Decide maintenance amount afresh, says Delhi court

Decide maintenance amount afresh, says Delhi court

Press Trust of India  |  New Delhi  July 25, 2014 

A sessions court here has directed a magisterial court to decide afresh the maintenance amount awarded to a woman and her children in a domestic violence case after her husband claimed that his total income was less than the awarded sum. 

A direction to this effect was given by Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Gautam Manan to a magisterial court. 

The judge allowed the man's appeal challenging the magisterial court's order directing him to pay Rs 5,000 per month in maintenance to his estranged wife and his children, saying the magistrate had not considered the proof about the woman's income and assets while fixing the amount. 

"I find that the trial court has passed the orders awarding maintenance without considering the proof of income of the respondent (woman)and her financial assets, if any. 

"Before passing the orders of the maintenance, the trial court ought to have directed both the contesting parties to disclose their income and assets on affidavits...Hence the orders suffers from material irregularity and is set aside," the ASJ said. 

The judge directed the magistrate to re-decide the quantum of maintenance after taking the affidavits of the parties (man and woman) and after giving due consideration to their rival contentions in respect of their earnings. 

The man, a resident of Ambedkar Nagar in Uttar Pradesh, had challenged the January 2014 order of a metropolitan magistrate on the ground that his total monthly income was less than the awarded maintenance amount and hence he was incapable of paying it every month. 

He had claimed that he was living in a remote village, 1000 km away from Delhi, and that his wife had already taken away sufficient jewellery and clothes with her. 

He also claimed that he was ready to keep his wife in his house but despite his repeated requests, she had refused to stay with him. 

The ASJ, while allowing the man's appeal, noted that his wife had not said anything in response.

Source-http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/decide-maintenance-amount-afresh-says-court-114072500591_1.html

Samandh aur Naari Suraksha | Relationship and Women Safety

Live discussion in program Aam Log 

Samandh aur Naari Suraksha

Live discussion on the security and safety of women in relationship, featuring Advocate Mahesh Tiwari on panel. Why men feel insecure in relationship? How to trust a woman when law gives her immense rights to put allegation on the man in relationship and she is not responsible to prove her allegation? How a lover/Husband become molester and even rapist in her allegation ? Subscribe to Anup Kumar's video channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLkMmotIdEAZBjIgTpIMt4A

Court to decide afresh maintenance awarded to woman

Court to decide afresh maintenance awarded to woman

Press Trust of India | New Delhi
June 12, 2014 Last Updated at 14:20 IST

The amount of maintenance awarded to a woman in a domestic violence case will be decided afresh by a Delhi court after her husband claimed that her income was more than his earnings. 

A direction to this effect was given by Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Gautam Manan to a magisterial court. 

The judge allowed the man's appeal challenging the magisterial court's order directing him to pay Rs 1,500 per month in maintenance to his estranged wife and his children, saying the magistrate had not considered the proof about the woman's income and assets while fixing the amount. 

The sessions court also quashed the trial court's order on maintenance to the woman and the couple's two minor sons.

"The (magisterial) court has passed the order awarding maintenance without considering the proof of income of the respondent no 1 (woman) and her assets, if any," the ASJ said. 

The judge set aside the order of the magisterial court, saying it "suffers from material irregularity" as the lower court had given its verdict without taking the affidavits of the man and the woman in respect of their income. 

"The trial court is directed to decide the quantum of maintenance after taking the affidavits of the parties and after giving due consideration to the rival contentions of the parties in respect of their earnings," the court said. 

The man, a resident of Mahipalpur extension here, had challenged the 2013 order of a metropolitan magistrate on the ground that his wife was earning more than him and he was living in a pitiful condition. 

He claimed that she was enjoying a much better life than him and she had also forcibly taken possession of his house. 

He also denied the allegations of the woman that he subjected her to domestic violence and claimed that instead he was at the receiving end. 

He claimed that the award of "relief decided by the magistrate was in a routine and mechanical manner, cornering the provisions of law...Hence, the order be set-aside." 

The woman, in her reply through her counsel, opposed the man's plea saying she has to maintain herself and her children and the trial court had rightly awarded the maintenance amount to them.

Source - http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/court-to-decide-afresh-maintenance-awarded-to-woman-114061200534_1.html

No maintenance to wife in domestic feud case:Court

No maintenance to wife in domestic feud case:Court

Last Updated: Thursday, August 30, 2012, 15:25 

  

Thane: The Thane District court has set aside an order of a lower court granting maintenance to a housewife and her child. 

