriage.”

On the appellant's plea that there was irretrievable breakdown and that the marriage should be dissolved by the Supreme Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench said: “Though, on a rare occasion, this court has granted the extraordinary relief de hors to the grounds mentioned in Section 13 of the HM Act in view of the fact that the issue has been referred to a larger Bench about permissibility of such course at present, we are not inclined to accede to the request of the appellant. If there is any change of law or additional ground [irretrievable breakdown of marriage] included in Section 13 by the Act of Parliament, the appellant is free to avail the same at the appropriate time.”

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article820303.ece

Married or no, women maintenance a must- Deserted long-term live-in partner entitled to support, says SC

Married or no, women maintenance a must - Deserted long-term live-in partner entitled to support, says apex court

OUR LEGAL CORRESPONDENT

New Delhi, Sept. 25: The Supreme Court has said that any woman in a long-term live-in relationship is entitled to maintenance if deserted.

It is immaterial whether the woman was legally married to the man or not, the court said. What matters is whether she was completely dependent on him for sustenance.

“Women can’t be left vagrant. Right to life (guaranteed under the Constitution) includes the right to live with dignity. It is not possible to live with dignity when a woman has no food and leads the life of a destitute,” said Justice A.K. Ganguly, sitting with senior judge G.S. Singhvi.

Justice Singhvi added: “Someone has to take care of her if she is not able to, just to prevent vagrancy.”

“Leaving women to vagrancy threatens social stability and public order,” Justice Ganguly underlined. Women are, after all, the source of all power, he said.

The two judges were hearing the petition of a woman, Chunmuniya, who claimed that after her husband Ram Sharan died on March 7, 1992, she was “married” off to his younger brother Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, as was the practice in her caste. Among some communities in northern India, the widow of an older brother is forced to live with any surviving brother. The marriage was performed simply by doing a katha, she said.

Virendra, who was 10 years younger than Ram Sharan, deserted her in 1996. She moved an application for maintenance on March 26, 1997, but he married another woman in 1998 while it was pending.

A family court upheld Chunmuniya’s plea for maintenance. But Virendra went to the high court denying that he had been married to her. He claimed she had fraudulently inserted her name as his wife in the family register with the panchayat to get a share of the property.

The high court ruled in his favour on November 11, 2007, saying Chunmuniya had not been able to prove marriage. Invocation before a sacred fire and saptapadi were the two ceremonies essential to the validity of a marriage, it said, setting aside the family court order. Chunmuniya then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decided that the issue needed consideration and appointed Altaf Ahmad and P.S. Patwalia as the amicus curiae to assist the judges in deciding the issue. Both contended that the law could be interpreted to include all such women in the definition of “wife” to enable them to get maintenance.

Ahmed said that if a woman marries under personal laws, she immediately gets several rights and obligations. Those who do not, do not get any rights. “If such dependent women are provided for, this trend (of living-in) will also be discouraged,” he contended.

The bench agreed that the status of a wife need not be a pre-requisite for getting maintenance before reserving orders in the case. A prolonged domestic relationship resembling marriage is enough to entitle a deserted woman to maintenance, it observed.

Patwalia said that living-in was a fast-catching “urban phenomenon” which the law must address. “Here, the man has no obligations or responsibilities of any kind. Let the law reach out to them,” he said.

The bench also expressed anguish over the use of such words as “illegitimate” children and “other woman” in various laws and blamed the “patriarchal” mindset of law-makers for this. “The use of the word illegitimate stigmatises these children the day they are born,” Justice Singhvi said.

At another point, the court criticised law-makers for enshrining Rs 500 as the maximum maintenance per month in a 1973 law. “Whoever fixed the amount was miserly,” the judges observed. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, enshrines this as the maximum maintenance for all dependants — wife and children.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100926/jsp/nation/story_12983394.jsp

Exchange of garlands is not marriage: SC

Exchange of garlands is not marriage: SC

New Delhi, Sep 22 (IANS):

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the exchange of garlands between bridegroom and the bride in a temple could not be treated as marriage.

The marriage solemnised with full customary rites and ceremonies alone would get the sanctity of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the apex court bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice T.S. Thakur said.

The court made these observations in the course of the hearing of a petition by one K.P. Thimmappa Gowda challenging his conviction by the Karnataka High Court for repeatedly having sex with a lady and impregnating her on the false promise of marrying her later.
The victim subsequently gave birth to a boy in 1996.

