Bahu can't occupy in-laws' own property: Delhi high court

Bahu can't occupy in-laws' own property: Delhi high court

Abhinav Garg,TNN | Aug 11, 2014

NEW DELHI: A daughter-in-law has no right to continue to occupy the self-acquired property of her parents-in-law against their wishes, the Delhi high court has held in a significant order.

Justice A K Pathak in a recent verdict, made it clear that a self-acquired property doesn't fall under the definition of a "shared household" enunciated in the Domestic Violence Act and a daughter in law can't enforce her right in such a property.

In fact, HC went a step further, holding that even an adult son or daughter has no legal right to occupy the self-acquired property of the parents against their consent.

"Daughter-in-law cannot assert her rights, if any, in the property of her parents-in-law wherein her husband has no right, title or interest. She cannot continue to live in such a house of her parents-in-law against their consent and wishes. In my view, even an adult son or daughter has no legal right to occupy the self-acquired property of the parents; against their consent and wishes. A son or daughter if permitted to live in the house occupies the same as a gratuitous licensee and if such licence is revoked, he has to vacate the said property," the court noted in its order

HC was hearing an appeal by the daughter-in-law against a trial court's verdict directing her to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the property to her estranged father-in-law. In her plea in HC the woman said she is a legally wedded wife and has a right to live in the property from where her father-in-law wants her evicted.

She claimed that the property was purchased out of joint family funds. Accusing the father-in-law and husband of harassing her for dowry, she informed HC that she is living separately from her husband due to matrimonial discord and divorce proceedings are on. Under DV Act, the property is a shared household where she has the right to reside, the wife maintained.

But the father in law through advocate Prabhjit Jauhar told HC that he is sole owner of the self-acquired property. Jauhar also convinced the court that the property was not purchased from joint family funds and his son had no share in it.

The father-in-law furnished before the court proof that he disowned his son in 2010 who has since then been living separately.

Justice Pathak concluded that the legal position "which can be culled out from the above reports is that the daughter-in-law has no right to continue to occupy the self -acquired property of her parents-in-law against their wishes more so when her husband has no independent right therein nor is living there, as it is not a "shared household" within the meaning of Section 17(1) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005."

HC also took into account lack of evidence to show that suit property was purchased from joint family funds.

Source-http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Bahu-cant-occupy-in-laws-own-property-Delhi-high-court/articleshow/40020176.cms

फरीदाबादः पत्नी और ससुरालवालों की प्रताड़ना के बाद पति ने की खुदकुशी

फरीदाबादः पत्नी और ससुरालवालों की प्रताड़ना के बाद पति ने की खुदकुशी

भाषा [Edited By: नमिता शुक्ला] | फरीदाबाद, 27 जनवरी 2014 | अपडेटेड: 06:21 IST

पति के प्रताड़ित किए जाने के बाद आजिज आकर आत्महत्या करने वाली महिलाओं की खबरें तो आती रहती हैं लेकिन क्या कोई पति अपनी बीवी और उसके घरवालों से इतना परेशान हो सकता है कि मौत को ही गले लगा ले! सुनने में अजीब लग रहा होगा लेकिन फरीदाबाद में एक ऐसा ही मामला सामने आया है.

पत्नी और ससुराल वालों की प्रताडऩाओं से तंग आकर एक व्यक्ति ने जहरीला पदार्थ खाकर अपनी जीवनलीला समाप्त कर ली. पुलिस के अनुसार नई दिल्ली निवासी सिबी वर्गिस ने पुलिस में शिकायत दर्ज कराई कि उसके भांजे 31 वर्षीय जोबिन पॉल की शादी (4 अक्टूबर, 2011) के बाद से ही उसकी पत्नी ममता सेठी, उसकी मां सत्या सेठी, सुनीता सेठी उसे प्रताड़ित करते थे.

इतना ही नहीं जोबिन पर मकान बेचने का दबाव भी डालते रहते थे, जिसके कारण जोबिन पॉल अपने माता-पिता को फरीदाबाद में छोड़कर केरल चला गया था. उन्होंने बताया कि जोबिन सिटी बैंक दिल्ली में नौकरी करता था. बीते 22 नवंबर, 2013 को उसकी पत्नी ममता अपने मायने चली गई थी.

