New Delhi, May 21, 2010
The Delhi High Court on Friday came down heavily on the Central Information Commission (CIC) and its chief on its order against the DDA Vice-Chairman after he failed to appear before it with regard to an RTI matter, saying they had exceeded their powers.
“This is a case where the Central Information Commission and Chief Information Commissioner have travelled beyond their boundaries of power and have thereby transgressed the provisions of the very Act which created them,” said a Division Bench of Justices B D Ahmed and Veena Birbal.
The Bench set aside the CIC’s September 2009 order against the senior-most officer of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and said “no adverse inference could have been drawn for the absence of Vice-Chairman, DDA.”
The Bench said CIC “is a creature of the statute and its powers and functions are circumscribed by the statute.”
It could call any person to be present in the hearing before it for the purposes of giving evidence—oral or written or for producing any document.
“The Vice-Chairman, DDA was not summoned for either giving oral evidence or written evidence or to produce any document or things in his possession. He was directed to be present for other reason, that power is not there with the CIC,” the Court added.
The Court also set aside the Commission’s order appointing an enquiry committee to go into the details of servicing of the RTI Act by all wings and sections of DDA.
On September 22 last year, the CIC had formed the Committee comprising Director Ministry of Urban Development Shujata Chaturvedi, Dunu Roy from Hazards Centre and Pankaj KP Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar, and sought a report within 45 working days from the date of order.
The CIC order had come after Secretary DDA V M Bansal was not able to clarify various points raised by the Commission while hearing the plea of an RTI applicant Sarbajit Roy who had complained of poor implementation of RTI Act at the Authority.
Mr.Rebates
Monday, May 24, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Respite for hubby who was asked to pay Rs 2L to wife
May 23, 2010
NAGPUR: The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court has quashed an order of additional sessions judge asking a man to deposit Rs 2 lakh in the court for granting a stay on the trial court order that asked him to pay an equal amount to his wife as compensation.
A single-judge bench of justice Arun Choudhari quashed the order passed by the additional sessions judge on February 18 in a criminal appeal ruling that it was 'clearly faulty and cannot be called a judicial order'.
The high court found the sessions judge's order of asking the hubby to deposit Rs 2 lakh as his wife had demanded Rs 4 lakh as compensation 'surprising'.
"The trial court jumped to the conclusion without discussing anything or giving any reason or analysing anything in respect of the materials on record," justice Choudhari said.
The high court judge also observed that the appellate court while making the order failed to pay attention to this aspect of the matter and just mechanically directed the petitioner to deposit Rs 2 lakh by way of a condition to grant stay.
"At any rate, since the petitioner is bound to pay Rs 5,000 per month towards maintenance, there is no need to make an order of a compensation of Rs 2 lakh even by way of an interim measure," justice Choudhari mentioned.
He however made it clear that the petitioner will have to clear all arrears within three months from the date of the high court's order as a pre-condition for hearing of the appeal before the district judge.
During arguments, the wife's counsel vehemently opposed the petition and argued that there is nothing wrong on the part of the appellate court in asking the hubby to deposit Rs 2 lakh and at any rate no prejudice could be caused to him.
The high court ordered that the proceedings of criminal appeal will be decided by the appellate court as expeditiously as possible and it shall be ensured that the petitioner is not in arrears of maintenance till the date of hearing of the appeal.
NAGPUR: The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court has quashed an order of additional sessions judge asking a man to deposit Rs 2 lakh in the court for granting a stay on the trial court order that asked him to pay an equal amount to his wife as compensation.
A single-judge bench of justice Arun Choudhari quashed the order passed by the additional sessions judge on February 18 in a criminal appeal ruling that it was 'clearly faulty and cannot be called a judicial order'.
The high court found the sessions judge's order of asking the hubby to deposit Rs 2 lakh as his wife had demanded Rs 4 lakh as compensation 'surprising'.
"The trial court jumped to the conclusion without discussing anything or giving any reason or analysing anything in respect of the materials on record," justice Choudhari said.
The high court judge also observed that the appellate court while making the order failed to pay attention to this aspect of the matter and just mechanically directed the petitioner to deposit Rs 2 lakh by way of a condition to grant stay.
"At any rate, since the petitioner is bound to pay Rs 5,000 per month towards maintenance, there is no need to make an order of a compensation of Rs 2 lakh even by way of an interim measure," justice Choudhari mentioned.
He however made it clear that the petitioner will have to clear all arrears within three months from the date of the high court's order as a pre-condition for hearing of the appeal before the district judge.
During arguments, the wife's counsel vehemently opposed the petition and argued that there is nothing wrong on the part of the appellate court in asking the hubby to deposit Rs 2 lakh and at any rate no prejudice could be caused to him.
The high court ordered that the proceedings of criminal appeal will be decided by the appellate court as expeditiously as possible and it shall be ensured that the petitioner is not in arrears of maintenance till the date of hearing of the appeal.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Filing false case is cruelty and Judgement
Mumbai, May 12, 2010
Filing even one false criminal case against a husband or his family constitutes mental cruelty, and entitles him to divorce on that ground, the Bombay High Court has ruled.
“Embarrassment, humiliation and suffering caused on account of arrest of appellant (husband) and his family members in a false case, does constitute mental cruelty,” ruled the division bench of Justice A P Deshpande and Justice R P Sondurbaldota.
The judges also held that the husband was entitled to seek divorce solely on this ground, while reversing an order by the Pune family court, which had dismissed a divorce petition filed by a Khed resident.
He married in March 2001, but the couple lived together for only two years. A few days after she left him in May 2003, when he asked her to return, she lodged a criminal case against him, his parents and three close relatives.
The husband sought divorce on grounds of cruelty at the hands of his wife, contending that her filing a false criminal case amounted to cruelty. The family court had dismissed the petition saying: “A singular complaint filed by the wife under section 498A of IPC against the husband and his family cannot indicate she is making false allegations.”
The high court discarded the family court's opinion. “We fail to understand the logic behind the reasoning adopted by the family court,” observed the high court, adding: “It is illogical that more than one complaint needs to be filed to constitute mental cruelty.”
In another case, the same bench dissolved the marriage of another Pune-based couple, which also involved the apparent misuse of section 498A, on the same ground. In this case, they were married in December 2000, and the husband's relatives were acquitted of the charge of cruelty to the wife.
The wife did not stop at the complaint filed under 498A - she filed another complaint in a local court after the husband and his family were acquitted in the first case. The second case also resulted in an acquittal.
The high court inferred that the wife had filed the criminal cases only with a view to harass the husband and his family. “The said criminal cases, which ultimately ended in acquittal, must have caused utmost mental cruelty to the husband," the judges observed.
Link to Judgement:
http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/judgements/2010/CFCA816006.pdf
Filing even one false criminal case against a husband or his family constitutes mental cruelty, and entitles him to divorce on that ground, the Bombay High Court has ruled.
“Embarrassment, humiliation and suffering caused on account of arrest of appellant (husband) and his family members in a false case, does constitute mental cruelty,” ruled the division bench of Justice A P Deshpande and Justice R P Sondurbaldota.
The judges also held that the husband was entitled to seek divorce solely on this ground, while reversing an order by the Pune family court, which had dismissed a divorce petition filed by a Khed resident.
He married in March 2001, but the couple lived together for only two years. A few days after she left him in May 2003, when he asked her to return, she lodged a criminal case against him, his parents and three close relatives.
The husband sought divorce on grounds of cruelty at the hands of his wife, contending that her filing a false criminal case amounted to cruelty. The family court had dismissed the petition saying: “A singular complaint filed by the wife under section 498A of IPC against the husband and his family cannot indicate she is making false allegations.”
The high court discarded the family court's opinion. “We fail to understand the logic behind the reasoning adopted by the family court,” observed the high court, adding: “It is illogical that more than one complaint needs to be filed to constitute mental cruelty.”
In another case, the same bench dissolved the marriage of another Pune-based couple, which also involved the apparent misuse of section 498A, on the same ground. In this case, they were married in December 2000, and the husband's relatives were acquitted of the charge of cruelty to the wife.
The wife did not stop at the complaint filed under 498A - she filed another complaint in a local court after the husband and his family were acquitted in the first case. The second case also resulted in an acquittal.
