Tuesday, March 31, 2015

NO arrest for NON payment of DV maintenance. Kerala HC


 

HC "..Magistrate cannot order non bailable warrant for the failure to pay maintenance as has been done in this case. It is made clear that Magistrate can proceed against the petitioner or other respondents for non payment of the interim maintenance only as provided under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and such an order cannot be enforced as has been done by the learned Magistrate. In such circumstances, the order issuing non bailable warrant can only be quashed. ...."

 

Note to readers: In this order the Kerala HC has quashed the arrest ordered by the learner magistrate. However this does NOT seem to be the norm. Other HC have ordered otherwise. So IF any of the readers here have a conclusive view please post the same … Till such time this issue is clear and concluded, please consider this matter as un finished or work in progress!!

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4843 of 2010()

 

1. SHANAVAS, S/O.ABDULSALAM, ...  Petitioner

Vs

1. RASEENA, D/O.SHIHABUDEEN, ...  Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

 

For Petitioner              :           SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR

For Respondent           :           No Appearance

 

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 

Dated :10/12/2010

 

O R D E R

 

M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.

 

*********************************

Crl.M.C.No.4843 of 2010

http://evinayak.tumblr.com http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

*********************************

 

ORDER

 

First respondent, through her mother, filed petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, which was numbered as M.C.No.246/2010. First respondent also filed a petition for interim order under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. By Annexure-II ex parte order dated 24.9.2010, respondents therein were restrained from committing any sort of domestic violence against the first respondent herein. Petitioner, the first respondent therein, was directed to appear before the court on 7.10.2010 and surrender his passport. He was also directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month towards maintenance to the aggrieved person. Notice was ordered to the respondents therein, including the petitioner. Petitioner, along with the third respondent, challenged that order before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.No.758/2010. It is pending. They also sought an order staying Annexure-II  order. By Annexure-IV order, learned Sessions Judge stayed only the direction to surrender the passport. Annexure-VI, copy of the proceedings paper in M.C.No. 246/2010, shows that case was posted to 19.10.2010 and on that day, learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to appear in person and pay maintenance. On that day, case was posted to 2.11.2010. On 2.11.2010, petitioner was absent. The case was then posted to 18.11.2010. On 18.11.2010 recording that petitioner was absent and there was no payment of interim maintenance ordered, non bailable warrant returnable on 9.12.2010 was issued. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction to the learned Magistrate to dispose the petition filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act expeditiously and to stay the order issuing non bailable warrant.

 

2. In the light of the order to be passed in this petition, it is not necessary to issue notice to the first respondent.

 

3. Section 23(1) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act provides that in any proceeding  before the Magistrate, he may pass such interim order as he deems just and proper. Sub-section (2) provides that if the Magistrate is satisfied that an application prima facie discloses that respondent is committing or has committed an act of domestic violence or that there is likelihood that respondent may commit an act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex parte order on the basis of the affidavit in such form, as may be prescribed, of the aggrieved person under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 or 22 against the respondent.

 

4. Section 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act provides for penalty for breach of protection order. Under sub-section (1), a breach of protection order or of an interim protection order by the respondent shall be an offence and shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or fine or both. Section 32 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offence under sub-section (1) of Section 31 shall be cognizable and non bailable.

 

5. As is clear from Section 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, when an order under Section 23, whether under sub-section (1) on hearing the respondent or under sub-section (2), an ex parte interim protection order, was passed and respondent commits breach of that order, respondent is punishable as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 31. That offence, as provided under Section 32 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is non bailable and cognizable. But the cognizable offence provided under Section 31(1) would only be the result of a breach of the protection order as provided under Section 18 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

 

6. A Magistrate, on passing an order under Section 23(1) or an ex parte order under Section 23(2) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, cannot direct arrest of the respondent by issuing non bailable warrant before taking cognizance of the offence, if an offence is committed under sub-section (1) of Section

 

31. Annexure-VI proceeding paper shows that after passing Annexure-II ex parte order as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the petition filed by the first respondent under Section 12 of Protection of  Women from Domestic Violence Act was posted for the appearance of the respondents. When first respondent appeared through a counsel, he was directed to appear in person and pay the maintenance. It is on the failure to appear and pay maintenance as ordered, the non bailable warrant was issued. Learned Magistrate cannot order non bailable warrant for the failure to pay maintenance as has been done in this case. It is made clear that Magistrate can proceed against the petitioner or other respondents for non payment of the interim maintenance only as provided under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and such an order cannot be enforced as has been done by the learned Magistrate. In such circumstances, the order issuing non bailable warrant can only be quashed. Petition is allowed. The order issuing non bailable warrant against the petitioner in M.C.No. 246/2010 is quashed. Judicial First Class Magistrate- II, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to dispose the petition filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, on merits, expeditiously. It is also made clear that learned Magistrate is  competent to execute Annexure-II order passed under Section 23(2) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. http://evinayak.tumblr.com http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

 

10th December, 2010

 

(M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)

 

tkv

 

 

PDF File uploaded to http://1drv.ms/1MxmyD8

 

 

 

 

 

*****************************disclaimer**********************************

This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************

CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE

 

*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
  
  