The accused Thimmappa, who was a teacher, was acquitted of the charges by the session court but his conviction was reversed by the high court.Both, the victim and the accused, were residents of Pallavanamashalli village in Shimoga district of Karnataka.

The court said that in the case of inter-caste marriage, the marriage may be solemnised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either the bridegroom or the bride.Justice Katju said that if, according to customs, the marriage ceremony involves Saptapadi, then the marriage would be considered solemnised on the completion of the seventh step.

A teacher should be a role model but the petitioner Thimmappa is a stain on the profession of teaching, Justice Katju said. The court was appalled to note that the victim was Thimmappa's employee working on his agriculture fields. The court noted that Thimmappa exploited her poverty, repeatedly raped her and then abandoned her.The court said that the conduct of Thimmappa in refusing to accept the decision of the village panchayat to marry the victim was far from that of a gentleman.Subsequently, Thimmappa married another woman from whom he has two daughters.

Thimmappa's counsel offered Rs.2 lakh as alimony to the victim in return for his acquittal in the case. Justice Thakur said: “Let him save his two lakhs and spend seven years in imprisonment.” Describing the offer as ridiculous, Justice Thakur said that “no court would accept it”.

The court adjourned the matter by four weeks during which Thimmappa would tell the court as to what amount he could offer the victim in terms of cash and agriculture land by way of settlement.

The court took note of the fact the child of the victim was already 15 years old and she was a single unwed mother.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/98713/exchange-garlands-not-marriage-sc.html

Judicial Stunner- Incomplete 'Phere' breaks marriage bond –discussion-video report

Judicial Stunner- Incomplete 'Phere' breaks marriage bond

 

Video report on INDIATV

Husband wife and their lawyers discuss the case with views from the SC lawyer and Pundit on incomplete phere as ground

 

 

 

------------------------

In a bizarre ruling, a family court in Kanpur district of Uttar Pradesh annulled the 12-year-old marriage of a couple on the basis of five ‘Phere’ (steps) and same gotras.

It was a shocking verdict for girl's father, who is fighting the legal battle since 22 August 2001.

In the 100-page ruling, the judge pronounced the verdict against Neeru, citing reduced Phere and same gotras. The judge said that as per the Article 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the marriage was not completed due to reduced Phere and same gotra. As per the Hindu Marriage rituals seven Phere are compulsory. Surprisingly, the marriage was cancelled by the family court for just short of two Phere.

The 'Saat Phere' is an important ritual performed during the wedding in which the bride and the groom circumambulate a sacred fire, known as agni, seven times.

However, Neeru claimed that the 'Saat Phere' ritual was properly performed at a time of marriage.

Reacting on the decision, the Neeru's lawyer described it as a big mistake committed by the family court. He said that there were four evidences had been produced before the court.

The pundit, who performed the marriage, deposed twice before the magistrate and he confirmed completion of 'Saat Phere'. Four other witnesses were also produced before the court and marriage video was also played twice in the court, the lawyer said.

However, lawyer is keen to challenge the lower court order in Allahabad High Court but demoralized Neeru refused to fight the legal battle anymore.

The verdict was real stunning for Neeru and people of the city as well. Neeru’s father is completely broken after the verdict and gave up the hope of any justice. A tearful Neeru was also disappointed with the verdict and said she don’t wish to challenge the verdict.

http://english.samaylive.com/nation/676473614.html

Marriage between 1st cousins illegal.Live-in with cousin? Bombay high court on the fence

Marriage between 1st cousins illegal.Live-in with cousin? Bombay high court on the fence

14 sep 2010

Can first cousins marry each other? Such a union, except for some communities, is void under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955. However, while disposing of a habeas corpus petition filed by Inderpal Walia, 37, the Bombay high court on Monday said the decision of a girl to live with her cousin would be at her discretion.

In his petition, Walia said he fell in love with his first cousin Harmandeep Kaur, 19, when he met her in Amritsar in March 2008. He had also lived with Harmandeep as “husband and wife” at her parents’ house before they got married in Mumbai on January 21, 2009. Walia says though her parents initially agreed to their marriage, Harmandeep was forcibly taken away from him in September 2009.