The high court inferred that the wife had filed the criminal cases only with a view to harass the husband and his family. “The said criminal cases, which ultimately ended in acquittal, must have caused utmost mental cruelty to the husband," the judges observed.
Link to Judgement:
http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/judgements/2010/CFCA816006.pdf
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Governor says RTI is used as blackmail tool
May 11th, 2010
Hyderabad, May 10: The Governor, Mr ESL Narasimhan, condemned the misuse of the Right to Information (RTI) Act by some people, who have “vested interests”.
He said the RTI Act has become a tool to “blackmail” the government and its machinery.
“I can say with complete authority that the RTI Act is used for blackmailing people. If that was not the case, why do the same group of people apply for the RTI Act so often,” he asked while speaking at the Administrative Staff College of India, after inaugurating the Forum for Good Governance.
Citing his own experiences on the misuse of the Act, Mr Narasimhan said: “I receive RTI applications that seek information on the dinner I hosted for my guests. They ask me to disclose the guest-list, the menu and the expenditure incurred for the purpose.” He said is not spared even when he visits temples. “The other day, I went to a temple. A person filed an RTI seeking information about whether my visit to the temple was an official visit? If so, who did I meet and what was the discussion? I replied that it was not an official visit. I met the Almighty at the temple and had long deliberations with him. I also prayed to him to please give good sense to such people,” he remarked.
Mr Narasimhan said the RTI Act will serve its purpose only if it is used properly.
Hyderabad, May 10: The Governor, Mr ESL Narasimhan, condemned the misuse of the Right to Information (RTI) Act by some people, who have “vested interests”.
He said the RTI Act has become a tool to “blackmail” the government and its machinery.
“I can say with complete authority that the RTI Act is used for blackmailing people. If that was not the case, why do the same group of people apply for the RTI Act so often,” he asked while speaking at the Administrative Staff College of India, after inaugurating the Forum for Good Governance.
Citing his own experiences on the misuse of the Act, Mr Narasimhan said: “I receive RTI applications that seek information on the dinner I hosted for my guests. They ask me to disclose the guest-list, the menu and the expenditure incurred for the purpose.” He said is not spared even when he visits temples. “The other day, I went to a temple. A person filed an RTI seeking information about whether my visit to the temple was an official visit? If so, who did I meet and what was the discussion? I replied that it was not an official visit. I met the Almighty at the temple and had long deliberations with him. I also prayed to him to please give good sense to such people,” he remarked.
Mr Narasimhan said the RTI Act will serve its purpose only if it is used properly.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Spotlight: Secret Behind Jamuna’s Daughter’s Marriage
Here is another good article showing the Biased in society towards Men. This article seems good since it focuses more on how the Man is being cheated.
The current day has become so sensitive towards women that in the name of equality and rights, they are ending up causing problems for themselves as well as the society. The reason why this line has come up is due to the recent incident of Jamuna’s daughter and the hungama which has been going on in the news channels.
While most of them have been empathizing with Jamuna and her daughter, here is the truth which is likely to change your perspective.
Apparently, Jamuna is a Madhwa Brahmin and her daughter Sravanthi was a late birth child. The marriage trials were on and it seems Jamuna used to say to the prospective alliances that ‘her nature is like mine in ‘Gundamma Katha’.
However, many advised Jamuna not to say that and talk more about the tradition of the girl. Due to Jamuna’s audacity, big matches got dropped. Meanwhile, her daughter loved the Reddy boy Rahul and at first fight happened at home but eventually, they agreed.
Though Jamuna claims to be from a high society, the fact is that she is just upper middle. The groom’s family is also upper middle class. The story took a turn with Jamuna instigating Sravanthi. Sources confirm that Jamuna used to say “you are Jamuna’s daughter, how can you serve tea for guests, how can you go and do household chores etc”.
That brought change in Sravanthi and that resulted in clashes among the family members in groom’s home. Jamuna got irritated and called media to show his celebrity power. Jamuna has used dowry-harassment card to trouble the in-laws instantly. For the fear of getting arrested before saying anything to media, Sravanthi’s husband ran away.
Though the in-laws have very good impression on Sravanthi, it is Jamuna who is the culprit which led to the ruining of her married life. The over interference of Jamuna in her daughter’s life has caused the mess.
Interestingly, in all this Jamuna’s hubby has not been saying a word. On the other hand, the media is siding Jamuna simply because she is a celebrity. All this is truth as it has come from a very reliable source. Simply due to the ego and starry airs of Jamuna and her fingering nature, Sravanthi’s life has become a disaster. The moral of the story is, after marriage parents’ involvement must be minimum and it applies to the parents of both the boys and girls. This goes to all those parents like Jamuna and for those who want to be like Jamuna.
Something similar happened with actress Bhanumathi’s son Bharani also earlier. He was in love with a Christian girl. Bhanumathi spoiled that relation and got him married to a Brahmin girl and eventually that broke off leaving Bharani in distress. He married another lady who is a Christian (the sister of his first wife). This catastrophe is common among the lives of any boy or girl where the parents involve much into their lives with their ego and superiority complex.
The current day has become so sensitive towards women that in the name of equality and rights, they are ending up causing problems for themselves as well as the society. The reason why this line has come up is due to the recent incident of Jamuna’s daughter and the hungama which has been going on in the news channels.
While most of them have been empathizing with Jamuna and her daughter, here is the truth which is likely to change your perspective.
Apparently, Jamuna is a Madhwa Brahmin and her daughter Sravanthi was a late birth child. The marriage trials were on and it seems Jamuna used to say to the prospective alliances that ‘her nature is like mine in ‘Gundamma Katha’.
However, many advised Jamuna not to say that and talk more about the tradition of the girl. Due to Jamuna’s audacity, big matches got dropped. Meanwhile, her daughter loved the Reddy boy Rahul and at first fight happened at home but eventually, they agreed.
Though Jamuna claims to be from a high society, the fact is that she is just upper middle. The groom’s family is also upper middle class. The story took a turn with Jamuna instigating Sravanthi. Sources confirm that Jamuna used to say “you are Jamuna’s daughter, how can you serve tea for guests, how can you go and do household chores etc”.
That brought change in Sravanthi and that resulted in clashes among the family members in groom’s home. Jamuna got irritated and called media to show his celebrity power. Jamuna has used dowry-harassment card to trouble the in-laws instantly. For the fear of getting arrested before saying anything to media, Sravanthi’s husband ran away.
Though the in-laws have very good impression on Sravanthi, it is Jamuna who is the culprit which led to the ruining of her married life. The over interference of Jamuna in her daughter’s life has caused the mess.
Interestingly, in all this Jamuna’s hubby has not been saying a word. On the other hand, the media is siding Jamuna simply because she is a celebrity. All this is truth as it has come from a very reliable source. Simply due to the ego and starry airs of Jamuna and her fingering nature, Sravanthi’s life has become a disaster. The moral of the story is, after marriage parents’ involvement must be minimum and it applies to the parents of both the boys and girls. This goes to all those parents like Jamuna and for those who want to be like Jamuna.
Something similar happened with actress Bhanumathi’s son Bharani also earlier. He was in love with a Christian girl. Bhanumathi spoiled that relation and got him married to a Brahmin girl and eventually that broke off leaving Bharani in distress. He married another lady who is a Christian (the sister of his first wife). This catastrophe is common among the lives of any boy or girl where the parents involve much into their lives with their ego and superiority complex.
Shoaib sought Rs 3.5 cr for rights to cover his reception: Report
Well how do you expect Shoaib Malik to recoup his 15 Crores he had to pay his Ex Wife? Normal people can never give so much nor earn it back so easily.
April 25th, 2010
Pakistan cricketer Shoaib Malik has reportedly demanded a whopping Rs 3.5 crore for the rights to cover his reception and 'walima' ceremony in his hometown Sialkot after his wedding to Indian tennis star Sania Mirza.
Shoaib asked his private security guards to keep the media away from both ceremonies as none of the TV news channels had agreed to cough up the huge amount demanded by the cricketer and any deal was not yet struck, 'Dunya News' channel reported.