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Husband can sell his house when he wants!! DV can’t stop that. Kerala HC

Husband cannot be prohibited or restrained from alienating his property because it is his civil right!! Classic Kerala HC

 

* wife has filed DV on husband

* wife obtains maintenance order even though husband has tried to prove that he is incapacitated

* over and above that wife tries to stop husband from selling HIS ANCESTRAL (late mother's) property

* court REFUSES wife's plea and allows husbands revision petition

 

The Hon HC order as follows

"....she can continue in the shared household along with the husband so long as the shared house hold continues in the possession of the husband. The husband cannot be prohibited or restrained from alienating his property because it is his civil right. However, in case the husband proceeds to alienate the shared house hold, she can approach the court below for appropriate relief like alternative accommodation, and when such a claim comes, it will have to be decided by the trial court on merits. Subject to this, the second part of the order will have to be set aside......."

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

 

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

 

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2014/2ND SRAVANA, 1936

 

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 366 of 2014 ()

*******************************

 

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Crl.A 454/2010 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, NOTH PARAVUR

 

AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 103/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PERUMBAVOOR

 

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

*********************************************************************

         RAJAN, S/O.SUBRAMANIYAN, VILANGATTIL HOUSE, NEELESWARAM KARA

         KALADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

         BY ADV. SMT.SOUMINI JAMES

 

 

 

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

********************************************************

 

       1. SIJI, AGED 38 YEARS

          D/O.PADMANABHAN, KANNOTH HOUSE, CHENGARA KARA

          PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE - 683 562.

 

       2. AKHIL

          S/O.RAJAN, KANNOTH HOUSE, CHENGARA KARA

          PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, REP.BY MOTHER SIJI.

 

       3. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

          HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

 

         R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN

         R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GITHESH.R.

 

 

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

24-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

 

P.UBAID, J.

***************

Crl.R.P No.366 of 2014

***************

Dated this the 24th July, 2014

 

O R D E R

 

An order obtained by the wife against her husband under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is under challenge in this revision. The wife, who has been residing separately from the husband filed M.C No.103 of 2009 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor claiming reliefs under the Act. She sought protection order, maintenance order, order for compensation, residence order etc. She also sought the value of 4  sovereigns of gold ornaments alleged to have been appropriated by her husband. http://evinayak.tumblr.com http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

 

2 The husband entered appearance and resisted the claim on the contention that the alleged shared household does not belong to him, and that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance or compensation because she had not suffered anything bad at his hands, and that she has her own income to maintain herself. Thus, he denied the alleged cruelty, and he contended that his wife has no right to claim right of residence in the house that belongs to his mother.

 

3. The learned Magistrate conducted enquiry in the proceedings and recorded evidence. The wife examined herself as PW1. Two witnesses including her mother-in-law were examined on the side of the wife, and two Doctors were examined on the side of the husband. Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the wife and Exts.D1 to D3 were marked on the side of the husband. These documents were marked, and the Doctors were examined to prove his case that he is physically disabled. However, on an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found in favour of the wife, and granted the following reliefs against the husband.

 

(a) Restraining the husband from committing any act of domestic violence.

 

(b) Restraining the husband from alienating the shared household and the property wherein, the building is situated.

 

(c) Directing the husband to pay maintenance to the wife at the rate of 400 per  Crl.R.P No.366 of 2014 month and 500/- per month to the minor son.

 

(d) Directing the husband to pay an amount of 21,000/- as compensation to the wife and also the value of 4  sovereigns of gold appropriated by him.

 

Those directions were made by order dated 14.07.2010 in M.C No.103/2009.

 

4. The aggrieved husband approached the Court of Session, Ernakulam with Crl.A No.454 of 2010. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur concurred with the findings of the trial court on all the points except the last direction to pay the value of gold ornaments. Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the direction to pay the value of 4  sovereigns of gold ornaments but, maintained the other parts of the order in all respects. The husband is still aggrieved. He challenges the other parts of the order in revision.

 

5. On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the case records, I find that the husband in fact deserves some orders in his favour in revision. Of course, as regards the maintenance order or the order against the domestic violence, I find no reason for interference. The wife has made out a case in her favour, and I find that she has some grievance of her own. Though not 100% acceptable she has given evidence proving her case against her husband that she had no peace in matrimony in the shared household. In the said factual situation, I also find the necessity of maintaining the first part of the order restraining the husband from committing any act of domestic violence. So also, I find the necessity of sustaining the maintenance order because it stands not proved that the wife has any definite source of income or job. Though she knows tailoring, it will not dis-entitle her to claim maintenance from her husband. What is ordered by the court below is only 400/- per month. The amount ordered to the child is only 500/- per month. It is true that the husband examined two Doctors to prove his disability. But this medical evidence will not prove that he is in fact physically disabled to do any work, or to earn for his livelihood. Within the limits and within his capacity, he will have to maintain his wife and child. What he is liable to pay a month is only 900/-. This amount can  Crl.R.P No.366 of 2014 be paid by any husband who is able bodied. I find no scope for interference in the maintenance order passed by the court below. http://evinayak.tumblr.com http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

 