Walia had pleaded before the court to allow Harmandeep to live with him since he fears his wife would be married off to an NRI. “Considering the changes in the modern world, the friendship and the union of the petitioner (Walia) with Harmandeep is a necessity and it is no more a kind of foolishness,” Walia’s petition stated.

A division bench of justices AM Khanwilkar and UD Salvi, however, refused to grant permission for their live-in relationship. “The court cannot be expected to put a seal on an arrangement which is not recognised in law,” justice Khanwilkar said. The judges held that the purpose of the habeas corpus petition was served as Harmandeep had been brought before the court and she was “hale and hearty”. The judges said the girl was an adult and she could take decisions on her own.

They also agreed that this was “not an ordinary case”.
Walia’s advocate, Bhavesh Parmar, told the court that Walia was not aware Harmandeep was his first cousin when they got married before a registrar in the Mira-Bhayander court. He got to know from legal experts that their marriage was null and void under Section 5 of the HMA after Harmandeep was taken away by her family. “I have advised my client to challenge the order in the Supreme Court,” Parmar said.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_live-in-with-cousin-bombay-high-court-on-the-fence_1437597

---------

14 Sep 2010

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday rejected one Harmant Singh's plea that his "wife" Hardeep, who is also his first cousin, be allowed to live with him. The Hindu Marriage Act disallows marriage between first cousins.

 
"If the request was to be considered, it would be putting a seal of approval on a relationship which isn't permitted in law," said a division bench of Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice U D Salvi. The judges allowed Hardeep to go with her parents. "She is an adult and free to take her own decisions," said the judges, adding that Hardeep could decide her plans in consultation with her parents.

Harmant's lawyer made repeated pleas the court ask Hardeep with whom she wished to go. The judges, however, pointed out that "the law doesn't permit you and her to stay together."

Additional public prosecutor Ajay Gadkari told the court that in a habeas corpus proceeding the scope was limited to producing the person concerned before the court and that they had brought Hardeep from Amritsar.

Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act bans, among other things, marriage between a brother and sister, uncle and niece, aunt and nephew, or children of brother and sister or of two brothers or of two sisters. The marriage is void, unless the custom of the community permits it.

Harmant, who claimed to be a marine officer, said he had met Hardeep in Amritsar. They married at an Arya Samaj temple in Mumbai in January 2009. Nine months later, her family called her home on the pretext that her father was sick. Subsequently, he wasn't allowed to meet her. Harmant, admitted that she was his first cousin, and under the law the marriage was void.

(Names of the couple have been changed to protect their identities)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Marriage-between-1st-cousins-illegal-says-HC/articleshow/6550296.cms#ixzz0zV8IVhWs

Delhi govt relaxes marriage registration norms -To protect couples, Delhi govt will amend marriage rules

Delhi govt relaxes marriage registration norms

The love birds have reason to cheer as the Delhi government has relaxed the

Marriage Registration norms in the capital.

In the wake of rising numbers of honour killings in the NCR, the Delhi government has decided to amend the Hindu Marriage Registration rules.

As per the new norms, the Delhi government has decided to abolish the mandatory clause of 1956 Hindu Marriage act, in which it was mandatory for a couple to prove that either of them, or any of their in-laws, had lived in Delhi for at least 30 days for the marriage to be registered in the Capital.

In the new norms, a couple who is planning to marriage are already married can register it within minutes without any residence proof.

The new proposal was moved by Principal Secretary (Revenue) DM Sapolia on Monday.

The move was taken after alarming number of honour killing cases and Khap Panchayat’s dictate came to light.

The new clause also offers police protection to the young couple in case of any threat perception either from family members or any other religious diktat.

The new Marriage registration rules will help couple facing Khap Panchayat threat can get register in Delhi.

 http://english.samaylive.com/nation/676472793.html

……….