The channel claimed it had obtained an invitation card for the 'walima' to be hosted by Shoaib in Lahore's Pearl Continental Hotel on April 27 by paying Rs 10,000 (about $125) to a relative of the cricketer.
On the other hand, the administration of Pearl Continental Hotel has asked journalists to leave the premises.
Dozens of reporters, especially those from TV news channels, have been thronging the hotel since the couple arrived there two days ago.
"The hotel administration took the step on behalf of Shoaib," journalist Hina Farooq claimed.
Shaoib has already requested the government of Punjab province to provide the couple and his guests from India "foolproof" security.
Shoaib and his brother-in-law Imran Zafar have criticised the media after Sania and her mother Nasima Mirza were jostled and pushed by an unruly crowd after reaching the Pearl Continental Hotel.
The incident brought tears to Sania's eyes.
"Please spare us," was the request from both Shoaib and Zafar.
"For God's sake, leave us alone. You are trying to fix cameras in our rooms," an angry Zafar shouted at the media.
Before leaving for Sialkot, Shoaib, Sania and her parents and relatives visited the shrine of Hazrat Ali Hajvary Data Ganj Bakhsh and offered prayers.
Meanwhile, Sialkot district police chief Waqar Ahmed Chohan said an official order on serving only one dish at wedding receptions will be enforced in letter and spirit.
"We will not allow even Shaoib to violate the ban," he said.
The Punjab government introduced the one-dish rule for weddings and receptions last year as part of a series of austerity measures.
April 25th, 2010
Pakistan cricketer Shoaib Malik has reportedly demanded a whopping Rs 3.5 crore for the rights to cover his reception and 'walima' ceremony in his hometown Sialkot after his wedding to Indian tennis star Sania Mirza.
Shoaib asked his private security guards to keep the media away from both ceremonies as none of the TV news channels had agreed to cough up the huge amount demanded by the cricketer and any deal was not yet struck, 'Dunya News' channel reported.
The channel claimed it had obtained an invitation card for the 'walima' to be hosted by Shoaib in Lahore's Pearl Continental Hotel on April 27 by paying Rs 10,000 (about $125) to a relative of the cricketer.
On the other hand, the administration of Pearl Continental Hotel has asked journalists to leave the premises.
Dozens of reporters, especially those from TV news channels, have been thronging the hotel since the couple arrived there two days ago.
"The hotel administration took the step on behalf of Shoaib," journalist Hina Farooq claimed.
Shaoib has already requested the government of Punjab province to provide the couple and his guests from India "foolproof" security.
Shoaib and his brother-in-law Imran Zafar have criticised the media after Sania and her mother Nasima Mirza were jostled and pushed by an unruly crowd after reaching the Pearl Continental Hotel.
The incident brought tears to Sania's eyes.
"Please spare us," was the request from both Shoaib and Zafar.
"For God's sake, leave us alone. You are trying to fix cameras in our rooms," an angry Zafar shouted at the media.
Before leaving for Sialkot, Shoaib, Sania and her parents and relatives visited the shrine of Hazrat Ali Hajvary Data Ganj Bakhsh and offered prayers.
Meanwhile, Sialkot district police chief Waqar Ahmed Chohan said an official order on serving only one dish at wedding receptions will be enforced in letter and spirit.
"We will not allow even Shaoib to violate the ban," he said.
The Punjab government introduced the one-dish rule for weddings and receptions last year as part of a series of austerity measures.
Men more suicide-prone: Report
April 24th, 2010
Hyderabad, April 23: More married men are ending their lives than married women, according to the latest statistics from the State Crime Records Bureau (SCRB).
The state echoes the trend seen nationally. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), 57,639 married men committed suicide as against 30,224 married women in 2008 in the country.
In Andhra Pradesh, 7,357 married men and 3,212 married women ended their lives.
Fewer unmarried men and women seem to have cause for ending their own lives — 1,533 men and 834 women statewide.
A senior police official of the SCRB says that financial problems and domestic tiffs are the most common reasons for suicides among men.
The ratio of male to female suicides for the year 2008 as per the National Crime Records Bureau is 64:36. The suicide ratio of boys and girls under 14 is 49:51.
While most men commit suicide due to social and economic problems, women are driven by emotional and personal issues.
Women are driven to suicides due to dowry disputes, pregnancy out of wedlock, physical abuse, rape, not having children, divorce, cancellation or non-settlement of marriage, and suspected extramarital affairs of their husbands.
Andhra Pradesh accounts for 11.5 per cent of suicides in the country, the third highest number of suicides in the country.
In all 14,354 persons ended their life in the state in 2008. West Bengal and Tamil Nadu are other states with a high number of suicides.
Vijayawada City posts an intriguing statistic — 41.7 per cent of suicides here are due to family problems.
Hyderabad, April 23: More married men are ending their lives than married women, according to the latest statistics from the State Crime Records Bureau (SCRB).
The state echoes the trend seen nationally. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), 57,639 married men committed suicide as against 30,224 married women in 2008 in the country.
In Andhra Pradesh, 7,357 married men and 3,212 married women ended their lives.
Fewer unmarried men and women seem to have cause for ending their own lives — 1,533 men and 834 women statewide.
A senior police official of the SCRB says that financial problems and domestic tiffs are the most common reasons for suicides among men.
The ratio of male to female suicides for the year 2008 as per the National Crime Records Bureau is 64:36. The suicide ratio of boys and girls under 14 is 49:51.
While most men commit suicide due to social and economic problems, women are driven by emotional and personal issues.
Women are driven to suicides due to dowry disputes, pregnancy out of wedlock, physical abuse, rape, not having children, divorce, cancellation or non-settlement of marriage, and suspected extramarital affairs of their husbands.
Andhra Pradesh accounts for 11.5 per cent of suicides in the country, the third highest number of suicides in the country.
In all 14,354 persons ended their life in the state in 2008. West Bengal and Tamil Nadu are other states with a high number of suicides.
Vijayawada City posts an intriguing statistic — 41.7 per cent of suicides here are due to family problems.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Nominee, not heir, to get shares after holder’s death: HC
Apr 21, 2010
MUMBAI: A nominee has the right to the shares after the original shareholder’s death and not the deceased’s heirs, Bombay High Court has ruled.
Dismissing the application of a widow who sought permission to sell the shares belonging to her late husband, Justice Roshan Dalvi held that she had no right to do so since she was not the nominee. The nominee was her late husband’s nephew.
"The Companies Act sets out that the nomination has to be made during the lifetime of the holder, according to legal procedures. If that procedure is followed, the nominee would become entitled to all the rights in the shares to the exclusion of all other persons (following the death of the shareholder)," said the judge. The court said that Harsha Kokate would have no rights over the shares owned by her deceased husband Nitin Kokate. Harsha had married Nitin in December 2004. Their marital life was short-lived as Nitin passed away in 2007. A year later Harsha moved the HC seeking to sell the shares in Nitin’s demat account with Saraswat Cooperative Bank. It was found that a year before his death Nitin had nominated his nephew in respect of the shares.
Harsha’s lawyers argued that she was entitled to the shares as she was her late husband’s heir and legal representative. The lawyers also pointed out to the nomination provisions relating to insurance papers as well as shares of a flat in a cooperative housing society. Under the provisions of the Insurance Act as well as the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, nomination only makes a nominee a trustee for the insurances policy or shares of the flat, argued the lawyer. The nominee holds the policy/shares in trust for the estate of the deceased, but has no right over them.
"Since Nitin died intestate (without leaving a will), his widow would be entitled to the shares to the exclusion of the nominee," claimed Harsha’s advocate.
The HC disagreed. "The provisions (relating to insurance and housing societies) are made merely to give a valid discharge to the insurance company or the cooperative society without vesting the ownership rights in the insurance policy or the membership rights in the Society upon such nominee," said the judge, while pointing out that the provisions of the Companies Act and Depositories Act, that govern equity shares are different. Both these laws say that the shares would be vested with the nominee on the death of the share holder.
"Upon such nomination, therefore, all the rights incidental to ownership would follow. This would include the right to transfer the shares, pledge the shares or hold the shares," said the judge.
MUMBAI: A nominee has the right to the shares after the original shareholder’s death and not the deceased’s heirs, Bombay High Court has ruled.