6. Now comes to the most objectionable part of the order contained in the second clause of the trial court order. The husband is restrained from alienating the shared house hold and the property wherein the building stands. Of course, the definite case of the husband is that the property was in fact purchased by his mother with her own funds and that the said direction will not bind the mother. Now, it is submitted that the mother is no more, and that the husband has inherited the property including the shared house hold, as the sole legal heir. Of course, it is true that the said direction was not in fact binding on the mother. Any way, now, the property has come in his hands as the legal heir. Once the property has come in his hand as the sole legal heir, he will have to obey the order. But the material question is whether the wife is entitled to get such an order. In fact, what she claims is merely a civil right over the property. Her case is that, the said property was in fact purchased by the mother-in-law by utilising her funds also. It appears that she claims right to continue there as a co- owner, on a claim of right, on the basis of what she contributed, and not simply as the wife having right to live in the shared household. There is reason to believe that the relationship between the parties is really strained. If what the wife claims is some civil right over of the property, she will have to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate civil remedy. However, she can continue in the shared household along with the husband so long as the shared house hold continues in the possession of the husband. The husband cannot be prohibited or restrained from alienating his property because it is his civil right. However, in case the husband proceeds to alienate the shared house hold, she can approach the court below for appropriate relief like alternative accommodation, and when such a claim comes, it will have to be decided by the trial court on merits. Subject to this, the second part of the order will have to be set aside.


 

 

Crl.R.P No.366 of 2014 In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. Accordingly, the second clause of the trial court order restraining alienation of property will stand set aside, subject to the observations made above regarding the wife's right to approach the trial court for further relief of alternative accommodation in case of alienation. The other orders confirmed by the appellate court are maintained.

 

Sd/-

 

P.UBAID JUDGE

 

ma

 

/True copy/

 

P.S to Judge

 

 

PDF file uploaded to http://1drv.ms/19vFwaP

 

 

*****************************disclaimer**********************************

This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************

CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE

******************************************************************


*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
  
  

498a wife also gets divorce case transferred to her place!

 

How Matrimonial feuds are filling up the courts and wasting precious time and energy of this country !!


Young couple of 24 and 28 fighting it out in courts

 

Marriage is becoming a gamble these days. If it works, it's ok. If it does NOT, the MALE and his family are made to run around courts and spend time and money to get their basic rights validated. Many a time they fail, because the law takes a more lenient view of the woman's requests

 

Here is the case of a woman who is alleged to have filed MULTIPLE police complaints against the husband in various jurisdictions, has also filed a DV case at a place of her work and is now getting the husband's divorce case transferred from Ernakulam to Thiruvananthapuram a disctance of more than 200 KM !! The couple also have a six month old baby which aggravates the situation

 

*********************************************************************

 

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

 

                                                    PRESENT:

                        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

 

               THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/18TH POUSHA, 1936

 

                                            Tr.P(C).No. 589 of 2014

                                            *******************************

             OP 1780/2014 OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM TO FAMILY COURT,

                                           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                                                         ******

 

PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT:

*******************************************

            DIVYA SUSAN MATHEW, AGED 24 YEARS,

            D/O.MATHEW ALEXANDER, JOY VILLA, T.C NO 36/291(1),

            MANAVA NAGAR, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 024.

            BY ADVS.SRI.D.KISHORE, SMT.MINI GOPINATH

 

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:

********************************************

            DEEPU JOHN JOHN, AGED 28 YEARS,

            S/O. JOHN, KAIMANNIL HOUSE, FORT VALLEY THOWNSHIP,

            KAKKANAD ATHANI, KUSUMAGIRI,COCHIN - 682 030.

            BY ADV. SRI.MANU ROY

 

            THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

            08-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

 

 

msv/

 

Tr.P.C.No. 589 of 2014

*******************************

 

                                      APPENDIX

 

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

**********************************************

 

ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF M.C.5/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND HER INFANT DAUGHTER.

 

ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION IN O.P.1780/2014 OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

 

 

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

**********************************************

 

ANNEXURE R1: COPY OF NOTICE DATED 9.8.2014.

 

ANNEXURE R2: COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. M.C.1601/2014.

 

ANNEXURE R3: COPY OF THE ORDER B.A.NO.7169/2014.

 

ANNEXURE R4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINANT DATED 27.9.2014.

 

ANNEXURE R5: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 11.11.2014.

 

                                               //TRUE COPY//

 

                                               P.S.TO JUDGE

 

Msv/


 

 

 

                       P.BHAVADASAN, J.

          **************************************************

           Transfer Petition (Civil) No.589 OF 2014

          **************************************************

            Dated this the 8th day of January, 2015.

 

                              O R D E R

 

This is a petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of O.P.No.1780/2014 from Family Court, Ernakulam to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

 

2. Suffice to say that, the marital relationship between the petitioner and the respondent ran into rough weather and litigations are in plenty. The petitioner has instituted M.C.No.5/2014 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is pointed out that the petitioner is currently employed at Thiruvananthapuram and she has a young child to look after. The respondent has instituted O.P.No.1780/2014 before the Family Court, Ernakulam seeking divorce.

 

3. According to the petitioner, she finds it extremely   difficult to come over to Ernakulam frequently to attend the case on each posting date. Moreover, she claims that she has a child to look after. She also points out that there is nobody to accompany her to go to Ernakulam. On the basis of these pleas, she prays for transfer.