NEW DELHI: In the backdrop of reports of honour killings and khap panchayats taking on couples who marry within the same gotra, the Delhi government is gearing up to amend the marriage registration rules in the capital. It seeks to abolish a rule under which marriage registration can be done in Delhi only if the couple can produce proof that either one of them or parents of at least one of them have been residents of area falling under the jurisdiction of the registrar for more than 30 days.
The proposal seeking an amendment in the Delhi Hindu Marriage Registration Rules 1956 is likely to be tabled before the cabinet on Monday. If the amendment comes through, couples from other states who tie the knot in the capital will be able to get their marriage registered here itself.
There has been a rise in the number of cases in which families turn hostile to such newlyweds and several incidents of honour killings have also come to light in the recent past. Haryana's khap panchayats have been in news for the alleged atrocities inflicted on couples who dared to marry within their gotra or outside their caste against their families' wishes.
In its present form, Delhi Hindu Marriage Registration Rules makes it mandatory to have a residence proof of Delhi to register a marriage. It states that one of the parties or his/her parents should have been residing within the jurisdiction of the registrar for more than 30 days for the marriage to be registered in the city.
The revenue department of the state government has sought these conditions to be abolished so that couples who marry in the capital are able to register their marriage here even if they or their parents are not Delhi residents. The only precondition being that the marriage should have taken place in the city.
Delhi high court had earlier reportedly struck down as "unconstitutional'' the rule that registration of marriages could be effected in Delhi only if at least one of the parties or parents of either of them has been a resident of the capital. The court order came in a case where a couple was denied registration due to this clause.
Meanwhile, activists from NGOs such as Shakti Vahini, who have been studying the role of khap panchayats and the reasons behind honour killings, agree that the amendment will make it easier for couples facing resistance from families to register their marriages in the city. However, they are quick to point that this would be a small step and it alone cannot deal with the complexities that are leading to honour killings or atrocities by khaps.
Similarly, Anju Dubey Pandey from Centre for Social Research said such an amendment would certainly make life easier for couples seeking registration in the city. "But since matrimonial issues are complex, those concerned should carefully study the clauses and other issues involved before taking a decision,'' Pandey added.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/To-protect-couples-Delhi-govt-will-amend-marriage-rules/articleshow/6493705.cms#ixzz0yfAyryA0

Hiding a prior divorce from husband also amounts to cheating: Gujarat high court

Hiding a prior divorce from husband also amounts to cheating: Gujarat high court

The Gujarat high court recently gave two significant judgements in cases lodged by an NRI couple after their divorce. Justice Akil Kureshi of the high court ruled that if a woman conceals her previous marital status (including a marriage that had ended in a divorce), it amounted to cheating. In such a case, the husband can file a police complaint against his wife, the court said.

The judge also held that a woman can file a criminal complaint against her husband if he does not return her belongings after their marriage had ended in a divorce in a foreign country.

According to the case details, Mitesh and Tanya, who are currently citizens of the US, originally hail from Kheda district. They had got married with the consent of their respective families but their marriage soon ran into trouble and they divorced in the US in 2007. But the bad blood between the two did not end there.

Tanya filed a complaint in Nadiad under the dowry act among others, alleging that Mitesh had not returned her belongings which amounted to Rs20-Rs 25 lakh. These were given to her by her father at the time of the marriage but they were still with Mitesh's family, Tanya claimed. She demanded that Mitesh and his family return her belongings as she had divorced Mitesh in the US.

Mitesh had also filed a complaint at the same police station alleging that Tanya had cheated him as she had not disclosed the fact that prior to their marriage she was married to another boy and had divorced him too.

In his judgement, Justice Kureshi gave the green signal for filing of a police complaint against Tanya for not disclosing to Mitesh the details of her previous marriage and divorce. But the court turned down Mitesh's plea that Tanya's police complaint against him and his family for not returning her belongings be quashed.

The court also refused to entertain Tanya's argument that even if Mitesh's allegation was accepted as true, it did not constitute an offence as her previous marriage had been annulled by the competent court in the US.

On the other hand, Mitesh in his complaint had argued that Tanya had concealed details of her previous marriage even in the marriage form. This amounted to cheating and forgery, he said.

"Tanya had made a false declaration saying that she was unmarried, after which he had agreed to marry her," Mitesh declared in his complaint.

In her complaint demanding the return of her belongings, Tanya stated Mitesh and his family had not returned what belonged to her. As per the terms of their divorce settlement, the two parties were supposed to return each other's property, she stated, adding that Mitesh was now saying that he and his family did not have any of Tanya's belongings.

Divorce at 70? Plan some spiritual growth, says Supreme Court

Divorce at 70? Plan some spiritual growth, says Supreme Court

Saturday, Aug 28, 2010

At the age of 70, it’s time to go on a pilgrimage to Hardwar and be divorced from the material world, instead of being engaged in a prolonged legal battle for divorce.