Dismissing the application of a widow who sought permission to sell the shares belonging to her late husband, Justice Roshan Dalvi held that she had no right to do so since she was not the nominee. The nominee was her late husband’s nephew.
"The Companies Act sets out that the nomination has to be made during the lifetime of the holder, according to legal procedures. If that procedure is followed, the nominee would become entitled to all the rights in the shares to the exclusion of all other persons (following the death of the shareholder)," said the judge. The court said that Harsha Kokate would have no rights over the shares owned by her deceased husband Nitin Kokate. Harsha had married Nitin in December 2004. Their marital life was short-lived as Nitin passed away in 2007. A year later Harsha moved the HC seeking to sell the shares in Nitin’s demat account with Saraswat Cooperative Bank. It was found that a year before his death Nitin had nominated his nephew in respect of the shares.
Harsha’s lawyers argued that she was entitled to the shares as she was her late husband’s heir and legal representative. The lawyers also pointed out to the nomination provisions relating to insurance papers as well as shares of a flat in a cooperative housing society. Under the provisions of the Insurance Act as well as the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, nomination only makes a nominee a trustee for the insurances policy or shares of the flat, argued the lawyer. The nominee holds the policy/shares in trust for the estate of the deceased, but has no right over them.
"Since Nitin died intestate (without leaving a will), his widow would be entitled to the shares to the exclusion of the nominee," claimed Harsha’s advocate.
The HC disagreed. "The provisions (relating to insurance and housing societies) are made merely to give a valid discharge to the insurance company or the cooperative society without vesting the ownership rights in the insurance policy or the membership rights in the Society upon such nominee," said the judge, while pointing out that the provisions of the Companies Act and Depositories Act, that govern equity shares are different. Both these laws say that the shares would be vested with the nominee on the death of the share holder.
"Upon such nomination, therefore, all the rights incidental to ownership would follow. This would include the right to transfer the shares, pledge the shares or hold the shares," said the judge.
Filing false case against in-laws is cruelty: HC + Judgement
View full Judgement of this case below
Apr 17, 2010
MUMBAI: Filing a false criminal case against the husband and in-laws for harassment amounts to cruelty and is ground for divorce, the Bombay high court. "Humiliation... that is caused on account of arrest and detention of appellant and his family members and relatives in a false case does constitute mental cruelty to enable the husband to seek decree of divorce on this sole ground," said a division bench of Justices A P Deshpande and R P Sondurbaldota while granting divorce to a Pune resident.
Dyanesh Soparkar and Lata (names changed) had an arranged marriage in March 2001 as per Hindu rites and they have a daughter. According to Soparkar, on the wedding night itself Lata called him blind for wearing spectacles and complained that she was given to understand that he earned a higher salary than what he actually got. The couple had frequent quarrels, according to Soparkar, over his wife's insistence that they stay separately.
Dyanesh filed for divorce in June 2003 and a month later Lata filed a case for dowry harassment (Section 498 A of the IPC). She named Dyanesh, his mother and three other relatives. They were arrested and sent to custody. Two years later, a magistrate's court acquitted them, saying there was no evidence that Lata's family were coerced to pay Rs 50,000 as dowry.
The family court dismissed Dyanesh's plea for divorce saying that a single complaint filed by the wife could constitute cruelty. Dyanesh moved the HC in appeal. His lawyers claimed that the arrest and detention of the family members and Dyanesh's near relations in a false case "has caused him agony".
The HC agreed with Dyanesh's contention. "One thing is crystal clear and it can be safely assumed that the wife had filed a false case not only against her husband and mother-in-law but had unnecessarily roped in other near relations," said the judges, adding, "It is obvious that on account of arrest and detention of the husband and his family members, Lata has treated Dyanesh with utmost mental cruelty and he has suffered agony."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2006
Ajay Ashok Khedkar .... ..... ..... ..... Appellant.
V/s
Sou. Laleeta Ajay Khedkar..... .... ..... ....Respondent.
Mr.Hitesh Vyas, Adv. For the appellant.
Mr.Sachin S. Pande, Adv. For the respondent.
CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE AND SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ.
Date:12th April, 2010.
4. Perusal of the judgment clearly reveals that the prosecution
utterly failed to prove the case put forth by the complainant. The
Judicial Magistrate has recorded categoric finding that the
complainant’s own testimony falsifies the prosecution case that the
complainant was treated cruely and was harassed by the accused
persons with a view to coerce her and her parents to meet their
unlawful demand of Rs.50,000/. The Magistrate has totally
disbelieved the version of the complainant/wife and has acquitted
the accused persons. On a careful reading of the judgment
rendered in the case of prosecution under section 498A of IPC one
thing is crystal clear and it can be safely assumed that the wife had
filed a false case not only against her husband and motherinlaw
but had unnecessarily roped in other near relations. It is obvious
that on account of arrest and detention of the husband and his
family members respondent has treated the appellant with utmost
mental cruelty and the appellant has suffered agony. It will not be
out of place to mention that the complaint filed by the wife was
calculatedly designed in as much as it was a sort of counter blast to
the divorce petition filed by the husband. The appellant had filed
divorce petition on 16.6.03 whereas the complaint was lodged by
the respondentwife on 11.7.03.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
and his family members including ladies who did not stay along
with the appellant were arrested and detained causing utmost
humiliation and embarrassment and agony to the appellant. This
solitary incidence would itself constitute mental cruelty even if
other circumstances are not taken into account and thus the trial
court has erred in law in dismissing the divorce petition.
Without deliberating on all the circumstances in detail we are of
the clear view that cumulative effect of the behaviour and conduct
of the respondent is good enough to draw an inference that
respondent has caused utmost mental pain and suffering which
constitute mental cruelty to the appellant and hence the appellant
is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
View Full Judgement here: http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/judgements/2010/CFCA816006.pdf
Apr 17, 2010
MUMBAI: Filing a false criminal case against the husband and in-laws for harassment amounts to cruelty and is ground for divorce, the Bombay high court. "Humiliation... that is caused on account of arrest and detention of appellant and his family members and relatives in a false case does constitute mental cruelty to enable the husband to seek decree of divorce on this sole ground," said a division bench of Justices A P Deshpande and R P Sondurbaldota while granting divorce to a Pune resident.
Dyanesh Soparkar and Lata (names changed) had an arranged marriage in March 2001 as per Hindu rites and they have a daughter. According to Soparkar, on the wedding night itself Lata called him blind for wearing spectacles and complained that she was given to understand that he earned a higher salary than what he actually got. The couple had frequent quarrels, according to Soparkar, over his wife's insistence that they stay separately.
Dyanesh filed for divorce in June 2003 and a month later Lata filed a case for dowry harassment (Section 498 A of the IPC). She named Dyanesh, his mother and three other relatives. They were arrested and sent to custody. Two years later, a magistrate's court acquitted them, saying there was no evidence that Lata's family were coerced to pay Rs 50,000 as dowry.
The family court dismissed Dyanesh's plea for divorce saying that a single complaint filed by the wife could constitute cruelty. Dyanesh moved the HC in appeal. His lawyers claimed that the arrest and detention of the family members and Dyanesh's near relations in a false case "has caused him agony".
The HC agreed with Dyanesh's contention. "One thing is crystal clear and it can be safely assumed that the wife had filed a false case not only against her husband and mother-in-law but had unnecessarily roped in other near relations," said the judges, adding, "It is obvious that on account of arrest and detention of the husband and his family members, Lata has treated Dyanesh with utmost mental cruelty and he has suffered agony."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2006
Ajay Ashok Khedkar .... ..... ..... ..... Appellant.
V/s
Sou. Laleeta Ajay Khedkar..... .... ..... ....Respondent.
Mr.Hitesh Vyas, Adv. For the appellant.
Mr.Sachin S. Pande, Adv. For the respondent.
CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE AND SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ.
Date:12th April, 2010.