 

4. The petition is very vehemently opposed by the respondent. He points out that the petitioner has filed almost three complaints alleging offence under Section 498A IPC in three different places making the respondent and his family members run around and she is creating havoc. It is also pointed out that he is being threatened by the petitioner and her relatives and their attempt is to prevent the respondent from attending the case in the Family Court, Ernakulam. It is also contended that he was beaten up at Thiruvananthapuram by the parents of the petitioner. http://evinayak.tumblr.com http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

 

5. Relying on the decision in Anindita Das vs. Srijit Das (2006 KHC 1887), learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that employment of petitioner-wife is not a sufficient ground for transfer and each case has to be considered on its   merits and in the case on hand, except for saying that she is employed at Thiruvananthapuram and she has a child to look after, there is no other ground seeking transfer. It is also pointed out that it is not necessary for the petitioner to come over to Ernakulam on each posting date and she can seek exemption by appropriate means.

 

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions in Sithara vs. Rajesh (2009 (4) KHC 269) and in Anjali Ashok Sadhwani vs. Ashok Kishinchand Sadhwani (AIR 2009 SC 1374) and contended that the consistent stand taken by courts is that the petition by the wife would be viewed with leniency since in all the posting dates wife cannot seek exemption from appearance. In the case on hand, the situation is such that the wife is employed at Thiruvananthapuram and she has to take leave for attending the case which will affect her employment.

 

7. It is very sad to know that the relationship has become so bitter which is evident from the accusation levelled against each parties and as revealed from the records produced before   the court. The petitioner has instituted proceedings before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and that is pending. The respondent, on the other hand, has a grievance that as vengeance, the petitioner is filing complaints after complaints in various Police Stations making the respondent and his family members on hooks. It is pointed out that the intention is only to harass the respondent and there is no real grievance for the petitioner for having the case transferred to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

 

8. After having gone through the decisions cited by the counsel on both sides, it becomes evident that each case has to be decided on the facts of each case. As a general rule, it can be said that the petition filed by the wife has to be viewed with leniency. But that is not an invariable rule. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is employed at Thiruvananthapuram. It is not proper for this Court to ascertain whether the allegations levelled against each parties are true or not. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, it   is not necessary for the petitioner to appear before the Family Court, Ernakulam on each posting date. She can seek exemption from personal appearance.

 

9. It needs to be noticed that the petitioner is employed at Thiruvananthapuram and she has a baby child now aged approximately 6 months and she has to take care of her child. Even though it may be possible to say that it is not necessary for the petitioner to come over to Ernakulam in all the posting dates and she can seek exemption, it is a fact that she cannot always seek exemption. Whenever she comes over to Ernakulam to attend the case, she has to bring her child also. http://evinayak.tumblr.com http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

 

10. Considering the fact that the petitioner is employed at Thiruvananthapuram and she has a young child to look after, it is felt that some leniency can be shown in the matter.

 

For the above reasons, this petition is allowed and O.P.No.1780/2014 pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam shall stand transferred to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The apprehension expressed by the respondent regarding assault at the hands of the petitioner and her family members will be   brought to the notice of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the said court may pass appropriate orders.

 

Sd/-

 

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

 

smp

 

PDF File uploaded to http://1drv.ms/19uIwnW

 

 

*****************************disclaimer**********************************

This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************

CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE

 


*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
  
  

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Gulf based NRI earning 65K to pay 6 K to wife : Kerala DV case

Gulf based NRI supposed 2 b earning 65K asked to pay 6 K to wife under DV case !

 

HC refuses to interfere in the case of a gulf based NRI asked to pay 6 k to wife. Husband supposed to be earning 65K p.m. in gulf!!

 

But the moot question is how will such an order be enforced IF the husband refuses to pay?? Obviously they can't attach the husband's salary, can they?

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/17TH POUSHA, 1936

 

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 22 of 2015 ()

******************************

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.NO. 45/2014 OF II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM DATED 22-11-2014)

MC.NO.2/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,KOLLAM

******************

 

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 :

********************************************        

NADIRSHA A.M, S/O.ABDUL MAJEED,

RESIDING AT IMAM MANZIL, PALACHIRA.P.O.,

VARKALA, TRIVANDRUM.

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

 

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE :

********************************************

1. SMT. SABEENA, AGED 30 YEARS,

D/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU, RESIDING AT FABIYA,

HOUSE NO.40, KADAPPAKADA NAGAR, KOLLAM TALUK-691 008,

NOW RESIDING AT SHAHANAZ, KULANGARA BHAGAM MURI,

CHAVARA, KOLLAM.PIN-691 021

 

2. STATE OF KERALA,

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

 

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JIBU P. THOMAS

 

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

 

B.KEMAL PASHA, J

******************************-

Crl.R.P. No.22 of 2015

********************************

Dated this the 7th day of January , 2015

 

O R D E R

******************

 

Petitioner herein is the husband of one Smt. Sabeena, aged 30 years who is the petitioner in C.M.P. No.248 of 2013 in M.C. No.2 of 2013 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kollam. She had approached the Court below under Sec.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, 'the Act') through the M.C. In the M.C. , she has preferred an application under Sec.23(2) of the said Act seeking interim relief by way of maintenance. It seems that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken the view that the petitioner herein is gainfully employed in gulf and has been earning .65000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand only) per month. It has come out that the petitioner in the M.C. is not being looked after and maintained by the petitioner herein and she has been abandoned. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has directed the petitioner herein to pay an amount of .6000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per month for her livelihood, as maintenance.

