English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Wife is entitled to maintenance even if she earns: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has ruled that wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband even if she earns while disposing of the application challenging the quantum of maintenance granted by a family court.

Published

on

Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has ruled that wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband even if she earns while disposing of the application challenging the quantum of maintenance granted by a family court.
The High Court passed this order on the revision application filed by husband against the judgment of the Family Court wherein the judge had granted payment of Rs 15,000/- per month as maintenance to wife from the date of application and amount of Rs 7,000/- as cost of litigation under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (“the Code”).
A single-judge bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar, however, noted that the Family Court didn’t consider that the wife had a source of income from Beauty Parlour business.

 

“In the totality of the circumstances and upon consideration of the relevant factors including the income of the Respondent, the number of dependents upon the Respondent, the reasonable wants of the Applicant, in my considered view a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month would be a reasonable financial support to augment the income of the Applicant,” said Justice N.J. Jamadar.
Applicant (wife) and respondent (husband) were married on November 12, 1997. The wife claimed, since the inception of marital life, she was treated with cruelty by her husband.

In April 2007, the respondent expressed desire to obtain divorce from the applicant. The wife claimed that in order to avoid harassment at the hands of her husband, she signed the mutual divorce petition documents on the assurance of her husband that he would continue to maintain the marital relationship with her despite a paper decree of divorce.

Accordingly, a decree of divorce by mutual consent was obtained on 25th October, 2007. Despite, the decree of dissolution of marriage, the respondent continued to visit the applicant’s house. But from September 2012, the respondent stopped visiting the applicant’s house. The wife claimed that since she had no income to support her, she filed an application for award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month, under section 125 of the Code.

Meanwhile, the respondent (husband), who was remarried in 2011, told the family court that applicant wife had started beauty parlour business and was financially independent, and hence she decided to forego maintenance she is entitled to under Section 125 as part of the mutual agreement before the decree of divorce was passed. He also opposed the maintenance application citing losses in business.

The learned family Judge was of the view that the fact that the Applicant had given up her claim for maintenance when the decree for divorce by mutual consent was passed, does not detract materially from her claim as such an agreement not to claim maintenance or waive the right of maintenance was opposed to public policy.
The Applicant being a wife, despite being a divorcee, within the meaning of Explanation (b) to section 125(1) of the Code, the agreement to reside separately from the Respondent does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance, held the learned Family Judge and fixed payment of Rs 15,000/- per month as maintenance to wife from the date of application.
Being aggrieved, the aforesaid reasons and findings the Respondent-husband invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The counsel for the Respondent-husband urged that the learned Judge, Family Court committed a manifest error in arriving at a finding that the Respondent had refused or neglected to maintain the Applicant and that the Applicant was unable to maintain herself.
Amplifying the submission, the learned counsel said that the Applicant having voluntarily relinquished her right of maintenance when the decree of divorce by mutual consent was passed on 25th October 2007, was not legally entitled to turn around and seek maintenance from the Respondent.
“The fact that the Applicant resides separately from the Respondent in pursuance of the decree of divorce, even if taken at par, thus does not disentitle the Applicant, being a divorced wife, from claiming maintenance, urged the learned counsel for the Applicant. The agreement not to claim maintenance which is in teeth of the statutory provision, the object of which is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, does not operate as a bar to claim maintenance. Such an agreement, being opposed to the public policy, does not override the statutory ameliorative provisions,” urged the counsel for the Applicant.

India News

Supreme Court judge calls police assault on CJP protesters very distressing

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan criticised alleged police assaults on CJP protesters and raised concerns over excessive force.

Published

on

Supreme Court

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has criticised the assault of protesters by police personnel during the recent CJP demonstrations in Delhi, describing the conduct as “very, very distressing” and a matter of serious concern.

Speaking at the launch of retired IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad’s book Policing the Republic, Justice Bhuyan said the detachment expected from police officers appeared to be diminishing.

He expressed concern over young Indian Police Service officers personally participating in the assault of protesters and demonstrators.

Justice Bhuyan stresses need for responsible policing

Justice Bhuyan said effective policing does not require excessive use of force or infringement of human rights. He emphasised that the police play an important role in maintaining public confidence because citizens generally approach the police when they feel they have been wronged.

He said maintaining the credibility of the police force was therefore of “utmost importance”.

The judge’s remarks come amid continuing scrutiny of the police and paramilitary response to the CJP protests in Delhi.

Supreme Court panel to examine police action

The Supreme Court has constituted a high-level panel to investigate allegations concerning the use of force by Delhi Police during the July 20 student protests at Jantar Mantar and the subsequent Parliament march.

The panel, headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice R Subhash Reddy, will examine complaints relating to lathi charges, tear gas, pellet guns and electronic batons. It will also look into allegations of targeted harassment or molestation of female protesters and review available CCTV and video footage.

The police response during the protests has faced criticism, while Delhi Police has maintained that its personnel were also attacked during the clashes.