4. Perusal of the judgment clearly reveals that the prosecution
utterly failed to prove the case put forth by the complainant. The
Judicial Magistrate has recorded categoric finding that the
complainant’s own testimony falsifies the prosecution case that the
complainant was treated cruely and was harassed by the accused
persons with a view to coerce her and her parents to meet their
unlawful demand of Rs.50,000/. The Magistrate has totally
disbelieved the version of the complainant/wife and has acquitted
the accused persons. On a careful reading of the judgment
rendered in the case of prosecution under section 498A of IPC one
thing is crystal clear and it can be safely assumed that the wife had
filed a false case not only against her husband and motherinlaw
but had unnecessarily roped in other near relations. It is obvious
that on account of arrest and detention of the husband and his
family members respondent has treated the appellant with utmost
mental cruelty and the appellant has suffered agony. It will not be
out of place to mention that the complaint filed by the wife was
calculatedly designed in as much as it was a sort of counter blast to
the divorce petition filed by the husband. The appellant had filed
divorce petition on 16.6.03 whereas the complaint was lodged by
the respondentwife on 11.7.03.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
and his family members including ladies who did not stay along
with the appellant were arrested and detained causing utmost
humiliation and embarrassment and agony to the appellant. This
solitary incidence would itself constitute mental cruelty even if
other circumstances are not taken into account and thus the trial
court has erred in law in dismissing the divorce petition.
Without deliberating on all the circumstances in detail we are of
the clear view that cumulative effect of the behaviour and conduct
of the respondent is good enough to draw an inference that
respondent has caused utmost mental pain and suffering which
constitute mental cruelty to the appellant and hence the appellant
is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
View Full Judgement here: http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/judgements/2010/CFCA816006.pdf
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Foreign Decree of Divorce - Validity
If any person re-marry as per the divorce passed by the foreign country and the same is not validated as per the provisions of Section 13 of Civil Procedure Code 1908. Remarriage will be considered as committing an offense of bigamy as per the provisions of Indian Penal Code.
Please read the below mentioned judgment to clarify the above mentioned position of law.
Equivalent Citation: 2003IIAD(Delhi)14, 102(2003)DLT822, I(2003)DMC443, 2003(67)DRJ58
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suit No. 108 of 2003 and I.A. 576/2003
Decided On: 23.01.2003
Appellants: Harmeeta Singh
Vs.
Respondent: Rajat Taneja
Hon'ble Judges:
Vikramajit Sen, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Geeta Luthra and Sanjeev Sahai, Advs
Subject: Family
Catch Words
Mentioned IN
p>Acts/Rules/Orders:
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Hindu Marriage Act; Contempt of Courts Act; Specific Relief Act - Section 41
Case Note:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 13--Foreign judgment--Applicability--In the event the marriage is dissolved by a decree in America, in consonance with principles of Private International Law which are embodied in Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inter alia, this decree would have to be confirmed by a Court in this country--If the Husband were to remarry in the United States of America on the strength of the Decree of Divorce granted in that country, until this Decree is recognized in India he would have committed the criminal offence of bigamy and would have rendered himself vulnerable to be punished for bigamy.
Hindu Law - Scope--Plaintiff and Defendant were married which was performed and celebrated in style according to Sikh rites and ceremonies, thereforee, it is the Hindu Marriage Act which would govern all disputes between them pertaining to their marriage, division of properties and maintenance.
Matrimonial disputes--Jurisdiction--Conflict of law between two countries--Husband initiated proceedings for obtaining a Decree of Divorce in America--Marriage performed in India--Even if the husband were to succeed in obtaining a Decree of Divorce in America, it would be unlikely to receive recognition in India--Courts in India would undoubtedly have jurisdiction over the disputes between the present spouses since the marriage was performed in India--Husband restrain from continuing with the proceedings in the United States of America till further order.
JUDGMENT
Vikramajit Sen, J.
I.A. 577 OF 2003
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The Court Fee be filed within a week from the date of its receipt by the Plaintiff.
Suit No. 108 OF 2003
2. Plaint be registered as Suit.
3. Issue summons to Defendant in the ordinary process, by registered A.D. Post, electronic mail as well as facsimile, returnable for 12th March, 2003. Service be effected on all the addresses disclosed in the plaint.
I.A. 576 OF 2003
4. Issue notice of this application to the Defendant, returnable on 12th March, 2003.
5. Matrimonial disputes between estranged spouses are the most bitterly fought litigation raising myriad awkward questions. Not unoften, the jurisdiction of more than one Court can be invoked where the husband and wife have started residing in different territories, either nationally or internationally. It must then be decided that from amongst them which Court should be best suited and thereforee competent to exercise jurisdiction. Where the choice is between forums within the same nation or Community of countries, the difficulty is usually easily resolved. Judges within the same national boundaries tend to be open to relinquishing their jurisdiction in favor of the Court most conveniently placed, keeping the parties in view. Regretfully, this does not happen where trans-border challenges are laid by the sparring spouses, as even Judges who are normally intellectually liberated and not parochial, succumb to innate chauvinism. The endeavor of Judges in every corner of the world should be to look only towards alleviating the human suffering that is endemic in every matrimonial dispute, since persons who may otherwise be willing to forgo their rights and go a long way to arrive at a compromise in other litigation, would fight to the very end. I have passed these Orders after fresh reflection, and would be subject to modification after hearing the Respondent.
6. A startlingly similar situation to that in the present case had arisen before me over three years ago in the dispute between the newly married Anubha who was domiciled in India till her marriage to her husband Vikas, who was gainfully employed and resident in the United States of America. Shortly after their marriage in India and their departure to United States of America, she was allegedly compelled by the conduct of Vikas to leave the matrimonial home. Lacking necessary financial resources, and other support, she was compelled to return to India. She filed an action in the High Court of Delhi, for Maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956, in the course of which the following Orders were passed on 5.11.1999.
" I.A. 10872/99 in S. No. 1966/99
Arguments in this case had been heard on 1.11.1999 and orders were reserved by me. Since I had intended to research the matter particularly in regard to the position prevailing in the EEC Countries the orders could not be pronounced. It will also be appropriate to mention that there has been a delay in hearing the matter for the reason that the Defendant Mr. Vikas Agrawal had not filed his Replies in this court within the time permitted to him.
The matter was mentioned before me in the morning and pursuant to notice issued to the Defendant, Mr. S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the defendant is present in court. The next date of proceedings in the United States of America are scheduled for 9.11.1999 and due to the Court vacations it is not possible to pronounce the orders before that date. It is submitted that if hearing takes place in the Courts at Connecticut, U.S.A. these proceedings may be rendered infructuous.
I feel compelled to record that the Plaintiff before me is undoubtedly residing in India and has neither submitted to the jurisdiction of the American Courts nor is presently represented by counsel before that Court. She is, thereforee, not in a position to draw the attention of that Court to the fact that, since the parties have married in India, Indian Court would definitely and indisputably have jurisdiction in deciding matrimonial issues at least under the Hindu Marriage Act. No doubt, it has been contended before me that the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act may not be available to the Plaintiff, but a decision on this issue will be given by me later. Whether the Courts in America have jurisdiction or not would undoubtedly be considered by Courts in that Country. Without in any manner desiring to interfere with the judicial proceedings in the United States of America, the question of jurisdiction of Courts in Connecticut, USA, is at least debatable; for the reason that, on undisputed facts, neither of the parties is presently residing in Connecticut, U.S.A., and their joint residence within the territorial jurisdiction was for a significantly short period of two months.
It has become fashionable to speak of our world as a global village. There is bound to be a manifold increase in cross border disputes such as the present one, and the question of which is the appropriate forum/Court to decide the lis is certain to remain a vexed one. In every such dispute, a Judge is bound to reflect on this point, at the very threshold. But I have the comparative advantage of hearing counsel for both parties. Because of economic constraints, the Plaintiff may not be able to make any representation on her behalf in the U.S.A. Mindful of judicial comity I am passing these orders with responsibility, as I am sure, would the Superior Judge seized with the Divorce proceedings.
For the present, in the interest of justice, and since no permanent prejudice is likely to be caused to the Defendant if the hearing in divorce case pending in the Superior Court, State of Connecticut, U.S.A. is deferred for a short period, I restrain the Defendant from proceeding further in the Superior Court, State of Connecticut, U.S.A for a period of thirty days from today."