These are the words of the Supreme Court for an aged Juhu couple, seeking separation under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Making a bid to make them conscious that the age is catching up, apex court judges on Thursday counseled petitioner Veena, 70, and her husband, Govardhan Kapoor, 75, to share the roof. However, the court suggested that if the two wish, they may keep themselves separated by a wooden partition.

Veena doesn’t want to share the apartment with Govardhan and contested a Bombay high court judgment last year that made her share the accommodation as per a mutual agreement between them in the divorce case.

The couple married in Delhi on April 26, 1969. They have two sons — Navin, 36, who lives in America, and Sachin, 33, lives with his father.

In 1981, the couple started litigation after Govardhan suffered heavy losses in his business. Charges and counter charges ensued and Govardhan alleged that his wife had an extra-marital affair.

Govardhan’s case got stronger after Sachin testified in favour of the allegation.

While Govardhan moved a law suit seeking an injunction against Veena from dispossessing him from the flat, she sought a direction asking him not to enter the house.

Govardhan agreed to the term that Veena is the owner of the flat but he would live there with certain conditions that included installing separate electric meters and demarcating territory with a wooden partition.

But Veena’s lawyer DK Garg on Thursday told a bench headed by justice GS Singhvi that she couldn’t be expected to live under the same roof particularly when she had been accused of being in an adulterous relationship. She lamented that even her son had also sided with his father.

Disposing of her petition, the court said: “You can’t throw out the aged husband, but you can get the son out.”

Unemployed man can't be forced to pay maintenance to wife ,there is no legal presumption that behind every failed marriage there is either dowry demand or domestic violence. Marriages do fail for various other reasons.:Delhi HC

Unemployed man can't be forced to pay maintenance to wife,there is no legal presumption that behind every failed marriage there is either dowry demand or domestic violence.  Marriages do fail for various other reasons:HC

New Delhi, Aug 27, (PTI):

An unemployed man cannot be forced to pay maintenance to his estranged wife, the Delhi High Court on Friday ruled saying that in an era of equality of sexes a person cannot be compelled to maintain others if spouses are on an equal footing.

"Under prevelant laws, a husband is supposed to maintain his unearning spouse out of the income he earns. No law provides that a husband has to maintain his wife, living seperately from him, irrespective of the fact whether he earns or not," Justice S N Dhingra said.

The court passed the order while setting aside the order of a family court which had directed the husband, who was unemployed, to pay a maintenance of Rs 5,000 to his wife.

The court said the wife, who was equally qualified as her husband and was working in an MNC, cannot ask for maintenance from her husband who lost his job.

"Court cannot tell the husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give maintenance to his wife, more so when the husband and wife are almost qualified and capable of earning and both of them claimed to be gainfully employed before marriage," the court said while granting relief to the husband who was an NRI working in Angola in Africa.

"We are living in an era of equality of sexes. The Constitution provides equal treatment to be given irrespective of sex, caste and creed. An unemployed husband who is holding an MBA degree cannot be treated differently to an unemployed wife who is also holding an MBA degree.

"Since both are on equal footing, one cannot be asked to maintain the other unless one is unemployed and the other is employed," the court said.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/91906/unemployed-man-cant-forced-pay.html

also @

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/unemployed-man-cant-be-forced-to-pay-alimony-hc/673385/

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Unemployed-man-can-t-pay-maintenance/Article1-592789.aspx

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4314490

Can't say husband impotent without proof: Guj HC

Can't say husband impotent without proof: Guj HC

Ahmedabad, August 25:  Gujarat High court hearing a divorce case has rejected the family court ruling granting divorce to a couple on the ground of impotency.

However, the high court upheld the family court order of divorce between the same couple on grounds of desertion and cruelty.

One Rajendra Dalal had challenged a family court's order granting divorce to his wife Dharmishta on the ground of impotency and cruelty, in the Gujarat High Court.

A division bench of Justice Jayant Patel and Abhilasha Kumari, last week, rejected the man's appeal, saying that the petition was devoid of merits.

The court, however, observed that there was no conclusive evidence to prove that the man was impotent or the marriage was not consummated. "The finding of the Family Court on this point, therefore, cannot be endorsed," it observed.

It said that the decree of dissolution of marriage has been passed by the Family Court under the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the ground of cruelty and desertion and not under Section 12 (impotency).