जोबिन के काफी प्रयासों के बावजूद ममता वापस नहीं आ रही थी, जिसके चलते वह काफी परेशान था. उन्होंने बताया कि जोबिन पॉल पर उसके ससुराल वाले और ममता मकान बेचने का दबाव बना रहे थे, जिसके चलते उसने जहरीला पदार्थ खाकर आत्महत्या कर ली है.

http://aajtak.intoday.in/story/delhi-husband-commits-suicide-in-faridabad-1-753272.html

HC gives guidelines on Section 498A, the process to be followed. NO routine arrest on mere allegations

HC gives guidelines on Section 498A

TNN | Jan 22, 2014, 01.16 AM IST

HYDERABAD: Finding fault with a woman who implicated the parents of her mother-in-law and the families of her husband's sisters currently residing abroad in a dowry harassment case under section 498 A of the IPC, the high court has issued certain guidelines to the state police to enforce the anti-dowry law. One of the main directions given is not to arrest the accused involved in dowry harassment cases without securing the permission of the district SP or any other officer of the equal rank in metropolitan cities.

Justice B Chandra Kumar pronounced this judgment while allowing a criminal petition filed by Syed Kaleemuallah Hussaini and three others seeking anticipatory bail in a dowry harassment case. In his order, the judge said that no accused should be arrested when the allegation is simple dowry harassment. "If arrest is necessary, the investigating officer should obtain the permission of either the SP or any other officer of the equal rank in metropolitan cities."

The judge directed the magistrates to ensure that no accused was remanded in judicial custody in a routine manner. When an accused is produced before the magistrate, the court should examine the matter judiciously and consider whether there are valid grounds for remanding the accused to judicial custody, the judge said. If arrest is not necessary, the police may complete the investigation and file a chargesheet before the court without arresting the accused, he said.

The judge made it clear that in the case of dowry death, suspicious death, and suicide or where the allegations are serious in nature, the police officer may arrest the accused and intimate the same immediately to the SP concerned. The judge ruled that no accused or witness should be unnecessarily called to the police station, and in case their presence is required for enquiry, they should be sent back immediately after completion of the process.

"During the investigation, if the officer is satisfied that there is an undue implication of a person in the case, then he may delete the names of such persons from the chargesheet after obtaining necessary permission from the SP or any other officer of the same rank", the judge said. "As soon as a complaint is received either from the wife alleging dowry harassment or from the husband that there is possibility of his being implicated in a case of dowry harassment, then, both the parties should be asked to undergo counselling with an experienced counsellor," the judge said and directed that the report of the counsellors should be made a part of the report to be submitted by the investigating officer to the court.

The judge also ruled that the SP in consultation with the chairman of the district legal services authority should constitute a panel of counsellors and details of such a panel along with their address and phone numbers should be made available at all the police stations.

Senior police officers should ensure that there are no complaints of forcible settlements or compromises made by the police. The advocates should play the role of social reformers and try to bring about reconciliation between bickering couples while dealing with such cases, particularly, where the couples have children, he said.

The judge in his order lamented that "it is most unfortunate that Section 498-A of IPC has become a weapon in breaking the families rather than uniting them."

He also said that there cannot be any doubt to say that there is dowry menace in the society. But, at the same time, it is also a fact that certain marriages are performed without any dowry. Due to ill-advice or under a wrong impression that the husband may come to terms if a dowry case is lodged, complaints are being lodged with the police, the judge opined. While directing the registry to mark a copy of this judgment to the DGP, justice Chandra Kumar wanted the DGP to issue necessary instructions to all the men under him in the state in this regard.

SOURCE-http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/HC-gives-guidelines-on-Section-498A/articleshow/29173500.cms

Justice Dhingra aquits Mother in law of dowry death, slamming the trial court and public prosecutor for callousness. 'Criminal Justice System in India Needs Overhauling'

Justice Dhingra aquits Mother in law of dowry death, slamming the trial court and  public prosecutor for callousness. 'Criminal Justice System in India Needs Overhauling'

The Delhi High Court has said the justice delivery system needs overhauling as the poor are not getting timely justice in higher courts which are are kept occupied with cases involving persons with money or power.