7. On 9.3.2000 lengthy Orders were again passed after hearing the Husband's counsel, the relevant portion of which is extracted below:
"On further reflection I am also satisfied, prima facie, that the defendant appears to have committed contempt of this Court. When the matter came up for hearing on 18th August, 1999 notice, simplicitor, was issued to the defendant. It will be relevant to mention that the present suit is for the grant of maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and that, through a string of judgments of this Court as well as of other courts, it is well settled that interim orders of maintenance can be granted. On the following date of hearing, that is on 6th October, 1999 the defendant was represented by Mr. M.D. Adkar with Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocates. The learned counsel for the plaintiff had pressed for an injunction restraining the defendant from proceedings with divorce proceedings in the United States. On the request of learned counsel for the defendant arguments were deferred for a period of three weeks in order to enable him to file a reply. It is unfortunate that after obtaining the indulgence of this court the Defendant has attempted to over-reach this court. On 5th November, 1999 orders were passed in the presence of the counsel for the parties. The following extract of those orders is extremely relevant:
"For the present, in the interest of justice, and since no permanent prejudice is likely to be caused to the defendant if the hearing in divorce case pending in the Superior Court, State of Connecticut, U.S.A is deferred for a short period, I restrain the Defendant from proceeding further in the Superior Court, State of Connecticut, U.S.A for a period of thirty days from today."
These orders had been passed by the Court fully mindful of the vexed position of law pertaining to the jurisdiction of courts in different countries. On 18th November, 1999 as also on subsequent dates, learned counsel for the defendant did not disclose that the defendant had continued, in contumacious violation of the order of this Court, to prosecute the divorce proceedings in the United States of America . The divorce petition appears to have been concluded ex-parte. There is adequate reason for me to believe that this was achieved without the learned Superior Judge having any knowledge of these proceedings. Mr. S.N. Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant states that the orders dated 5th November, 1999 had been brought to the notice of the American Court. But conspicuously there is nothing in writing, emanating from the defendant, to support this contention. It has also not been disputed that the father of the defendant has no personal knowledge of the proceedings in the United States since he was not present there. Significantly he has verified his affidavit, which is heavily relied upon by Shri S.N. Kumar, on the basis of knowledge whereas it could only have been on information received by him and, theoretically possibly, believed by him to be true. He can scarcely be considered an appropriate person to assist the Court on the facts and proceedings of the case. For these reasons I consider it proper to issue notice to show cause to the defendant as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be contemplated against him. Notice to this effect shall be issued by the Registry of this Court through registered post as well as through the Indian Embassy in the United States of America.
Renotify on 1st May, 2000 for further proceedings, inter-alia for recording of the Defendant's statement under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure and for consideration of cause, if any, is shown, in respect of contempt of court proceedings."
8. In those previous proceedings, the husband, Vikas had assailed the Orders before the Appellate Division Bench without success. He thereupon took the matter up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the highest and final Court of this Country. The views of the Apex Court can be found in the case reported as Vikas Agrawal v. Anubha MANU/SC/0316/2002 : [2002]2SCR1084 . The husband's appeal against the Order striking out the defense was dismissed with costs. Paragraph 9 of that Judgment is instructive for the present controversy and hence is reproduced:
"Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the questions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are not relevant, since undisputedly there is non-compliance with the order passed by the Court requiring the defendant to be personally present in the Court. It is submitted that Sections 41(a) and (b) of the Specific Relief Act would not bar passing of an order as passed on 5.11.1999 by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court since such a bar is in relation to the superior courts i.e. to say the courts in India, it would not apply to courts outside India and next that the restraint order is against the party, namely, the defendant, who was restrained from proceeding in the matter for a period of one month (reliance has been placed on Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Western Co. of North America). It has been held in an appropriate case, it is open to pass a restraint order against a party in proceedings pending in foreign courts. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge had passed the injunction order on 5.11.1999 for a period of one month, but the decree was granted on 23.11.1999. The defendant was bound by the order and should not have taken any steps in furtherance of the proceedings pending in the American court. On the other hand, the decree of divorce shows that the decree was sought and passed on agreement (no-fault divorce) between the parties, which is described as fair and equitable. The agreement is also stated to be attached with the decree. It is also to be seen that columns meant for alimony etc. were left blank. The defendant was restrained by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, at the instance of the wife, the respondent from further proceeding in the divorce case. It is submitted that this itself shows that the divorce was far from one on the basis of agreement. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Court rightly felt the need for personal appearance of the defendant for clarification. The defendant failed to appear on one ground or the other and lastly on the ground of apprehension of losing job in America."
9. In the present case the Plaintiff (Wife), namely, Harmeeta Singh and the Defendant (Husband) Rajat Taneja were married in New Delhi. Their marriage was performed and celebrated in style on 24.3.2002 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. thereforee, it is the Hindu Marriage Act which would govern all disputes between them pertaining to their marriage, division of properties and maintenance. Where a divorce is not prayed for, maintenance can be granted by the Court in terms of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act. The spouses departed for the United States of America on 27.3.2002. The Plaintiff (Wife) has alleged that she was compelled to leave matrimonial home on 27.8.2002 and that her husband had initiated proceedings for obtaining a Decree of Divorce in America on 20.9.2002. They lived together as husband and wife, thereforee, for about six months of which three months only was in the United States of America.
10. The law on the vexed question of conflict of law and on the appropriate Court for deciding disputes pertaining to divorce of this genre has undergone substantial changes. The old law in Britain was that the wife would be deemed to have the same domicile as her husband and would, thereforee, have to seek relief in the Court where the husband was domiciled. This almost inflexible rule, not taking into account difficulties faced by the deserted wife, has given way to preference for the Court which is most convenient to both parties. Conventions in the European Community have since been negotiated.
11. This conundrum of competing jurisdictions and laws, has been carefully considered in a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. A foreign decree is recognized in India, as in most legal systems, but would have to be jurally investigated before it is given legal efficacy. In Y. Narasimha Rao and Others v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Anr., MANU/SC/0603/1991 : [1991]2SCR821 , the Apex Court declined to give its imprimatur to a foreign decree which did not take into consideration the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act under which the parties were married. In Satya v. Teja, MANU/SC/0212/1974 : 1975CriLJ52 where the husband set up domicile only to perfunctorily fulfill the domicile requirements of ninety days, the foreign decree was not accepted. In Veena Kalia v. Dr. Jatinder Nath Kalia and Anr., MANU/DE/0012/1996 : AIR1996Delhi54 , the Court held that since the wife was not in a position to contest the proceedings in a foreign Court as she had no means to go there, the rules of natural justice stood violated and the foreign decree was held to be a nullity. This brief analysis would lead to the conclusion that even if the husband, namely, Rajat Taneja were to succeed in obtaining a Decree of Divorce in America, it would be unlikely to receive recognition in India. It needs to be emphasised that the marriage was performed in India and was subsequently merely registered in the United States of America. The parties lived together for a very short time in the United States of America. The wife who has lived in India for almost her whole life is presently domiciled in India. The Defendant (Husband) is of Indian origin and his parents and family members are Indian citizens and are domiciled in India. It is alleged and is likely that Rajat holds substantial interests in immovable properties in India. In the event that the marriage is dissolved by a decree in America, in consonance with principles of private international law which are embodied in Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inter alia, this decree would have to be confirmed by a Court in this country. Furthermore, if the Defendant (Husband) were to remarry in the United States of America on the strength of the Decree of Divorce granted in that country, until this Decree is recognized in India he would have committed the criminal offence of bigamy and would have rendered himself vulnerable to be punished for bigamy. The confusion would be confounded insofar as the parties are concerned.
12. On the contrary, however, Courts in India would undoubtedly have jurisdiction over the disputes between the present spouses since the marriage was performed in New Delhi. Having financial as well as family support in this country it would be comparatively easy for the Defendant (Husband) to initiate divorce proceedings in this country. The Plaintiff (Wife) would not be in a position to challenge the jurisdiction of Matrimonial Courts in New Delhi. The forum of convenience, which is a concept well recognized and implemented in the United States of America, would thus be New Delhi. The Plaintiff (Wife) has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Courts in the United States of America. In the context of their residing together as husband and wife, the Plaintiff's stay in the United States of America could well be viewed as transient, temporary and casual. I am quite clear that some of these factors can apply to the husband also in regard to New Delhi, but the fact remains that he could quite conveniently prosecute litigation in New Delhi, whereas it is financially impossible for the Plaintiff (Wife) to do so. Having not received the Spouse Visa she may not even be in a position to enter the United States of America.