Judge raises concern over custodial deaths and torture

Justice Bhuyan also spoke about custodial torture and deaths, describing custodial death as one of the gravest crimes in a society governed by the rule of law.

He stressed that torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment cannot be accepted, regardless of whether such conduct takes place during investigation, interrogation or other circumstances.

The judge further warned that when government functionaries themselves become lawbreakers, it can undermine respect for the law and encourage lawlessness.

He questioned whether citizens lose their fundamental rights simply because they have been arrested by police.

‘Fake encounters’ cannot be part of policing

Justice Bhuyan also addressed allegations of extra-judicial killings, commonly referred to as “fake encounters”. Referring to a 2011 Supreme Court judgment, he said such encounters undermine the rule of law.

He stressed that an “encounter philosophy” cannot become part of legitimate policing and said proven fake encounters involving serving police officers must be treated with the utmost seriousness.

The Supreme Court’s panel will now examine the allegations surrounding the police action during the July 20 protests as scrutiny of the events continues.

Continue Reading

India News

8 Tamil Nadu engineering students killed in Kerala car-lorry crash

Eight engineering students from Tamil Nadu were killed after their car collided with a parked lorry on NH-66 in Kerala’s Thrissur district.

Published

on

Eight engineering students from Tamil Nadu were killed after the car they were travelling in crashed into a parked lorry on NH-66 in Kerala’s Thrissur district late Friday night, police said.

The accident took place at around 11.40 pm at Panambikkunnu in Kaipamangalam. The students were travelling from Guruvayur towards Kodungallur when their car collided with the rear of the lorry.

What happened in the Thrissur accident

According to the FIR, the lorry was parked illegally on the right side of the highway near a barricaded section where traffic had been diverted because of ongoing construction work.

Police said the car was travelling at high speed and its driver apparently failed to notice the diversion barricade before the vehicle crashed into the rear of the lorry.

The lorry was registered in Maharashtra.

Six students died at the accident spot, while two others were declared dead on arrival at a nearby hospital, police said.

Six victims identified

The victims were students of an engineering college in Dindigul and were travelling towards Kodungallur along NH-66.

Police have identified six of the eight victims. Four of them — Surya, Yuvasanjith, Vishva and Johua — were from Dindigul. The other two identified victims were Santhosh and Prasanna from Madurai.

The identities of the remaining two students are yet to be confirmed.

Residents, fire and rescue personnel and police took part in the rescue operation and pulled the students from the badly damaged car. The bodies were subsequently taken to the mortuary of Thrissur Medical College.

Case registered against lorry driver

Kaipamangalam police have registered a case against the lorry driver under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for culpable homicide.

Police said the driver went into hiding shortly after the accident.

The families of the victims were contacted using student identity cards recovered from the bodies. Police said some families were unaware that their children had travelled to Kerala.

Postmortem examinations will begin after the families reach Thrissur Medical College, police said.

Continue Reading

India News

Air India sacks Phuket-Delhi flight pilot after failing drug test

Air India has terminated the Phuket-Delhi flight pilot after a confirmatory test found a psychoactive substance following the August 4 incident.

Published

on

Air India has terminated the employment of the pilot-in-command of a Phuket-Delhi flight after he tested positive for a psychoactive substance.

The pilot was in command of flight AI2379, which was travelling from Phuket to Delhi on August 4 when the aircraft suddenly lost altitude over Odisha. The incident left 24 passengers injured.

Air India said the termination was in line with its zero-tolerance policy regarding safety violations and regulatory requirements.

Air India terminates pilot with immediate effect

In a statement, the Tata-owned airline said the pilot-in-command had tested positive for a psychoactive substance.

The airline said that, considering its zero-tolerance approach to violations related to safety, fitness and regulatory requirements, the pilot’s employment had been terminated with immediate effect.

Air India also said it continues to cooperate fully with the investigation into the incident and has provided access to relevant operational, maintenance and technical records.

What happened on the Phuket-Delhi flight?

According to the preliminary findings of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), the Airbus A320 was carrying 145 people when it experienced the near-simultaneous loss of all three hydraulic systems while cruising at around 36,000 feet.

The technical failure resulted in the autopilot disconnecting and triggered a brief stall warning. The aircraft subsequently lost altitude, resulting in injuries to 24 passengers.

The preliminary report also noted that the pilot tested non-negative for a psychoactive substance in a confirmatory test.

However, the report did not establish that the pilot’s drug-test result caused or contributed to the hydraulic system failure or the subsequent loss of altitude.

AAIB recommends action over psychoactive substance finding

The AAIB described the confirmation of psychoactive substance use as a serious concern and recommended that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) take appropriate action against the pilot on priority.

The investigation into the technical and other aspects of the incident is still underway.

The preliminary report also noted that the co-pilot was flying the aircraft when the incident occurred and attempted to bring the situation under control.

Air India said safety remains its highest priority and that its pilots undergo training, proficiency checks, medical examinations and other regulatory assessments in accordance with applicable requirements.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com