In his order, Additional Sessions Judge A P Raghuvanshi, on August 28, held that the housewife was not entitled to any relief under the provisions of Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 

The case related to one Ramji and Sheetal (names changed) who were married on April, 29, 2002 in Mumbai. After 15 months of marriage, the husband had filed a divorce petition in the Bandra court on ground of cruelty, under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 

He had stated in the petition that his wife was adamant, rude and quarrelsome and her conduct had led to the deterioration of their relationship. 

However, before the counsellor, the wife reportedly admitted to her faults and a consent term was prepared and filed on January 1, 2004 and the couple started living together. 

Later, the wife, after taking into possession all the jewellery which she had received during the marriage, filed an application for maintenance and also filed a complaint under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and lodged an FIR against her spouse. 

The magisterial court then ordered a maintenance of Rs 3,000 each per month for the wife and their child. 

The court also ordered the husband to return Rs 1.50 lakh, that he borrowed from his mother-in-law. 

The husband and his parents then filed an appeal challenging the order of the lower court, which was allowed by the sessions court at Thane. 

In his order, the judge observed that "all these allegations made by the wife clearly establish the probability in favour of husband that it is he who had tried to settle the mater from time-to-time and he even resided separately along with the wife, but still the dispute continued between them".

"In this position, the allegations made by wife that husband was not providing food to her and she had to sleep empty stomach are totally false," the court observed. 

"This admission also establishes that when the husband could not provide separate accommodation for his wife, he had even allowed her to cook separately by making partitions in the same house where his parents were living. Thus, it is the wife who did not cooperate with the husband even though, he tried to mould himself as per the whims of his wife," the court further observed. The admission given by the wife in her cross-examination brushes aside the allegations of domestic violence committed by the husband, the court said. 

As regards the payment of Rs 1.50 lakhs, the court stated that "the recovery of said amount is a transaction in between husband and the parents of his wife, for which civil suit is required to be filed by his in-laws. The said transaction has nothing to do with any act of domestic violence." 

Setting aside the order of the lower court the district court observed, "JMFC has totally neglected the admissions given by wife during the cross-examination showing that her husband had provided all sorts of opportunities to her. The applicant has failed to establish any allegations against her husband. Therefore she is not entitled to any relief under the provisions of the Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, 2005".

Therefore, the Magistrate has incorrectly passed the order in favour of the wife and the findings arrived by the lower Court require interference at the hands of this Court, the Judge added. 

PTI 

Source htt01.htmlp://zeenews.india.com/news/maharashtra/no-maintenance-to-wife-in-domestic-feud-case-court_7967

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

HC relief to husband from paying maintenance

TNN | May 18, 2013, 07.07 PM IST

MUMBAI: A man who was directed by the family court to pay maintenance to his wife even though it had dismissed his plea for divorce has got relief from Bombay high court which has stayed the order.

A division bench of Justice V M Kanade and Justice F M Reis decided an application in a pending appeal filed by Subhash Ganguly (name changed) challenging the apex court's February 21, 2013 order dismissing his divorce petition and directing him to pay his wife Babita (name changed) Rs 20,000 as monthly maintenance.

Subhash filed for divorce in 2008. Babita filed her counterclaim and urged the court to restrain him, his family and agents from dispossessing her from the matrimonial home at Bandra (west). She also sought Rs 50,000 towards litigation expenses.

Subhash's advocate Smita Gaidhani, relying on a Supreme Court judgment, argued that the petition for divorce having been dismissed, the marital status was not disrupted by the court's order and hence the FC could not have granted maintenance under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Babita's advocate Taubon Irani said the trial judge had already granted maintenance of Rs 20,000 and hence the SC judgment cannot be made applicable.

The judges said the wife had not prayed for maintenance but only for Rs 50,000 towards litigation expenses. "As the petition for divorce is dismissed, no further order of maintenance could have been passed either in the petition filed by the husband for divorce or in the counter claim," they said, in their April 18, 2013 order uploaded last week. The judges said the SC judgment applies to the present case and the trial court erred in awarding maintenance. They agreed with Gaidhani that the wife can seek maintenance either under section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act or under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The judges allowed Subhash, during pendency of his appeal, to stay in his 2BHK 700 square feet house. Subhash left his house on July 22, 2007 due to harassment at the hands of his wife and her relatives and thereafter was not allowed to enter the hosue. Irani argued that Subhash had subjected Babita to physical and mental cruelty and if he is permitted to stay further complications would arise.