"The whole criminal justice system needs overhauling so that the constitutional mandate of equality before law is made meaningful and it should not be the case that higher courts are kept occupied by the persons with money or power, as is the case today," the court said.

The court made the remarks while setting aside the conviction of a poor vegetable vendor who had to spend seven years in jail due to delay in disposing his appeal in the High Court.

The trial court had awarded seven years jail term to the vendor for allegedly killing his wife in 2003 and he filed an appeal in 2004 on which the High Court took six years to pass the verdict.

In the verdict, Justice S N Dhingra found him innocent and acquitted him but he had already spent his jail term.
"In this case, the High Court did not find time to hear the appeals of other two appellants who continued to remain in jail during trial period as well as appeal period for no crime of theirs," the court said adding the High Court should fix a time limit for disposing of such appeals.

"Neither the criminal should be let off by default as the High Court has no time to hear appeals nor should the innocents rot in jail by default," the court said.

The High Court pulled up the trial court for convicting the accused even though there were not sufficient evidence against him and merely on the basis of a statement made by his brother-in-laws.

"The conviction seems to be the result of a callous criminal justice system where neither the defence counsel prepared the case nor the prosecutor discharged his duty in an impartial manner nor did the judge consider it as his duty to see what offence was made out and everyone acted in a mechanical manner," the court said.

The court found that there was no evidence that the accused was harassing his wife for dowry leading to her death."The most disturbing factor is that no evidence, whatsoever, was collected by the police about the real facts. No effort was made by the public prosecutor or by the trial judge to even go through the evidence and consider what charges were made out. Charges seemed to have been framed in a mechanical manner," the court said.

In this case, the accused had married Janki in December, 2000 and she died within five months of her marriage.The court said that in such cases husband and in-laws should come forward to tell what was the real cause of death.

"The criminal practice in India has been on the lines of old track that accused must not speak and he should not be examined as a witness. I do not know why this practice developed but in all matrimonial offences, this practice is shutting the doors of the court to the version of the other side by their advocates," the court said.

http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?703620

SC acknowledges gross abuse of ANTI DOWRY LAWS - Bombay high court rapped for wrongly convicting man

SC acknowledges gross abuse of ANTI DOWRY LAWS - Bombay high court rapped for wrongly convicting man

New Delhi, Nov 12(PTI) Noting that his wife had committed suicide after her illicit relationship stood exposed, the Supreme Court has set aside the conviction imposed on a doctor and his parents by the Bombay High Court, saying it was a clear-cut case of gross abuse of dowry laws.

The apex court minced no words in expressing displeasure at the manner in which the High Court had convicted Dr Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta by erroneously reversing the acquittal order passed by the Sessions Court.

"The High Court dealt with the case very casually, adopting a very superficial approach to the whole matter and brushed aside the allegation of an illicit relationship for which there had been documentary evidence on record," a Bench of Justices P Sathasivam and B  Chauhan observed in their judgement.

The apex court said the manner in which the doctor and his parents were framed by the in-laws revealed the extent to which the anti-dowry laws were being abused in the country."It is a clearcut case of gross abuse of dowry laws.

The High Court did not make any attempt to appreciate the evidence with accuracy and reversed the findings of the trial court which were based on the evidence on record and for which detailed reasons had been assigned," the apex court said.

The court ruling came on an appeal by the doctor, a Mumbai-resident, and his parents. Married in December 1978, Gupta''s wife committed suicide in September 1985 by hanging herself.

Following the suicide, her brother Rajesh lodged a complaint with the police accusing the husband of illtreating his sister for dowry culminating in the suicide.The trial court acquitted the three as the prosecution failed to prove the charges against them.
Referring to her going into depression following the exposure of her illicit relationship with a neighbour and her strained life at home, the trial court concluded that Gupta''s wife "had been suffering from epilepsy, psychosis and depression and had been getting regular treatment for the same."