13. It is in the above circumstances, till the next date of hearing, I restrain the Defendant (Husband) from continuing with the proceedings in the United States of America arising out of File No. 2-3-06139-1SEA pending in the Superior Court of Washington County of King, Judge / Commissioner Richard D. Eadi / Richard A. Jones. I further direct the Defendant to place a copy of this Judgment before the Judge of the Superior Court of Washington County of King for his worthy perusal.
14. A copy of this Judgment be given dusty under the signature of the Private Secretary of this Court to the counsel for the Plaintiff.
____________________
Jai Bansal
Advocate
Supreme Court/High Court/District Court
Delhi, Mobile 9868566649
Please read the below mentioned judgment to clarify the above mentioned position of law.
Equivalent Citation: 2003IIAD(Delhi)14, 102(2003)DLT822, I(2003)DMC443, 2003(67)DRJ58
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suit No. 108 of 2003 and I.A. 576/2003
Decided On: 23.01.2003
Appellants: Harmeeta Singh
Vs.
Respondent: Rajat Taneja
Hon'ble Judges:
Vikramajit Sen, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Geeta Luthra and Sanjeev Sahai, Advs
Subject: Family
Catch Words
Mentioned IN
p>Acts/Rules/Orders:
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Hindu Marriage Act; Contempt of Courts Act; Specific Relief Act - Section 41
Case Note:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 13--Foreign judgment--Applicability--In the event the marriage is dissolved by a decree in America, in consonance with principles of Private International Law which are embodied in Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inter alia, this decree would have to be confirmed by a Court in this country--If the Husband were to remarry in the United States of America on the strength of the Decree of Divorce granted in that country, until this Decree is recognized in India he would have committed the criminal offence of bigamy and would have rendered himself vulnerable to be punished for bigamy.
Hindu Law - Scope--Plaintiff and Defendant were married which was performed and celebrated in style according to Sikh rites and ceremonies, thereforee, it is the Hindu Marriage Act which would govern all disputes between them pertaining to their marriage, division of properties and maintenance.
Matrimonial disputes--Jurisdiction--Conflict of law between two countries--Husband initiated proceedings for obtaining a Decree of Divorce in America--Marriage performed in India--Even if the husband were to succeed in obtaining a Decree of Divorce in America, it would be unlikely to receive recognition in India--Courts in India would undoubtedly have jurisdiction over the disputes between the present spouses since the marriage was performed in India--Husband restrain from continuing with the proceedings in the United States of America till further order.
JUDGMENT
Vikramajit Sen, J.
I.A. 577 OF 2003
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The Court Fee be filed within a week from the date of its receipt by the Plaintiff.
Suit No. 108 OF 2003
2. Plaint be registered as Suit.
3. Issue summons to Defendant in the ordinary process, by registered A.D. Post, electronic mail as well as facsimile, returnable for 12th March, 2003. Service be effected on all the addresses disclosed in the plaint.
I.A. 576 OF 2003
4. Issue notice of this application to the Defendant, returnable on 12th March, 2003.
5. Matrimonial disputes between estranged spouses are the most bitterly fought litigation raising myriad awkward questions. Not unoften, the jurisdiction of more than one Court can be invoked where the husband and wife have started residing in different territories, either nationally or internationally. It must then be decided that from amongst them which Court should be best suited and thereforee competent to exercise jurisdiction. Where the choice is between forums within the same nation or Community of countries, the difficulty is usually easily resolved. Judges within the same national boundaries tend to be open to relinquishing their jurisdiction in favor of the Court most conveniently placed, keeping the parties in view. Regretfully, this does not happen where trans-border challenges are laid by the sparring spouses, as even Judges who are normally intellectually liberated and not parochial, succumb to innate chauvinism. The endeavor of Judges in every corner of the world should be to look only towards alleviating the human suffering that is endemic in every matrimonial dispute, since persons who may otherwise be willing to forgo their rights and go a long way to arrive at a compromise in other litigation, would fight to the very end. I have passed these Orders after fresh reflection, and would be subject to modification after hearing the Respondent.
6. A startlingly similar situation to that in the present case had arisen before me over three years ago in the dispute between the newly married Anubha who was domiciled in India till her marriage to her husband Vikas, who was gainfully employed and resident in the United States of America. Shortly after their marriage in India and their departure to United States of America, she was allegedly compelled by the conduct of Vikas to leave the matrimonial home. Lacking necessary financial resources, and other support, she was compelled to return to India. She filed an action in the High Court of Delhi, for Maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956, in the course of which the following Orders were passed on 5.11.1999.
" I.A. 10872/99 in S. No. 1966/99
Arguments in this case had been heard on 1.11.1999 and orders were reserved by me. Since I had intended to research the matter particularly in regard to the position prevailing in the EEC Countries the orders could not be pronounced. It will also be appropriate to mention that there has been a delay in hearing the matter for the reason that the Defendant Mr. Vikas Agrawal had not filed his Replies in this court within the time permitted to him.
The matter was mentioned before me in the morning and pursuant to notice issued to the Defendant, Mr. S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the defendant is present in court. The next date of proceedings in the United States of America are scheduled for 9.11.1999 and due to the Court vacations it is not possible to pronounce the orders before that date. It is submitted that if hearing takes place in the Courts at Connecticut, U.S.A. these proceedings may be rendered infructuous.
I feel compelled to record that the Plaintiff before me is undoubtedly residing in India and has neither submitted to the jurisdiction of the American Courts nor is presently represented by counsel before that Court. She is, thereforee, not in a position to draw the attention of that Court to the fact that, since the parties have married in India, Indian Court would definitely and indisputably have jurisdiction in deciding matrimonial issues at least under the Hindu Marriage Act. No doubt, it has been contended before me that the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act may not be available to the Plaintiff, but a decision on this issue will be given by me later. Whether the Courts in America have jurisdiction or not would undoubtedly be considered by Courts in that Country. Without in any manner desiring to interfere with the judicial proceedings in the United States of America, the question of jurisdiction of Courts in Connecticut, USA, is at least debatable; for the reason that, on undisputed facts, neither of the parties is presently residing in Connecticut, U.S.A., and their joint residence within the territorial jurisdiction was for a significantly short period of two months.
It has become fashionable to speak of our world as a global village. There is bound to be a manifold increase in cross border disputes such as the present one, and the question of which is the appropriate forum/Court to decide the lis is certain to remain a vexed one. In every such dispute, a Judge is bound to reflect on this point, at the very threshold. But I have the comparative advantage of hearing counsel for both parties. Because of economic constraints, the Plaintiff may not be able to make any representation on her behalf in the U.S.A. Mindful of judicial comity I am passing these orders with responsibility, as I am sure, would the Superior Judge seized with the Divorce proceedings.
For the present, in the interest of justice, and since no permanent prejudice is likely to be caused to the Defendant if the hearing in divorce case pending in the Superior Court, State of Connecticut, U.S.A. is deferred for a short period, I restrain the Defendant from proceeding further in the Superior Court, State of Connecticut, U.S.A for a period of thirty days from today."
7. On 9.3.2000 lengthy Orders were again passed after hearing the Husband's counsel, the relevant portion of which is extracted below:
"On further reflection I am also satisfied, prima facie, that the defendant appears to have committed contempt of this Court. When the matter came up for hearing on 18th August, 1999 notice, simplicitor, was issued to the defendant. It will be relevant to mention that the present suit is for the grant of maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and that, through a string of judgments of this Court as well as of other courts, it is well settled that interim orders of maintenance can be granted. On the following date of hearing, that is on 6th October, 1999 the defendant was represented by Mr. M.D. Adkar with Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocates. The learned counsel for the plaintiff had pressed for an injunction restraining the defendant from proceedings with divorce proceedings in the United States. On the request of learned counsel for the defendant arguments were deferred for a period of three weeks in order to enable him to file a reply. It is unfortunate that after obtaining the indulgence of this court the Defendant has attempted to over-reach this court. On 5th November, 1999 orders were passed in the presence of the counsel for the parties. The following extract of those orders is extremely relevant:
"For the present, in the interest of justice, and since no permanent prejudice is likely to be caused to the defendant if the hearing in divorce case pending in the Superior Court, State of Connecticut, U.S.A is deferred for a short period, I restrain the Defendant from proceeding further in the Superior Court, State of Connecticut, U.S.A for a period of thirty days from today."