Noting that Subhash is staying in a hotel, the judges said he is entitled to stay in his own house, which he purchased before marriage. They said he has legal right to stay in his own house and laid conditions that the couple would stay in separate bedrooms, have access to common facilities including the kitchen and bathroom and shall not obstruct or interfere with each. They directed Babita to hand the duplicate keys to Subhash. They rejected her plea to stay the order.

No alimony for women walking out of marriage

No alimony for women walking out of marriage

 
Full text of the order @ http://legalmanthandivorce.blogspot.com/2011/11/no-alimony-for-women-walking-out-of.html

 November 5, 2011 

WOMEN who choose to walk out on their marriages cannot claim alimony and must support themselves, a Delhi court has said.

Rejecting a plea for maintenance from a Malviya Nagarresident who had deserted her husband, the court said the woman must first prove that the man had actively denied support and caused separation.

“ A wife cannot walk out of the house at her own will and also claim maintenance from the husband,” additional sessions judge Rajeev Bansal said.

“ Living separately is not sufficient ground for a wife to claim maintenance from the husband. She must prove without fail that the husband had refused to maintain her, despite having sufficient means to do so.” The woman had filed an appeal against a magisterial court decision which had dismissed her plea for maintenance.

In her application to the sessions court, she alleged that her husband had acted cruelly, leading to their separation, three years after the marriage. Claiming that her estranged husband was making sufficient money as an electrician, she demanded an appropriate amount of alimony.

The court, after examining the evidence and testimony at hand, concluded that the woman had failed to prove the adverse circumstances that had led to the estrangement.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/delhi-court-no-alimony-walk-out-on-marriage/1/158777.html

Woman ticks HC Judge off for 'making' her nine-year-old son cry

 Thursday, November 03, 2011 at 12:39:42 AM

The boy, whose parents are separated, started sobbing when the judge told the kid that he should spend time with his father. If he did not follow the order — or stop crying — “we will send you to the police station.” The sobbing continued for more than an hour outside the court

A mother took on a High Court judge on Wednesday for trying to scare her nine-year-old son into spending his weekends and holidays with his father and threatening him with jail if he didn’t. Justice N K Patil and Justice C R Kumaraswamy were hearing a case between Raja Lakshmi and Subraya Manja over the custody of their son and were trying to convince the woman to send her son to meet his father on weekends and school holidays. The boy, however, started crying when he heard this. “We are telling you to meet your father on the last Saturday and Sunday of the month and half of the vacation. If you don’t, we will send you to the police station. Your father has the same affection for you. Do not act like this. He is your father, he is also human. Your father is not your enemy. You can meet him once in a month,” Justice Patil told the boy. On seeing the boy’s tears, he said, “We are not disturbing your stay with your mother. You can stay with her, but meet your father also. If not, we will send you permanently with your father.” By this time, the boy was howling loudly, saying, “Please, please.” But Justice Patil told the boy, “If you cry, we will send you to jail. Is it not your duty to tell your mother that you want to meet your father and discuss things with him?” The judge then turned to the mother’s counsel: “It is your duty to tell your client that she should let the boy meet his father. Otherwise, you will kill the future of the child. If you people cannot arrive at a compromise, we will pass an order as per the facts of the case. We are tired of such things. Unless we pass the order, you won’t understand the trouble.” The couple had separated after a year of marriage and have been living apart for 10 years now. A lower court had ordered for the restitution of conjugal rights but Lakshmi had refused to go back to her husband. During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Patil asked both the parties to talk to each other and arrive at a compromise. But their counsel said that the couple was not on talking terms and was incompatible. The judge said, “It is a problem they have created. If they do not talk face to face, the matter won’t be decided. Neither he nor she will be happy. Let them live together for four months and see if they can lead a compatible life. The husband may now realise the importance of a wife. Many who have made mistakes have become model citizens and better human beings. Unfortunately, our society has not developed family counsellors.” The judge then adjourned the case for some time and asked the parties to talk to each other.   Sympathy all around During the adjournment, the boy continued to cry outside the court as his mother tried to console him. “Amma please, let us go home. I do not want to go inside again,” the boy kept repeating. Other clients, advocates and even the policeman on duty tried to console the boy but to no avail. When the court resumed at 4.30 pm, both mother and boy stayed outside.   Dad’s version Manja, the boy’s father, told the court that he and his son would earlier play cricket and lagori, but his wife was not letting them meet. He told the court, “She did not even invite her father to our wedding. I earn Rs 40,000 per month and can take care of the child. I can take care of her like a queen. After marriage, the luck of her brother and sister turned for good and they kept me away. She left me nine years ago and did not come back.” At this point, Lakshmi who was consoling her son outside the court hall, stormed in. “I was in hospital during childbirth but he did not once come to see me. He should have fed me when I was carrying. You will not understand how tough it is for a woman to become a second wife to a man. I will not go with him. I have brought up my son,” she told the court. Justice Patil told her that her husband was repenting. She countered, “Repentance is different and leading a life is different. Even I will repent, but how will anyone understand how I agreed to become his second wife and how badly he treated me. He used me like a worker. For two years, he produced xerox copies in court, showing that he had sent me alimony. But he didn’t. He should have fed me when the child was born. Why else would the child fear going with him? After you scared him, he is still crying after one hour.” After this outburst, the court sent both of them out of the court and read out the judgment. It ordered that since the child was of a tender age, he should not be deprived of the love and affection of both the parents. It ordered that the boy spend the last weekend of every month and half his vacations with the father. “Tell your client to motivate the child to meet the father, otherwise he will get full custody,” the judge told the mother’s advocate. http://www.bangaloremirror.com/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=1&contentid=2011110320111103003955358442f5eaa&mid=51