Also, the Family Court, while granting divorce had recorded cogent findings on the ground of desertion and cruelty against the man, the court added.

(with PTI inputs)

http://www.zopag.com/news/cant-say-husband-impotent-without-proof-guj-hc/25786.html

…………….

HC: Can’t say husband impotent without proof

Ahmedabad, August 25, PTI:

The Gujarat High Court has observed that specific medical proof was required to determine whether a husband was impotent or his marriage cannot be consummated when a wife seeks divorce on this count.

A division bench of the HC comprising Justices Jayant Patel and Abhilasha Kumari has set aside the grounds for a verdict passed by a family court vis-à-vis a divorce petition. In the case involving an earthquake victim husband and his wife, the family court had granted divorce on the grounds of impotency and consequent ‘cruelty’.

Rejecting a family court ruling that granted divorce to a couple on the ground of impotency, the HC, however, upheld the family court order of divorce between the same couple on grounds of desertion and cruelty. Rajendra Dalal had challenged the family court’s order granting divorce to his wife Dharmishta on the ground of impotency and cruelty. It said the decree of dissolution of marriage has been passed by the family court under provisions of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on ground of cruelty and desertion and not under Section 12 (impotency).

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/91446/hc-cant-say-husband-impotent.html

मेरी पत्नी किन्नर है..

मेरी पत्नी किन्नर है..

 

मुरादनगर। मुरादनगर के एक युवक ने अपनी पत्नी को किन्नर कह कर उससे तलाक लेने का फैसला लिया है। युवक का कहना है कि उसके ससुराल वालों ने उससे 50 हजार के गहने लेकर अपनी किन्नर बेटी से उसका विवाह करा दिया।

युवक मुरादनगर स्थित एक इंजीनियरिंग कॉलेज में काम करता है। उसने कोर्ट में याचिका दायर की है कि राजनगर के एक कॉलेज में काम करने वाला शख्स अपनी बेटी का रिश्ता लेकर उसके पास आया और उसने यह बात युवक से छुपाई की उसकी बेटी किन्नर है।

शादी पक्की होने के बाद युवक ने पत्नी के पिता को 50 हजार रुपए के गहने भी दिए थे। इसके बाद 15 फरवरी को 2010 को युवक की उस लड़की से शादी करा दी गई। शादी के बाद युवक को जब इस बात का पता चला की उसकी पत्नी किन्नर है। यह जानने के बाद युवक ने कोर्ट का दरवाजा खटखटाया। दर्ज याचिका में युवक ने आरोप लगया है कि पत्नी के बाप ने उसके दिए गए 50 हजार के जेवर देने से इंकार कर दिया है।

Girls in love 'marry', seek protection

Girls in love 'marry', seek protection

NEW DELHI: Two girls — aged 22 and 21 — submitted an affidavit in the Mayur Vihar police station on Wednesday night claiming that they are living together.

Additional deputy commissioner of police (East) I B Irani said: "The girls submitted the affidavit to intimate the local police in their area of their intentions.

One of them works in a private sector office, while the other is unemployed. Though it is not necessary to file such an affidavit, the girls did so on their own accord."

Sources said the duo had come to the station to seek police protection following threats from family members. The girls, residents of Trilokpuri and Wazirabad, had reportedly met six months ago while working in the same office and had developed a romantic relationship. Earlier this month, they reportedly ‘married' and fled from their homes on August 12 to live together. The parents of one of the girls had allegedly threatened the family members of the other. They warned them of dire consequences if their daughter did not return home.

Following the threats, the couple filed the affidavit with the police, said the sources. The couple is currently living together, said the police. The couple is reportedly planning to move court to seek police protection.

Supreme Court lawyer Pinki Anand said: "Though same-sex marriage is not valid under the Hindu Marriage Act, if two consenting adults decide to live together, it is not a criminal offence. If they receive reasonably serious threats, courts are sympathetic to couples seeking protection, whether they are heterosexual couples or those of the same sex."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Girls-in-love-marry-seek-protection-/articleshow/6366742.cms

Let us live in: Man who married first cousin moves court

Let us live in: Man who married first cousin moves court

The Bombay High Court will now decide if the right to a live-in relationship can be extended to two consenting adults and first cousins.