 

2. It seems that the petitioner has challenged the said order before the 2nd Additional Sessions Court, Kollam through Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2014. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, has concurred with the findings entered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and has dismissed the appeal through the impugned order.

 

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

 

4. On a thread bear scrutiny of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the subsequent judgment passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge on it, it seems that the concurrent findings rendered by both the Courts below do not call for any interference at all, as those findings do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or     impropriety. This Crl. R.P. is devoid of merits and is only to be dismissed, and I do so.

 

In the result, this Crl. R.P. is dismissed.

 

Sd/-

 

B.KEMAL PASHA,

JUDGE

 

/ True Copy /

 

 

NS                                  

 

P.A. To Judge

 

 

PDF File uploaded to http://1drv.ms/19uBxeN

 


*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
  
  

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Qualified, well earning, suspecting Doctor wife DENIED alimony

NO alimony JUST because husband earns more!! Conduct of parties important. Classic Andhra HC judgement

 

Qualified doctors fighting matrimonial cases since 1997 (17 years !!). Wife is also a doctor and seeks Rs 1 crore as permanent alimony. Family court orders Rs.15Lakhs. Wife appeals, seeks Rs1 Crore. HC completely rejects her alimony.

 

Hon HC Says "...

"…In this regard, we are of the view that the Family Court has lost sight of various other aspects as contemplated under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, while considering the O.P., filed under Section 25 of the Act. From a plain reading of the said provision, it is clear that Courts are obligated to take note of the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, while granting permanent alimony. The mere fact, that respondent is in a better position and is earning more compared to that of the petitioner, by itself, is not a ground for grant of permanent alimony….."

….

20. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects, it is to be held in this case that the conduct of the petitioner-wife is abominable and, therefore, she is not entitled to claim any amount towards permanent alimony from the respondent-husband. A spouse claiming permanent alimony must come forward by disclosing all necessary facts, with regard to her income, properties etc., in the petition filed. In this case, petitioner-wife has suppressed material facts with regard to her investments in shares and mutual funds. When the same was confronted to her in the cross-examination, she categorically admitted the same. In addition to her disentitlement having regard to her conduct, further, it is to be noted that the petitioner-wife is having sufficient income as a medical practitioner, working as freelance consultant and in view of shares and debentures held by her apart from LIC policies and other assets, we are of the view that she is not entitled for any amount towards permanent alimony from the respondent-husband.

21. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the impugned order of the Family Court granting Rs.15 lakhs as permanent alimony to the petitioner-wife is fit to be set aside, by allowing the cross-objections preferred by the respondent-husband....."

 

*****************************disclaimer**********************************

This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************

CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE

******************************************************************

 

Andhra High Court

05-09-2014

Dr.Aneel Kaur...APPELLANT  

Vs

Dr.Jaya Chandra...RESPONDENT      

 

Counsel for appellant: Ms. S. Vani

Counsel for respondent.: Sri M.R. Harsha

 

Case referred: 1997 (2) APLJ 103

 

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

 

FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.152 of 2007 and CROSS-OBJECTIONS (Sr.) No.29318 of 2008

 

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

 

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, in F.C.A.No.152 of 2007 is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by the petitioner in I.A.No.664 of 2006 in F.C.O.P.No.260 of 1997, aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2007 passed by the Family Court, Hyderabad.

 

2. For the purpose of disposal, we refer to the parties as arrayed before the Family Court.

 

3. By the aforesaid order, the Family Court allowed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking permanent alimony of Rs.1 crore, in part, and directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.15 lakhs within a period of six months from the date of the order, with 9% interest thereafter. This appeal is filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement of the permanent alimony from Rs.15 lakhs to Rs.1 crore and cross-objections are filed by the respondent questioning the order of the Family Court, granting Rs.15 lakhs towards permanent alimony.

 

4. Earlier, there was dispute between the parties on the application filed by the respondent for grant of divorce. Ultimately, in Civil Appeal Nos.7763 and 7764 of 2004, the Honble Supreme Court, by order dated 02.12.2004, ordered for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and for grant of decree of divorce, in favour of the respondent. In the year 1997, respondent herein filed O.P.No.260 of 1997 on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad, seeking divorce. The said O.P. was disposed of on 19.02.2001, granting judicial separation. As against the same, the respondent filed C.M.A.No.2366 of 2001 and the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.2124 of 2001 before this Court and by common order dated 27.09.2002, this Court allowed the C.M.A., filed by the petitioner and dismissed the C.M.A., filed by the respondent. As against the common order in both the C.M.As., appeals were filed before the Honble Supreme Court and the Honble Supreme Court has ordered for dissolution of marriage and for grant of decree of divorce as sought by the respondent. http://evinayak.tumblr.com http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

 

5. Subsequent to disposal of the appeals by the Honble Supreme Court, I.A.No.664 of 2006 is filed by the petitioner before the Family Court, Hyderabad under Section 25 of the Act seeking permanent alimony of Rs.1 crore.