SC rejects feminist organisation’s plea for quashing "keep" remarks

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition by a women's group seeking withdrawal of the controversial phrase "keep" used by it in a judgement in which it held that a "one night stand" with a man would not entitle a woman to maintenance.

A bench of justices Markandeya Katju and T S Thakur rejected Mahila Dakshat Samiti's petition on the ground that it had no locus standi(legal right) to question the judgement since it was not a party to the matrimonal dispute in which the judgement was passed.

In the judgement delivered on October 21 last year, the apex court had held "if a man has a 'keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and or as a servant, it would not in our opinion be a relationship in the nature of marriage."

The country's lone woman Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising and Vinay Bhardwaj, Vice President of the Samiti, expressed dissappointment at the apex court's refusal to withdraw the "derogatory remark."

The bench in a terse order today said "application for permission to file a review petition is rejected. This review petition has been filed on behalf of Mahila Dakshat Samiti seeking review of this court's order dated 21st October, 2010 whereby the appeals were allowed.

"Mahila Dakshat Samiti was not a party before this court or before the High Court or trial court. Having carefully gone through the review petition and connected papers, we see no reason to grant permission to Mahila Dakshat Samiti to file this review petition.
Hence, the application for permission to file review petition is rejected." The apex court in the judgement had ruled that a woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to maintenance unless she fulfils certain parameters and said merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a domestic relationship.

It formulated the following parameters for a woman in live-in relationship to seek maintenance.
(1) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses, (2) they must be of legal age to marry, (3) they must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage including being unmarried, (4) they must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
"In our opinion, not all live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005 (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act). To get such benefits, the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied and this has to be proved by evidence," the court had said.

The apex court had passed the judgement while setting aside the concurrent orders passed by a matrimonial court and the Madras High Court awarding Rs 500 maintenance to D Patchaiammal who claimed to have married the appellant D Velusamy.
Velusamy had challenged the two courts' order on the ground that he was already married to one Laxmi and Patchiammal was not married to him though he lived with her for some time. Jaising said "the judges have chosen the easy option instead of confronting the issue as would be expected from judges from the Supreme Court."

She said the Samiti was an organisation with an illustrious track record of having worked in the interest of women for the last several decades including formulation of the dowry prohibition act and hence its credibility could never be doubted.
"The issues raised in the review peition do not relate to the parties to the case alone but to women as a class. The issues are use of gender bias language in judgements of the Supreme Court of India.

"It is expected gender-neuter language. The objection was to the word 'keep' and expression used only in relation to women in a highly derogatory context," she said adding the apex court had missed a "historic opportunity to correct a wrong."
Bhardwaj said she was deeply disturbed by the judgement as the apex court since the 1980s had played very progressive roles on women issues.

"As the time goes, the Supreme Court should have taken up positive and progressive views in view of the magnitude of the problems of women. Instead, it has chosen to dismiss the petition," she said.

