Wife pays for divorce

Oct 20, 2011

 

AHMEDABAD: In this case of matrimonial dispute, the wife had to pay alimony to her husband.

Sapna and Hitendra Chauhan resolved the dispute of their divorce in an out-of-court settlement on Wednesday, when Sapna's family paid Rs 1.71 lakh to Chauhan, who assured his in-laws that he would give his consent to divorce petition in a family court.

The couple got married in December 2008, and Chavda went to stay with his in-laws in Dholka town. Chavda works as a clerk with Railways in the city, and Sapna is a teacher at Nani Boru village near Dholka. After some time of marriage, the husband left his in-laws and started living separately with the complaint that he was unnecessarily harassed by her in-laws.

On the other hand, Sapna filed an application under section 125 of CrPC demanding maintenance from the husband. According to Chauhan's counsel, the wife did not disclose in her affidavit that she was employed as a full-time teacher in a government school. After hearing both the parties, a magisterial court in Mirzapur campus passed an interim order asking the husband to pay maintenance amount of Rs 2,000 every month for their 12-month old daughter only.

When the differences went beyond possible compromise, Chauhan proposed to separate by taking divorce decree from court. However, Sapna was reluctant. Finally, they arrived at a compromise that the wife would pay an amount to get divorce from the husband.

"The girl's family desperately wanted divorce and paid an amount to the husband on condition that he would give his consent in the divorce petition in a family court," said Sapna's advocate, Shaukat Ali Saiyed.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Wife-pays-for-divorce/articleshow/10421233.cms

Panel for changes in dowry law and maintenance law (s125 CrPC)

Panel for changes in dowry law and maintenance law (s125 CrPC)

Bangalore, Sep 27, DHNS:

The State Law Commission has recommended amendment to section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with dowry harassment cases.

So far, when a complaint was registered under this section, police could take members of husband’s family, including aged parents, into custody. Noting that this provision might give room for its misuse as well, the commission has recommended amendment to the section.
The commission, headed by Justice V S Malimath, on Monday submitted a total of 12 reports on different sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure to Law minister S Suresh Kumar.
The panel has also recommended amendment to section 125 of the CrPC to ensure that wives get proper alimony in divorce cases. The section should be amended in such a way that the man, in such cases, should declare his assets, so that the wife gets alimony and child support accordingly, the recommendation states.
Malimath said in certain cases of divorce, the wife failed to get proper alimony because the man did not disclose his assets. If the law makes it mandatory for the husband to declare his assets, the wife and children will get their due alimony.
Justice Malimath urged the government to implement the recommendations at the earliest. Kumar said the government would go through the pros and cons, before steps are taken.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/100242/panel-changes-dowry-law.html

Income of man’s family can decide maintenance – bom HC

The joint family finances of a man can be considered while determining the quantum of maintenance to be paid to his estranged wife, the Bombay high court has ruled. It gave its order in a case involving a 31-year-old Pune businessman.

Hiking eight-fold the maintenance the businessman, Amar Shejare, must pay his estranged wife Seema and their minor daughter to Rs 20,000 a month from Rs 2,500, a division bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Amjad Sayed said, “Considering the lifestyle of the Shejare family, it would necessarily follow that the income of (Amar) was substantial.” The judges added, “(Amar) had substantive income and considering the holdings of the joint family, he is capable of paying the monthly maintenance to the wife and the minor daughter.” The court also directed Amar to pay an additional Rs 10,000 to his wife towards legal costs.
Amar had contended that the property was owned by his joint Hindu undivided family. “We are conscious of the fact that Shejare is one of the coparceners (joint heir in the family property) and will have only a share in the said income,” the judges said, but pointed out that the family owned considerable property.
Seema (25) had moved the Pune family court in 2003 seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The provision of the CrPC allows a woman to avail of maintenance from her husband on grounds of negligence.
In 2005, the family court had asked Amar to shell out Rs 2,500 as monthly maintenance. Seema then moved the high court seeking enhancement of the amount, claiming that the annual income of her in-laws was around Rs 3 crore. She told the court that Amar’s family owned mango orchards spread over 75 acres in Ratnagiri and ran a business of mangoes and food products in Pune, besides owning residential flats in the city.
Amar denied the claims and said his family owned only a 22-acre mango orchard. He also produced his income-tax returns to show that his salary was not very high. The high court, however, asked why he had not filed I-T returns as part of the Hindu undivided family so that he could have refuted his wife’s claims. The judges further observed that even 22 acres of mango orchard would generate ample income.
“The fact remains that the joint Hindu undivided family of which Amar was coparcener has substantial properties,” the judges said, adding that since his daughter was school-going, there would be considerable expenses on her education and maintenance. While directing Amar to pay Rs 20,000 as maintenance for the mother and child, the court said Seema was free to pursue her application before the family court seeking to raise the monthly maintenance amount to Rs 1 lakh.

'Domestic violence law gives no right to seek maintenance'

'Domestic violence law gives no right to seek maintenance'

2010-08-31 20:10:00

The Delhi High Court Tuesday held that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not give a woman any additional right to claim maintenance from husband.

Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra, while dismissing the petition of Rachna Kathuria, said the act only puts on fast track the enforcement of existing right of maintenance available to an aggrieved person.

'If a woman living separate from her husband had already filed a suit claiming maintenance and after adjudication maintenance has been determined by a competent court either in civil suit or by the court of metropolitan magistrate in an application under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), she does not have a right to claim additional maintenance under the act,' said Justice Dhingra.

Under the act, the court of metropolitan magistrate (MM) has the power to grant maintenance and monetary relief on an interim basis in a fast track manner only in those cases where a woman has not exercised her right of claiming maintenance either under civil court or under section 125 of CrPC.

'If the woman has already moved court and her right to maintenance has been adjudicated by a competent civil court or by a competent court of MM under section 125 CrPC, for any enhancement of maintenance already granted, she will have to move the same court and she cannot approach the MM court under the act by way of an application of interim or final nature to grant additional maintenance,' the court said.

The petitioner had filed an application under the act seeking maintenance.

An MM dismissed the application after finding that a civil suit is already going in a different court and she was getting a total maintenance of Rs.4,000 per month from her husband.

The court also noted that Rachna was living away from her husband Ramesh since January 1996. She also filed a civil suit under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and an application under section 125 CrPC.

Justice Dhingra in his observation said that in case the petitioner felt that maintenance awarded to her was not sufficient, the proper course for her was to approach the concerned court for modification of the order in which she had filed civil suit and which has granted her maintenance.

 

http://sify.com/news/domestic-violence-law-gives-no-right-to-seek-maintenance-news-national-ki5ukdiaghb.html