These orders had been passed by the Court fully mindful of the vexed position of law pertaining to the jurisdiction of courts in different countries. On 18th November, 1999 as also on subsequent dates, learned counsel for the defendant did not disclose that the defendant had continued, in contumacious violation of the order of this Court, to prosecute the divorce proceedings in the United States of America . The divorce petition appears to have been concluded ex-parte. There is adequate reason for me to believe that this was achieved without the learned Superior Judge having any knowledge of these proceedings. Mr. S.N. Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant states that the orders dated 5th November, 1999 had been brought to the notice of the American Court. But conspicuously there is nothing in writing, emanating from the defendant, to support this contention. It has also not been disputed that the father of the defendant has no personal knowledge of the proceedings in the United States since he was not present there. Significantly he has verified his affidavit, which is heavily relied upon by Shri S.N. Kumar, on the basis of knowledge whereas it could only have been on information received by him and, theoretically possibly, believed by him to be true. He can scarcely be considered an appropriate person to assist the Court on the facts and proceedings of the case. For these reasons I consider it proper to issue notice to show cause to the defendant as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be contemplated against him. Notice to this effect shall be issued by the Registry of this Court through registered post as well as through the Indian Embassy in the United States of America.
Renotify on 1st May, 2000 for further proceedings, inter-alia for recording of the Defendant's statement under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure and for consideration of cause, if any, is shown, in respect of contempt of court proceedings."
8. In those previous proceedings, the husband, Vikas had assailed the Orders before the Appellate Division Bench without success. He thereupon took the matter up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the highest and final Court of this Country. The views of the Apex Court can be found in the case reported as Vikas Agrawal v. Anubha MANU/SC/0316/2002 : [2002]2SCR1084 . The husband's appeal against the Order striking out the defense was dismissed with costs. Paragraph 9 of that Judgment is instructive for the present controversy and hence is reproduced:
"Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the questions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are not relevant, since undisputedly there is non-compliance with the order passed by the Court requiring the defendant to be personally present in the Court. It is submitted that Sections 41(a) and (b) of the Specific Relief Act would not bar passing of an order as passed on 5.11.1999 by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court since such a bar is in relation to the superior courts i.e. to say the courts in India, it would not apply to courts outside India and next that the restraint order is against the party, namely, the defendant, who was restrained from proceeding in the matter for a period of one month (reliance has been placed on Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Western Co. of North America). It has been held in an appropriate case, it is open to pass a restraint order against a party in proceedings pending in foreign courts. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge had passed the injunction order on 5.11.1999 for a period of one month, but the decree was granted on 23.11.1999. The defendant was bound by the order and should not have taken any steps in furtherance of the proceedings pending in the American court. On the other hand, the decree of divorce shows that the decree was sought and passed on agreement (no-fault divorce) between the parties, which is described as fair and equitable. The agreement is also stated to be attached with the decree. It is also to be seen that columns meant for alimony etc. were left blank. The defendant was restrained by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, at the instance of the wife, the respondent from further proceeding in the divorce case. It is submitted that this itself shows that the divorce was far from one on the basis of agreement. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Court rightly felt the need for personal appearance of the defendant for clarification. The defendant failed to appear on one ground or the other and lastly on the ground of apprehension of losing job in America."
9. In the present case the Plaintiff (Wife), namely, Harmeeta Singh and the Defendant (Husband) Rajat Taneja were married in New Delhi. Their marriage was performed and celebrated in style on 24.3.2002 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. thereforee, it is the Hindu Marriage Act which would govern all disputes between them pertaining to their marriage, division of properties and maintenance. Where a divorce is not prayed for, maintenance can be granted by the Court in terms of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act. The spouses departed for the United States of America on 27.3.2002. The Plaintiff (Wife) has alleged that she was compelled to leave matrimonial home on 27.8.2002 and that her husband had initiated proceedings for obtaining a Decree of Divorce in America on 20.9.2002. They lived together as husband and wife, thereforee, for about six months of which three months only was in the United States of America.
10. The law on the vexed question of conflict of law and on the appropriate Court for deciding disputes pertaining to divorce of this genre has undergone substantial changes. The old law in Britain was that the wife would be deemed to have the same domicile as her husband and would, thereforee, have to seek relief in the Court where the husband was domiciled. This almost inflexible rule, not taking into account difficulties faced by the deserted wife, has given way to preference for the Court which is most convenient to both parties. Conventions in the European Community have since been negotiated.
11. This conundrum of competing jurisdictions and laws, has been carefully considered in a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. A foreign decree is recognized in India, as in most legal systems, but would have to be jurally investigated before it is given legal efficacy. In Y. Narasimha Rao and Others v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Anr., MANU/SC/0603/1991 : [1991]2SCR821 , the Apex Court declined to give its imprimatur to a foreign decree which did not take into consideration the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act under which the parties were married. In Satya v. Teja, MANU/SC/0212/1974 : 1975CriLJ52 where the husband set up domicile only to perfunctorily fulfill the domicile requirements of ninety days, the foreign decree was not accepted. In Veena Kalia v. Dr. Jatinder Nath Kalia and Anr., MANU/DE/0012/1996 : AIR1996Delhi54 , the Court held that since the wife was not in a position to contest the proceedings in a foreign Court as she had no means to go there, the rules of natural justice stood violated and the foreign decree was held to be a nullity. This brief analysis would lead to the conclusion that even if the husband, namely, Rajat Taneja were to succeed in obtaining a Decree of Divorce in America, it would be unlikely to receive recognition in India. It needs to be emphasised that the marriage was performed in India and was subsequently merely registered in the United States of America. The parties lived together for a very short time in the United States of America. The wife who has lived in India for almost her whole life is presently domiciled in India. The Defendant (Husband) is of Indian origin and his parents and family members are Indian citizens and are domiciled in India. It is alleged and is likely that Rajat holds substantial interests in immovable properties in India. In the event that the marriage is dissolved by a decree in America, in consonance with principles of private international law which are embodied in Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inter alia, this decree would have to be confirmed by a Court in this country. Furthermore, if the Defendant (Husband) were to remarry in the United States of America on the strength of the Decree of Divorce granted in that country, until this Decree is recognized in India he would have committed the criminal offence of bigamy and would have rendered himself vulnerable to be punished for bigamy. The confusion would be confounded insofar as the parties are concerned.
12. On the contrary, however, Courts in India would undoubtedly have jurisdiction over the disputes between the present spouses since the marriage was performed in New Delhi. Having financial as well as family support in this country it would be comparatively easy for the Defendant (Husband) to initiate divorce proceedings in this country. The Plaintiff (Wife) would not be in a position to challenge the jurisdiction of Matrimonial Courts in New Delhi. The forum of convenience, which is a concept well recognized and implemented in the United States of America, would thus be New Delhi. The Plaintiff (Wife) has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Courts in the United States of America. In the context of their residing together as husband and wife, the Plaintiff's stay in the United States of America could well be viewed as transient, temporary and casual. I am quite clear that some of these factors can apply to the husband also in regard to New Delhi, but the fact remains that he could quite conveniently prosecute litigation in New Delhi, whereas it is financially impossible for the Plaintiff (Wife) to do so. Having not received the Spouse Visa she may not even be in a position to enter the United States of America.
13. It is in the above circumstances, till the next date of hearing, I restrain the Defendant (Husband) from continuing with the proceedings in the United States of America arising out of File No. 2-3-06139-1SEA pending in the Superior Court of Washington County of King, Judge / Commissioner Richard D. Eadi / Richard A. Jones. I further direct the Defendant to place a copy of this Judgment before the Judge of the Superior Court of Washington County of King for his worthy perusal.
14. A copy of this Judgment be given dusty under the signature of the Private Secretary of this Court to the counsel for the Plaintiff.
____________________
Jai Bansal
Advocate
Supreme Court/High Court/District Court
Delhi, Mobile 9868566649
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)