PTI

http://www.zeenews.com/news693718.html#ixzz1GnM9hINR

I-T returns not gospel for deciding maintenance to be paid by husband: Bom HC

I-T returns not gospel for deciding maintenance to be paid by husband: Bom HC 

TNN, Nov 29, 2010,

MUMBAI: Tax returns are not sacrosanct when it comes to calculating the maintenance paid by a man to his estranged wife and kids, the Bombay high court has ruled.

In two recent cases, the HC thwarted the attempt of two businessmen who challenged the maintenance awarded to their wives, pointing at their paltry earnings as shown in income-tax returns. However, Justice Roshan Dalvi said, "The consideration of the income contemplated under the (Hindu Marriage Act) does not mean that only the numerical figures shown in the tax returns of a party can be taken as the gospel. The ascertainment of the income has to be done judiciously, and sensibly, not arbitrarily." or only arithmetically." ,'' the judge added.

The court said, the tax returns might be only one side of the story. "It would be absurd to consider the net income of an assessee who has various sources of income some of which may not be taxable," at all,'' the judge said.

In the first case, Dilip Singh, a businessman in the has glass industry and has offices in Goregaon and Kandivli, challenged a family court's order to pay maintenance to his estranged wife. He claimed that according to his IT papers, his income was Rs 16,000 per month but going through his documents, the court could not agree with it. went through his financial documents to find a mismatch. "In this income, the man would not be expected to have the bank account that is shown to court (with large deposits and withdrawals), the car, the share in the joint-family property, that he has purchased, the exports that he has made and the electricity expenses, that he has paid the property taxes that he has incurred or the employees he pays," he supports in several firms,'' said the judge. The court refused to believe that the market value of his share in the family residence was merely Rs 3 lakh.

The second case related to another businessman, Deepesh Mehta, who objected to a family court's order of paying Rs 40,000 per month to his wife and two sons.

He claimed his monthly income, as per his IT returns, was Rs 20,000. "A person who earns that income, if that be his only income, would not be able to invest in shares of listed companies (to the tune of Rs 55 lakh), insurance, PPF accounts, government bonds, flat, shop," said the court, dismissing his application.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/I-T-returns-not-gospel-for-deciding-maintenance-to-be-paid-by-husband-HC/articleshow/7012039.cms#ixzz16lHT3PhU

 

FULL TEXT AVAILABLE AT

http://legalmanthandivorce.blogspot.com/2010/11/itr-not-gospel-for-deciding-maintenance.html

Man fighting for harassed husbands fined 1L by Gujarat HC

Man fighting for harassed husbands fined 1L by Gujarat HC

TNN, Nov 26, 2010, 03.32am IST

AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat HC on Thursday slapped a penalty of Rs 1 lakh on Dashrath Devda, president of Akhil Bharatiya Patni Atyachar Virodhi Sangh for protesting against alleged misuse of domestic violence laws. A division bench fined him for filing frivolous PIL and for wasting court's time.

Devda had approached the HC by way of filing a PIL demanding judicial interference in the alleged misuse of protection laws for women. He was demanding a protection in legislation for men, who are according to him henpecked by their wives.

Devda has been claiming that women have abused the laws, which are in favour of them, but certain protection for men is also required against the misuse of the legislation. He filed this PIL, which came up for hearing before a division bench. When Devda began arguments as party-in-person, the court asked him to withdraw his PIL because his demand was to amend the legislation. Refusing to pay any attention to what the court was hinting at, Devda continued to argue how women in this country are worshipped, and no law is required for their protection. However, the chief justice repeatedly asked him to withdraw the PIL.

Ultimately, the court imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on Devda and asked him to pay the money to the Self Employed Women's Association — an NGO working for women empowerment. The court has directed Devda to pay the amount of penalty within two months.

Devda and members of his association often stage demonstrations and take out rallies in the city in protest against the domestic violence laws. They also help men in court proceedings, who face charges of domestic violence from their spouses. In this PIL also, Devda tried to assert their views that different pieces of legislation favouring women are misused, and ultimate sufferers are the family members. The association has been protesting against anti-dowry law of Section 498A of IPC, alimony related provisions in Section 125 of CrPC and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Man-fighting-for-harassed-husbands-fined-1L-by-HC/articleshow/6991947.cms#ixzz16KwY9gFj

Is Marriage is Legalised Prostitution with burden of responcibility ? Indian Women find solace in Live-in relationships but with all benefits of Marriage. P7 news channel discussion on SC judgment on Maintenance and alimony for Women in live-in relationships

Is Marriage is Legalised Prostitution with burden of responcibility ? Indian Women find solace in Live-in relationships but with all benefits of Marriage.