 

6. The petitioner is a Doctor by profession. She initially joined on salary basis in the hospital owned by the father of the respondent. It is her case that after her joining the hospital, herself and the respondent started A.K.J. Medical Services as partnership firm and developed the same. It is alleged that, now, the respondent is encashing on the reputation of the said clinic by styling the same as A.K.J. Chest Clinic, and the petitioner is deprived of her income and financial security. It is further alleged that though the said firm is dissolved, accounts have not been settled. It is also alleged that she had spent the best of her life for the family and family concern, but she is deprived of fruits of her hardwork. Further, pleading that respondent owns properties worth Rs.5 crores, whereas the properties owned by her are worth about Rs.55.00 lakhs and the annual income of the respondent is Rs.25.00 lakhs, whereas her annual income is about Rs.4.00 to 5.00 lakhs, she prayed for grant of permanent alimony of Rs.1 crore.

 

7. The respondent filed counter before the Family Court. In the counter, while admitting grant of divorce by the Honble Supreme Court, the following averments are made:

 

Petitioner is attached to various hospitals like Sai Vani and Care Hospital and as she is in possession of several properties, she is not entitled for any permanent alimony. Petitioner is earning well. Her properties are worth about Rs.3 crores. She purchased a brand new car and has got lot of savings. She gave 40 lilies on his 40th birthday. Lilies are given on the death of a person, more so on a sad demise, while roses are given as a sign of happiness. She also purchased Getz car and both her cars cost about Rs.4.00 and 6.00 lakhs each and further she purchased lab equipment. In the application seeking maintenance, she claimed Rs.18,000/- per month by producing fictitious accounts. In the earlier proceedings, she admitted that since 1997, she has been receiving money as consultant and she is in a position to manage herself independently. He and the petitioner are blessed with a son and a daughter. The entire cost of education, maintenance and day-to-day expenses of the children are being taken care by him right from their birth till date. Petitioner owns a plot which is worth about Rs.3 crores, situated in Jubilee Hills, which, in fact, is purchased by him in the name of the petitioner. It is further pleaded that, petitioner is having D-Mat account and suppressed her investments in mutual funds.

 

8. With the aforesaid averments, respondent prayed for dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner.

 

9. Before the Family Court, petitioner got herself examined as P.W.1 and on her behalf Exs.P.1 to P.29 were marked. Respondent got himself examined as R.W.1 and on his behalf, Exs.R.1 to R.10 were marked.

 

10. The Family Court, having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, has recorded a finding that both the petitioner as well as the respondent are earning and are having their own source of income as they are Doctors by profession. By recording a finding that the respondent, who is the former husband of the petitioner-P.W.1, is placed in a better position and his income is more than that of the income of the petitioner, the Family court awarded Rs.15 lakhs as permanent alimony.

 

11. Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel, assisted by Smt.S.Vani, for the petitioner-wife and Sri M.R. Harsha, learned counsel for the respondent-husband.

 

12. The following submissions are made by the learned counsel for the petitioner:

 

The Family Court restricted permanent alimony to Rs.15 lakhs as against the claim of Rs.1 crore, without assigning valid reasons. Petitioner started her practice as Doctor at Dr. Rama Murthy hospital initially on salary basis and in the year 1981-82, Dr. Rama Murthy, who is the father-in-law of the petitioner and father of the respondent, handed over the hospital to the petitioner and the respondent and they have entered into partnership and started running the same as a Partnership Firm in the name and style of A.K.J. Medical Services. Petitioner worked tirelessly for development of the hospital and during subsistence of partnership, petitioner, along with the respondent, expanded the hospital and opened in-patient block by adding rooms and equipped the hospital with labour room, operation theatre, etc. Petitioner is responsible for development and reputation of the hospital, but now the respondent enchased the same by styling the hospital as A.K.J. Chest Clinic and has not settled the share of the petitioner in the assets. Though the petitioner has filed I.T. returns under Exs.P.23, 24 and 25, respondent has not filed I.T. returns showing his income. The income of the petitioner is not more than Rs.5 lakhs per annum, whereas the respondent, who is having the benefit of the hospital, is earning more than Rs.25 lakhs per annum and as much as their marriage was already dissolved pursuant to the orders of the Honble Supreme Court, petitioner is entitled for permanent alimony at least not less than Rs.50 lakhs. http://evinayak.tumblr.com  http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

 

13. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri M.R. Harsha, learned counsel for the respondent-husband as under:

 

Petitioner is well-off and is a consulting physician in number of hospitals and is having her own income which is self-sufficient to maintain herself and, further, having regard to the conduct of the petitioner, she is not entitled for any alimony. In view of Section 25 of the Family Courts Act, 1955, all the factors, viz., conduct etc., are to be taken into consideration, while considering a petition for grant of permanent alimony. Petitioner has ill-treated the respondent, who is her husband and made several allegations affecting his reputation, character and the same amounts to cruelty as held by the Honble Supreme Court. Respondent has taken care of entire expenses of the children and the petitioner has approached the Family Court by suppressing material facts with regard to her savings and the investments made by her in stocks etc., and that itself is sufficient to set aside the order of the Family Court, granting maintenance of Rs.15 lakhs towards permanent alimony. As the petitioner has not come with clean hands and, further, in view of her conduct, which is held to be cruel and also in view of suppression of material facts in the petition filed by her before the Family Court, the appeal filed by her is to be dismissed, by setting aside the order of the Family Court granting Rs.15 lakhs towards permanent alimony and by allowing the cross-objections filed by the respondent.