"Therefore it was not a case of dowry demand or treating her with cruelty," the trial court had held.But the High Court had convicted them, saying the defence had not been able to prove its version.Concurring with the trial court''s view, the apex court said, "The high court committed an error in shifting the burden of proof to the defence".

"In fact, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the failure of the defence to prove its version cannot be ground for conviction.

"We find it difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants (the man and his parents) on aforesaid counts (of dowry harassment and abetment to suicide)," said the Bench, while acquitting the man and his parents yesterday," the court said.

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4570561

Full Text available @

http://legalmanthan498adowrymisuse.blogspot.com/2010/11/sc-acknoeldges-gross-misuse-of-anti.html

Woman thrashed inside HC in presence of police, advocates

Woman thrashed inside HC in presence of police, advocates

A Subramani, TNN, Sep 21, 2010, 05.30am IST
Article

CHENNAI: In an incident that underscored the vulnerability of the Madras high court campus to security threats, a young woman was thrashed and dragged away by her relatives in full public view on Monday even as police personnel watched in silence. Even her screams and wails evoked no response from the personnel posted on the court premises.

Finally, when the gang of relatives attempted to push the 25-year-old woman, Deepa, into a waiting car, some advocates intervened and said they would not allow her to be taken away in such a manner. They escorted Deepa back to the court and the judges, who took up the matter again, sent her to a government home.

As per a February 2007 order of the first bench of the court and a subsequent government order, the HC premises should be guarded by a 252-strong police force "at all times". The order, passed by the then Chief Justice AP Shah and Justice K Chandru, said: "No personnel, who is coming within the sanctioned strength of 252, comprising various categories, shall be deputed to any other work, except for the work of the high court, and no diversion of the force will be permitted, except with the prior permission of the chief justice."

The government had given its full consent to the order and besides stationing the prescribed number of personnel, it also gave an undertaking that they would be imparted adequate training.
If 252 police personnel were actually on duty on the court campus on Monday, none of them was seen anywhere near the hapless woman when she was being thrashed and dragged away by her relatives.

The matter relates to a habeas corpus petition filed by K Manimaran (27) of Villupuram district, stating that his wife Deepa was in the illegal detention of her parents. Manimaran, a law graduate, and Deepa, an MPhil degree holder, got married in October 2008, when they both were students, and were living separately till June this year. After Deepa's father got to know about the marriage, the couple started living together since July 28. On August 13, her parents took her away by force, prompting Manimaran to file a habeas corpus petition. However, when she was produced in court on Monday, Deepa informed the judges that she was staying with her father after ill-treatment by her husband and that she was not under any illegal detention. After recording this statement, the bench, comprising Justices M Chockalingam and M Sathyanarayanan, allowed Deepa to go with her parents.

The commotion started when Deepa stepped out of the court hall; her relatives rained blows on her. When they tried to bundle her out of the court premises, unmindful of her full-throated screams, not a single police or court official came to her rescue. She collapsed on the staircase, gasping for breath. On information, registrar-general S Vimala rushed to the spot, but Deepa had already been carried to a waiting vehicle by then.

Madras High Court Advocates Association president RC Paul Kanagaraj and senior lawyer Y Deva Arul Prakash explained the commotion to the judges and said Deepa was not safe in the custody of her parents. After Paul Kanagaraj mentioned the matter to the judges in their chambers, the court re-convened in the afternoon and said Deepa must be sent to the government home on Kutchery Road in Mylapore until further orders. It said neither her husband nor her parents must visit the home and disturb her during her stay there.
More than the facts and circumstances of Deepa's case, what was shocking was the utter absence of response from the police and court security personnel, who must maintain campus peace "at all times".

"If the police cannot foil a motley group's uncivil behaviour on campus, how can they be expected to take on concerted anti-social behaviour or a serious security breach?" asked an angry senior member of the Bar.

The incident also exposed the dangers of unfettered access available to private vehicles and strangers frequenting the court premises. It is time to restore the hugely popular and successful access control system, which was the first victim of the February 19, 2009, police-advocate clash on the campus, feel some senior advocates.