 

P7 news channel discussion ( 08 November 2010) on SC judgment on Maintenance and alimony for Women in live-in relationships

 

Part 1/2

 

 

 

Part 2/2

 

Full text of SC judgment under discussion is available here

http://legalmanthandivorce.blogspot.com/2010/10/sc-lays-down-conditions-for-women.html

Do Maintenance laws need to be relooked ? SC judgment on maintenance alimony for Live-in relationships under Domestic Violence Act

NDTV- We The People – Do Maintenance laws need to be relooked ? SC judgment on maintenance alimony for Live-in relationships under Domestic Violence Act

 

Part 1/4

 

Part 2/4

 

Part 3/4

 

Part 4/4

 

 

 

 

Also available at

Alimony and the modern woman

Do alimony laws need to be re-examined in modern India?

Live-in Relationship- Indian scenario-Legal psycho social aspect-p7 news kayda kanoon-03oct10

Live-in Relationship- Indian scenario-Legal psycho social aspect-p7 news kayda kanoon-03oct10

 

Part 1/2

 

 

 

Part 2/2

Bombay HC sets aside divorce for wife of dead man

Bombay HC sets aside divorce for wife of dead man

TNN, Oct 12, 2010, 12.05am IST
MUMBAI: Can a divorce be granted to a woman whose husband is dead? The Pune family court certainly thought so and passed just such an order recently. But finding the Pune order nothing short of "preposterous, a bench of Justices B H Marlapalle and U D Salvi of the Bombay high court set it aside on Monday.
A Pune-based woman who was married for almost 20 years through a love match and had two minor teenagers was going through a divorce battle when a freak accident took her husband's life.
The fairly affluent couple, Arun and Aruna Joshi ( name changed), were estranged for five to six years. In 2005 the wife in her mid-40s filed a divorce petition citing mental and physical cruelty as ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act and sought maintenance too. But after efforts at mediation failed, the couple turned their petition into one of mutual consent in February this year.
The family court allowed them to convert the contested divorce case into a joint plea for divorce. The mutual consent petition had its next date of hearing in May 2010. But in April, Arun in his early 50s, who was walking on one of Pune's main roads became a fatal victim of an accident involving a truck and car. Aruna went to the family court and made an application for closing the case as her husband was no more.
Aruna's lawyer Neela Gokhale told the HC that in a mutual consent divorce matter, the couple continues to remain married till the decree is passed. As the husband died while the matter was pending, the wife , Gokhale, said is now a widow. The family court judge R V Deshmukh rejected the wife's request and said that as the couple had agreed to a divorce by mutual consent and had even sought to convert a contested case into a joint plea for divorce, "nothing else remained to be done. So, he could issue a divorce decree even if the husband was dead.
At the first day of its hearing, Justice Marlapalle who had read the appeal papers and appeared shocked at the Pune court's decision of granting divorce, set it aside. The woman can now have her widow status which she prefers over being called a divorcee. The property issues would now follow the succession laws if no will was made.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/HC-sets-aside-divorce-for-wife-of-dead-man/articleshow/6732341.cms#ixzz126TFkUSD

Maintenance for live-in woman: issue for larger Bench

Maintenance for live-in woman: issue for larger Bench

The Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench a question of law whether a man and woman living together for long, without a valid marriage, would raise a presumption of valid marriage entitling her to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC.

A Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, though prima facie held the view that women in live-in relationships would be entitled to maintenance, referred the issue to Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia for determination by a larger Bench having regard to the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which provided for maintenance.

The Bench framed questions including “whether a marriage performed according to customary rites and ceremonies, without strictly fulfilling the requisites of Section 7(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or any other personal law would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC. We think the larger Bench may also consider the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. This Act assigns a very broad and expansive definition to the term `domestic abuse' to include even economic abuse. Therefore, women in live-in relationships are also entitled to all reliefs given under the Act.” Writing the judgment, Justice Ganguly quoted from the rulings of the House of Lords and the Privy Council to hold that cohabitation, with the required repute, as husband and wife was proof that the parties between themselves had mutually contracted the matrimonial relationship. The Bench noted that in the instant case both appellant Chanmuniya and first respondent Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha were related and lived in the same house and by a social custom were treated as husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnised with ‘katha' and ‘sindur'. “Therefore, following the ratio of the decisions of the House of Lords, this court thinks there is a very strong presumption in favour of marriage.”