Inderpal Walia, a 37-year-old merchant navy officer who married his first cousin Harmandeep in 2009, has moved a writ petition of habeas corpus in the HC after his wife was forcibly taken away by her family in September 2009.

Walia’s counsel Bhavesh Parmar, while admitting, that their marriage is null and void under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA, 1955), argues that while as cousins they may not be allowed to marry, they have the right to live together as consenting adults.

“After all,” he argues, “There has been a plethora of judgments by the Supreme Court which has allowed consenting majors to live together. We have pleaded the same in our arguments that will be submitted across the bench.”

Walia claims, despite his efforts to establish contact with his 19-year-old wife, he has not seen or heard from her since September 13 last year. The primary concern, adds Parmar, is to produce Harmandeep in court.

In his petition he has detailed the dramatic circumstances under which they met and married according to Arya Samaj rituals in Mumbai. However, he alleges, on September 13, she was whisked away by her mother and relatives pretending to orchestrate a reunion with her ailing father.

When Walia tried to stop them by pulling the chain of the Frontier Mail, in which they were travelling, he was fined. The family, with Harmandeep, disappeared after the train reached Surat.

Parmar adds, “The girl’s family has filed a divorce proceeding in the district court at Amritsar where they have admitted the marriage took place at the insistence of some relatives.

As per law, the marriage is void and there is no question of divorce. But she is a major and as per the Supreme Court judgment she can be in a live-in with my client, who is also a major.”

It may be noted that a division bench of Justice B H Marlapalle and Justice Roshan S Dalvi which heard the matter has already issued notices to the girl’s family including her father to produce Harmandeep before the court and they were supposed to do the same on August 9, but none were present in the court on Monday.

When contacted, Harmandeep’s mother did not allow us to talk to her, but said, “We could not make it because my husband is not keeping well. Our daughter was not happy with him.”

The HC will now deliberate on the matter, which could seriously challenge the way society has traditionally defined incest and intimacy between two consenting individuals.

Harmandeep and Inderpal Walia after they got married in Mumbai

Over 5,000 matrimonial cases pending in Delhi alone

Over 5,000 matrimonial cases pending in Delhi alone

By Praveen Kumar
New Delhi, Aug 17 (IANS) More than 5,000 matrimonial cases have been pending since 1995 in various courts in Delhi. This was revealed during the hearing on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the Delhi High Court.

Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Manmohan issued notices to the central and Delhi governments on the PIL which sought directions for the speedy disposal of these cases filed under the Hindu Marriage (HM) Act.

The petition mentioned that there were a large number of pending cases in various district courts as the government had failed to provide exclusive courts to deal with cases related to marital discord and divorce, among others.

There are a total of eight district courts in the city that deal with cases under the act and 4,687 cases since 1995 have been pending in these courts. In Delhi High Court alone, 369 such cases are pending, said the petitioner who collected the data using a right to information (RTI) application.

Till May this year 846 new cases gave been filed in the high court, of which 609 have been disposed of.

The petition, taken up for hearing by the high court on Aug 11, said that the delays in these cases have been taking place as the courts are flooded with other types of cases as well.

The petition alleged that the courts have failed to implement provisions of the act which provide for speedy disposal of cases.

“The courts are adjourning matters without assigning any special reasons as prescribed under the provisions of section 21 B of the HM Act,” said the petition.

According to the act, the trial of a petition filed under it should be held on a day-to-day basis until its conclusion, unless the court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded.

“Every petition under the act shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of service of notice of the petition on the respondent,” the petition said, quoting the act.

The petition also highlighted that in cases of divorce with mutual consent, the courts give six months’ time to both husband and wife to reflect on their move and seek advice from relations and friends.

“But even after this period is over, long dates are given by courts to come to final conclusion” the petition said.

According to the petition, a person filing a case under the act has to wait for a minimum of five years for its disposal before the district courts and a minimum of five years before appellate courts.

“During all these years when the couples are engaged in filing applications after applications, attending hearings, facing adjournments, the golden period of their life is lost in contesting the matter,” said Sarvesh Bisariya, the petitioner and counsel in the case.

This denies them an opportunity to live with dignity and honour, he said.

(Praveen Kumar can be contacted at praveen.k@ians.in)

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/over-5000-matrimonial-cases-pending-in-delhi-alone_100413524.html#ixzz0wrL31Hfr