 

14. Having heard the learned counsel parties at length, we have carefully perused the material on record.

 

15. Under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, any Court exercising jurisdiction under the Act, at the time of passing of the decree or at any time subsequent thereto, is empowered to order maintenance to the applicant having regard to the applicants income and other property, further having regard to the income and other property of the respondent and also conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case.

 

16. The petitioner and the respondent were married on 10.10.1978 and were blessed with two children who are now majors. They belong to different religions. The petitioner-wife is a Sikh, whereas the respondent-husband is a Telugu Brahmin. As evident from the orders passed by the Honble Supreme Court, they were working in the hospital established by the father of the respondent Dr. A. Rama Murthy. The respondent-husband initially filed petition for decree of divorce on the ground that petitioner-wife ill-treated him not only at home but also in the hospital and caused mental agony and as a result he suffered personally and professionally. He alleged that the petitioner made serious allegations against his character. In the O.P., filed by the respondent-husband seeking decree of divorce, the Family court has granted decree for judicial separation. As against the same, appeals were filed before this Court. The appeal filed by the wife was allowed, while the appeal filed by the husband, was dismissed. As against the common order in the appeals, matters were carried before the Honble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal Nos.7763 and 7764 of 2004. The Honble Supreme Court directed for grant of decree of divorce by judgment dated 02.12.2004, in which it is held as under:

 

The evidence as led and which is practically undisputed is that the respondent had asked the husband to do certain things which cannot be termed to be a simple advice for proper behaviour. For example in her evidence respondent clearly accepted that she had said five things to be followed by him. Surprisingly, most of them related to ladies working in the hospital. Though respondent tried to show that they were simple and harmless advice, yet on a bare reading thereof it is clear that there were clear manifestations of her suspecting the husbands fidelity, character and reputation. By way of illustration, it may be indicated that the first so called advice was not to ask certain female staff members to come and work on off-duty hours when nobody else was available in the hospital. Second was not to work behind the closed doors with certain members of the staff. Contrary to what she had stated about having full faith in her husband, the so called advices were nothing but casting doubt on the reputation, character and fidelity of her husband. Constant nagging on those aspects, certainly amounted to causing indelible mental agony and amounts to cruelty. The respondent was not an ordinary woman. She was a doctor in the hospital and knew the importance of the nature of duty and the necessity of members of the staff working even during off-hours and the working conditions. There was another instance which was specifically dealt with by the trial Court. Same related to the alleged extra-marital relationships of the appellant with another married lady who was wife of his friend. Though the respondent tried to explain that she was not responsible for making any such aspersions, the inevitable conclusion is to the contrary.

 

17. The Honble Supreme Court has also taken note of the events which are subsequent to filing of the petition seeking divorce. Subsequent to filing of the petition for divorce, petitioner-wife has filed a suit for injunction in which she went to the extent of seeking detention of the respondent-husband, alleging that he has violated the orders of injunction. Thus, ultimately, on the ground of cruelty, marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was dissolved.

 