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article820299.ece

‘Husband bound to provide maintenance regardless of income’

‘Husband bound to provide maintenance regardless of income’

A husband has moral and legal duty to provide a decent maintenance amount to his estranged wife in consonance with her living standards irrespective of his income, a Delhi court has said.

“A married man is under a legal and moral obligation to maintain his estranged wife whether he possesses any property or not or whether or not he has any income. The obligation to maintain her is personal in character and arises from the very existence of the relationship between the parties,” Additional Sessions Judge Nivedita Anil Sharma said.

The court passed the order while declining the plea of a husband, Shalabh Srivastava, seeking alteration in the interim-maintenance amount fixed by a lower court on the ground that his income had substantially went down after he joined a new job.

It declined the husband’s plea saying that he had an earning potential of Rs 35,500 per month and if he has preferred to minimise his income and work at a lesser salary, then he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own conduct.

“The fact of taking up a job at a lesser salary clearly indicates that the revisionist (husband) is deliberately making a conscious effort to reduce and minimise his income. It is also not believable that any man would work at a lesser income than what he is getting already.”

“The averments of the appellant clearly show that a deliberate attempt has been made by him to lessen his income and he cannot be permitted to take advantage of this fact,” the court observed.

The court rejected the contention of husband that the earning potential of his estranged wife was far more than the amount she was getting as maintenance.

“There is nothing brought on the record prima facie by the husband to show that the earning potential of the respondent (wife) is more than Rs. 7,000 as observed by the trial court,” the court said.

It also turned down the plea that the wife was living separately due to her own conduct, saying that the fact was immaterial for the purpose of award of interim-maintenance.

“The dispute regarding conduct of the parties are immaterial... only the earnings, properties, assets as well as the earning potential of both the sides is to be taken into consideration,” it said.

Mr. Shalabh had appealed against the order of a trial court fixing Rs. 7,000 per month as the maintenance for his estranged wife Ritu.

While awarding the maintenance, the trial court had concluded that Mr. Shalabh’s income was around Rs. 35,500.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article387572.ece

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

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

Jobless father gets child maintenance from estranged wife

Jobless father gets child maintenance from estranged wife

HYDERABAD: If divorce and child custody laws are loaded against men, at least one such case has taken an objective turn at a city family court. Recently, the additional bench of the Hyderabad family court ruled in favour of a man who after winning the child's custody, sought financial aid from his working wife to raise the child until he was 18. The reason? The man in his petition stated that he had lost his job to make his marriage work thus holding the woman responsible for his jobless state.

The wife, who is a government employee, had filed for a divorce petition when the husband filed a petition simultaneously seeking the child's custody, stating that she had deserted their son. His custody claim was not countered by the wife and hence the court granted him the seven-year-old's custody. It was following this that he sought financial aid from his wife to raise the child, stating that he had been forced to spend considerable time at home to take care of the child and also trying to make his marriage work. In his petition he stated that he put in all possible efforts to save the marriage but his wife refused to listen to him. At a later date, she dumped her husband and child and walked out of their home. The divorce petition filed by her is still pending at the court.

This personal stress, he said, claimed his job of an administrator at a city-based hospital. "The mother has been asked by the court to bear the actual expenses of the child's education," said the lawyer representing the woman on conditions of anonymity. The amount will vary every month depending on the needs of the child.

This is not the first time that a man has sought financial aid from his estranged wife. A couple of months ago, a man moved the court seeking alimony from his wife citing his unemployment as the reason. However, this could well be among the first such verdicts wherein the court has conceded to the man's petition, by asking the woman to financially aid the man.

Nevertheless, lawyers are now speculating if the court would grant the divorce, now that it has made the woman responsible to bear the expenditure of the child's education. Also, lawyers are wondering what the court would do if the father manages to obtain employment by the time it hears the divorce petition. "For this the mother will have to file a petition or state during the hearing that the husband has found a job and that she no longer needs to pay for the child. However, this may take some time,'' a lawyer said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Jobless-father-gets-child-maintenance-from-estranged-wife/articleshow/6562369.cms#ixzz0zgiTnfYf