"Regulating the entry of private vehicles and strangers and streamlining vehicle parking on the campus will greatly enhance the general security situation in the high court," said a senior police official.

 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Woman-thrashed-inside-HC-in-presence-of-police-advocates/articleshow/6596618.cms#ixzz10837Y7Fq

Clear case of misuse of 498a- Lok Adalat reunites couple – husband and family was jailed for dowry harassment complaint which turned out to be TRIVIAL misunderstanding created by parents.

Clear case of misuse of 498a- Lok Adalat reunites couple – husband and family was jailed for dowry harassment complaint which turned out to be TRIVIAL misunderstanding created by parents.

BANGALORE: The Lok Adalat conducted by Bangalore Urban District Legal Service Authority turned into a marriage hall on Wednesday, as a couple who were separated over a domestic violence were reunited.

The Lok Adalat headed by City Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) Ravindranath, convinced the couple Vadiraj (29) and Thripthi (28) to live together with their one-and-half-year-old son Ramaskanda.

The court hall turned into a mini marriage ceremony, after the couple decided to reunite and pleased judges also arranged a small programme to celebrate their ‘remarriage’. The couple’s advocate KC Gnanamurthy  said, “We advocates must do this kind of service and not separate families, just to get cases.”

The mood at the Lok Adalat suddenly changed with the news and staff distributed sweets, while the couple exchanged garlands and took blessings of the CMM.

Vadiraj, who works as Assistant General Manager, in a private company married Thripthi on July 11, 2008. Soon after their marriage, Thripthi alleged harassment by her in laws and decided to go back to her parent’s house. Gnanamurthy said Thripthi was pregnant during the incident and stated that the misunderstanding between the couple was due to a trivial reason, created by their parents.

Gnanamurthy said, Thripthi filed a dowry harassment case with the Yelahanka New Town Police station on October 22, 2009 based on which Vadiraj and four of his relatives spent 14 days in jail. But the couple have finally decided to reconsider and Thripthi withdrew all the cases she had filed against Vadiraj and his family

http://expressbuzz.com/cities/bangalore/lok-adalat-reunites-couple/199601.html

Delhi HC PWDVA - No Domestic relationship of Bahu if she, husband live separate from his parents

Delhi HC PWDVA - No Domestic relationship of Bahu if she, husband live separate from his parents

A woman cannot book her in-laws under the Domestic Violence Act if she, along with her husband, had stayed abroad at the time of matrimonial dispute, the Delhi High Court held.

"There can be no domestic relationship of the wife of the son with the parents when the parents are not living along with the son and there can be no domestic relationship of a wife with the parents of her husband when the son, along with the wife, is living abroad, maintaining a family there and children are born abroad...," said Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra.

"In order to constitute a family and domestic relationship, it is necessary that the persons who constitute domestic relationship must be living together in the same house under one head. If they are living separately, then they are not a family but they are relatives related by blood or consanguinity to each other...," said Justice Dhingra in a judgement.

"Once a son grows up and he starts earning, marries, makes his separate home and sires (fathers) children, the burden of his wife cannot be put on to the shoulders of his father or brother on an estrangement between husband and wife...." the court said.

The Court also pulled up a family court judge for directing the in-laws, who stay in India, to pay jointly Rs 50,000 towards the monthly maintenance to their daughter-in -law, Payal Malik.

"I am surprised that the court below did not give weight to the judgment of New Jersy, USA, court where parties lived for seven and half years but assumed jurisdiction under the Domestic Violence(DV) Act because of the pure temporary residence of the wife in Delhi who is otherwise a resident of Hissar...," said the court and set aside the lower court's July 27, 2009, order to pay maintenance to the woman.

The Court's ruling came on an appeal filed by Harbans Lal Malik, father-in-law, Neelam (mother-in-law) and Varun Malik, brother-in-law besides Nagesh Malik, the husband, challenging the lower court's order.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/woman-cant-book-inlaws-if-she-hubby-stayed-abroad/653484/0