18. From the evidence on record, it is clear that petitioner, P.W.1, is a gynaecologist and respondent, R.W.1 is a chest-specialist. Both are earning from their profession and their children have become majors. Admittedly, daughter is independent and earning and son is with the respondent-husband. It is also not in dispute that all the expenditure relating to children was borne by the respondent-husband. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that respondent owns properties worth Rs.5 crore, whereas she owns properties worth Rs.5 lakhs. It is also alleged that annual income of the respondent-husband is Rs.25 lakhs and her annual income is Rs.4-5 lakhs. She was cross-examined at length and in the cross-examination, petitioner as P.W.1 admitted that from the last 18 years she has been an income tax assessee and she was visiting Sai Vani and Care hospitals, as freelance consultant and whenever she visited those hospitals, she used to charge consulting fee and if she attended to any operation or delivery, she used to charge separate fee and she was also attached to CDR hospital as a consultant. In the cross-examination, she specifically admitted that she is holding some shares and debentures and the same are not disclosed in the petition filed by her seeking maintenance. As per Ex.R.1 statement, it is clear that petitioner-wife invested in shares in Karvy Consultants Ltd. worth Rs.13,64,000/- in the year 2004 and as per R.2 statement, she is having deposits in Kotak Securities worth Rs.6.06 lakhs. She has got D-MAT accounts which are evident from Exs.R.1 and R.2. She has also admitted that she has invested in mutual funds and also holds LIC policies worth Rs.5 lakhs. Apart from the same, it is the specific case of the respondent-husband that the plot which is in possession of the petitioner-wife in Jubilee Hills is worth about Rs.4 crores now and though she pleaded that some portion of the said plot is in dispute, there is no dispute with regard to major extent of the plot. In the Land Grabbing Case filed by her with regard to the said plot, she herself has shown the value of the same as more than Rs.48 lakhs. There is no explanation at all for suppression of material facts with regard to investments made by her in shares, mutual funds etc. It is also the specific case of the respondent- husband that petitioner is absolutely cruel both in heart and mind and she has no human values. In his deposition as R.W.1, respondent- husband has categorically stated that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.89 of 1997 for perpetual injunction on 26.06.1997 and filed application for interim injunction vide I.A.No.530 of 1997 and the suit was disposed of, on undertaking given by him that he will not interfere with the petitioner to her practice as Doctor since she was then still his wife. In spite of the same, she filed E.P.No.31 of 1998 therein, seeking his detention. In his deposition, respondent-husband, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner-wife with regard to her contribution in the development of the hospital, further while attributing cruelty on the part of the petitioner, specifically pleaded that petitioner gave 40 lilies on his 40th birthday. It is specifically pleaded that lilies are given on the death of a person or to mourn a sad demise. Though respondent-husband was cross- examined at length, nothing adverse was elicited with regard to the aforesaid allegations. From a perusal of the order of the Family Court, it appears that Rs.15 lakhs is awarded as permanent alimony to the petitioner-wife only on the ground that the respondent-husband is placed in a better position and his income is more than that of the petitioner-wife. In this regard, we are of the view that the Family Court has lost sight of various other aspects as contemplated under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, while considering the O.P., filed under Section 25 of the Act. From a plain reading of the said provision, it is clear that Courts are obligated to take note of the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, while granting permanent alimony. The mere fact, that respondent is in a better position and is earning more compared to that of the petitioner, by itself, is not a ground for grant of permanent alimony.

 

19. In the case of N. Varalakshmi v. N.V. Hanumantha Rao , the Honble Supreme Court has held that, even after decree of divorce, permanent alimony can be granted to the spouse, who applies for it unless conduct of the spouse is abominable. Whether the conduct of the spouse is abominable or not is a matter which depends on the facts of each case. While considering, whether the conduct of the petitioner-wife is abominable or not, it is necessary to examine the allegations of cruelty and inhuman conduct on the part of the petitioner-wife, as alleged by the respondent-husband. In the judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.7763 and 7764 of 2004, the Honble Supreme Court has observed certain advices made by the petitioner-wife to the respondent and held that they relate to ladies working in the hospital. It was further held that though the petitioner-wife tried to show that they were simple and harmless advices, yet on a bare reading thereof it is clear that there were clear manifestations of her suspecting the husbands fidelity, character and reputation. It was also held that there was an allegation of extra-martial relation of the respondent with another married lady who was the wife of his friend. Such allegations were held to be cruel and ultimately the Honble Supreme Court has passed orders for grant of decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-husband. It is also not in dispute that after filing of the suit, petitioner-wife went to the extent of filing petition to detain the respondent-husband in civil prison. Further, the specific allegation of the respondent-husband that petitioner-wife presented 40 lilies on his 40th birthday, requires serious consideration. It is the specific case of the respondent-husband that presentation of lilies is made only on the death of a person, more so on a sad demise. It is specifically pleaded by the respondent-husband that the petitioner is absolutely cruel both in heart and mind and has no human values. As the same was not denied and nothing adverse was elicited in the cross-examination of the respondent as P.W.1, even such instances need to be taken note of, while assessing, whether the conduct of the petitioner-wife is abominable or not. A perusal of the evidence also makes it clear that petitioner-wife has no other expenses except for her maintenance. At the same time, she is also working as consultant Doctor in several hospitals and making her own income which is self-sufficient. The Family Court has not recorded any valid reasons for awarding a sum of Rs.15 lakhs as permanent alimony to the petitioner-wife. http://evinayak.tumblr.com  http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

 

20. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects, it is to be held in this case that the conduct of the petitioner-wife is abominable and, therefore, she is not entitled to claim any amount towards permanent alimony from the respondent-husband. A spouse claiming permanent alimony must come forward by disclosing all necessary facts, with regard to her income, properties etc., in the petition filed. In this case, petitioner-wife has suppressed material facts with regard to her investments in shares and mutual funds. When the same was confronted to her in the cross-examination, she categorically admitted the same. In addition to her disentitlement having regard to her conduct, further, it is to be noted that the petitioner-wife is having sufficient income as a medical practitioner, working as freelance consultant and in view of shares and debentures held by her apart from LIC policies and other assets, we are of the view that she is not entitled for any amount towards permanent alimony from the respondent-husband.

 

21. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the impugned order of the Family Court granting Rs.15 lakhs as permanent alimony to the petitioner-wife is fit to be set aside, by allowing the cross-objections preferred by the respondent-husband.

 

22. Accordingly, F.C.A.No.152 of 2007 is dismissed and Cross-Objections (Sr.) No.29318 of 2008 are allowed, setting aside the order dated 07.09.2007 passed by the Family Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.664 of 2006 in F.C.O.P.No.260 of 1997. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

 

 

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

 

A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J

 

September, 2014

 

 

PDF file uploaded to http://1drv.ms/1HKQGr9

 


*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist