Why can't 5G speed be provided at consumer commissions: HC
New Delhi:
Delhi High Court
on Wednesday sought the stand of govt on a
PIL
seeking to restore
video-conferencing hearings
and basic facilities in the city's district
consumer commissions
.The court was hearing a PIL highlighting the dismal state of the consumer courts.
The bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked Delhi govt to respond, granting it three weeks to file its response.According to the PIL, once the COVID-19 pandemic ended, the facility for affected parties to appear via video conferencing was no longer available at various consumer fora, even though it is being expanded and improved in other district courtrooms.
It sought the restart of the facility at all 10 district consumer commissions for the benefit of consumers who mostly argue their grievances on their own.The plea also cited replies from some district commissions to an RTI filed on the matter, where the commissions blamed the lack of infrastructure and absence of a 5G connection for the absence of the video-conferencing facility. The bench wondered why govt can't provide a 5G connections to the commissions.Despite earlier directions by the high court, the authorities were yet to provide basic facilities to lawyers and the public at the consumer commissions, the plea said. Last year, the high court had warned that govt cannot "muzzle" courts in this way, compelling them to approach Supreme Court for getting budgets cleared."The state is only interested in slashing the budgets of courts. We find that there is a deliberate pattern. For everything, we need to go to Supreme Court. There are no ladies' toilets in the consumer forums," the court had said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
Assam teacher ‘pushed' into Bangladesh returns home two weeks after being detained
Assam teacher Khairul Islam, who had been 'pushed' into Bangladesh on May 27 after picked by state border police, has returned to his ancestral home in Morigaon. His family told Scroll that he had reached home on Thursday evening. 'I pray that Muslims in Assam can remain in peace,' Islam told Scroll from his home at Khandapukhuri village on Eid. As Scroll had reported, the 51-year-old former government teacher had been detained his home on the night of May 23 by the border police and forced out of Indian territory along the Bangladesh border four days later along with 13 others who were claimed to be 'infiltrators'. In a video posted on Facebook a Bangladeshi journalist from Bangladesh's Rangpur division on May 27, Khairul Islam Islam could standing in a field between Assam's South Salamar district and Bangladesh's Kurigram district 'I told the Assam police that I am a teacher and asked them to respect me,' Islam had told the journalist. 'My hands were tied like I was a thief and I was made to sit in the bus. Around 4 am, I reached here.' Until December, Islam had been a teacher in a government school. In 2016, he had been declared a foreigner by a tribunal. Two years later, the Gauhati High Court upheld the tribunal's decision. Islam spent two years in Assam's Matia detention centre and was released on bail in August 2020. The appeal to the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision is pending. On Saturday, he described his ordeal to Scroll. 'I was taken by the police and the same police brought me home,' he said. On May 23, the Morigaon police to the office of the superintendent of police. He was then moved to the Matia detention camp, Islam said. A few days later, the Border Security Force took him from the camp and released him the no-man's land between India and Bangladesh. 'I spent two days in the no man's land,' Islam said. The group was eventually taken to a camp of the Bangladesh Border Guard. he said. 'A few days later, the BGB brought seven of us in the border from where the police took me in custody,' Islam said. 'I was in Assam police custody since we crossed the border from Bangladesh to India and they released me on Thursday evening.' He added: 'I don't exactly remember how many days we were in three days,' he said. 'There was no sleep on our eyes during those days. How don't know how we spent those days. I don't even remember. Days and nights were same.' Islam alleged that he had been beaten in Matia camp when he refused to get into a bus that he knew was heading for the border. '…I'm an Indian so why would I go to Bangladesh?' he said. 'When I told them that, they hit me inside the Matia Detention camp.' After Islam was picked up, his family had filed an application before the Morigaon superintendent of police seeking his release, attaching all the relevant documents. 'The SP had assured that he would be back within two-four days,' Islam's wife Rita Khanam said. Islam's family is happy that he is home on Eid but Islam said no other Indian should face the ordeal he had been put through. 'I'm saying that an Indian should not be harassed like this and sent to no man's land by their own country like this,' Islam said. 'We are not Bangladeshi. We are swadesi. We have all the documents. They should check this and they should verify this before doing such acts. This is injustice and there will be judgement for this one day.' 'Malik ekojn ase,' Islam said. The Almighty will give us justice.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Divorce: Permanent alimony for wife revised by 2.5 times up by SC within 9 years of HC fixing it Rs 20,000 per month
The Supreme Court of India on May 29, 2025, ordered a husband to pay Rs 50,000 per month, which is 2.5 times the permanent alimony, with a 5% increase every two years. Earlier, the permanent alimony amount fixed by the Calcutta High Court in 2016 was Rs 20,000, with an increase of 5% every three years. The Supreme Court said: 'The wife, who in this case has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future.' Moreover, the Supreme Court also upheld the Calcutta High Court order, which asked the husband to redeem the home loan taken on the house and transfer the title deed to his former wife's name. The husband did not fight this point and duly complied with the order, but he challenged the fact of paying alimony for both his wife and son. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like When the Camera Clicked at the Worst Possible Time Read More Undo He, however, contended that his son is now 26 years old and is non-dependent. The husband also said that while it's true his income level has increased since the time of their divorce , he has since then remarried, and he has ageing parents also to take care of. After hearing and analysing the facts of the case, the Supreme Court said that, while they can't direct the husband to pay maintenance to his son, the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with the law. Hence, the Supreme Court accepted the husband's lawyer's contention about paying child maintenance but rejected his reservations about paying a higher alimony to the wife. Live Events The SC also said: 'Having considered the submissions and materials on record, we are of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court requires revision. The husband's income, financial disclosures, and past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount.' Read below to understand the rationale behind the Supreme Court's decision to more than double the monthly permanent alimony, along with the legal reasoning behind it. How did this alimony case go on for 17 years? According to the order of the Supreme Court dated May 29, 2025, here's a timeline of events: June 18, 1997: The couple married following Hindu ceremonies. August 5, 1998: A son was born to the newly married couple. July 2008: The husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty allegedly inflicted by the wife. Subsequently, the wife filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 in the same suit under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance for herself and the minor son. January 14, 2010: The Trial Court, by order dated January 14, 2010, awarded interim maintenance of Rs 8,000 per month, along with Rs 10,000 for litigation expenses, to the wife. March 28, 2014: The wife then instituted a case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Trial Court, vide order dated March 28, 2014, directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs 8,000 per month to the wife and Rs 6,000 per month to the minor son, along with Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. May 14, 2015: Aggrieved by this order, the husband filed an appeal before the Calcutta High Court. The High Court, by order dated May 14, 2015, directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs 15,000 per month. January 10, 2016: The Trial Court, vide order dated January 1, 2016, dismissed the matrimonial suit, finding that the respondent-husband had failed to prove cruelty. July 14, 2016: Subsequently, by order dated July 14, 2016, the High Court noted that the respondent-husband was drawing a net monthly salary of Rs 69,000 and enhanced the interim maintenance to Rs 20,000 per month. June 25, 2019: The High Court, by order dated June 25, 2019, allowed the husband's appeal, granted a decree of divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage. February 20, 2023: The Supreme Court of India issued a notice confined to the question of enhancement of permanent alimony awarded to the wife. November 7, 2023: By interim order dated November 7, 2023, the Supreme Court, noting the absence of representation on behalf of the husband despite proof of service, enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs 75,000 with effect from November 1, 2023. The husband subsequently entered the appearance and filed an application seeking vacation of the said interim order. May 29, 2025: The Supreme Court's final judgement ordered the husband to pay Rs 50,000 per month as permanent alimony, with a 5% increase every two years. Legal arguments used by husband and wife The wife asks, why is she getting Rs 20,000 per month as alimony when her former husband is earning Rs 4 lakh per month? The former wife's lawyers said before the Supreme Court of India: 'The appellant-wife contends that the amount of Rs 20,000 per month, which the High Court made final, was originally awarded as interim maintenance. She submits that the respondent-husband has a monthly income of approximately Rs 4,00,000 and the quantum of alimony awarded is not commensurate with the standard of living maintained by the parties during marriage.' The husband counters his former wife's argument by saying he has to support expenses for his second marriage and old parents The husband's lawyers said before the Supreme Court of India: 'In response, the respondent-husband submits that his current net monthly income is Rs 1,64,039, earned from his employment. He has submitted salary slips, bank statements, and income tax returns for the year 2023-2024. He also submits that his monthly household expenses total Rs 1,72,088 and that he has remarried, has a dependent family, and aged parents. The husband contends that their son, now 26 years of age, is no longer financially dependent.' What did the Supreme Court of India say? According to the order of the Supreme Court dated May 29, 2025, here are the details: Having considered the submissions and materials on record, we are of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court requires revision. The respondent-husband's income, financial disclosures, and past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount. The appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future. Furthermore, the inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount. The Supreme Court's final judgement: Pay former wife Rs 50,000 per month as permanent alimony The Supreme Court said: In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs 50,000 per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife. This amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years. As regards the son, now aged 26, we are not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support. However, it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses. We clarify that the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is modified to the extent that the permanent alimony payable to the appellant-wife shall be Rs 50,000 per month, subject to a 5% increase every two years, as noted above. Nikita Anand, Partner at Magnus Legal Services LLP, says: 'Maintenance is not charity but a right that must be calibrated to genuine financial realities and the lifestyle disruption caused by marital breakdown. The days of token alimony amounts may well be numbered.' Arnaz Hathiram, a digital media professional, says: "This is a classic case where alimony is granted by default irrespective of the outcome of the main divorce case. In the current scenario, parties had been separated since 2008 where maintenance to wife was granted on the husband's then income. In 2025, the Supreme Court has enhanced permanent alimony to the wife even where cruelty by her had been proven and divorce was granted to the husband on grounds of cruelty. When courts award alimony to wives despite cruelty proven, it leaves the husbands - who approach court for justice - with very little hope. In my opinion, the husband in this case just got freedom, not justice." Neelam Singh, Advocate on Record, Lucknow High Court, says: 'This judgment holds immense significance for women who, after divorce, are left unheard and unsupported when it comes to claiming maintenance from their husbands. Many are forced to run from pillar to post, struggling through the legal system just to secure a rightful order for themselves and their children—simply to survive with dignity in society. Prachi Dubey, Advocate, Delhi High Court, "By increasing the wife's maintenance to Rs 50,000 with incremental raises every second year, the court upheld in past decisions that inflation should be considered while providing spousal support and should be reflective of the standard of living during the marriage. It also made distinction between spousal and child support, maintained the position with respect to the son's rights to inherit, and accepted tacitly that the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is a ground for divorce." Singh adds: 'This judgment sets a significant precedent for wives and legitimate children who are often left with no option but to repeatedly approach the court to seek a dignified standard of living and rightful maintenance from their husband or father. It establishes a benchmark that reinforces the court's role as a guardian of justice—offering hope and support to women seeking financial stability and to children who depend on their father's support as they grow. It is indeed a remarkable, meaningful, and much-needed ruling that upholds both fairness and compassion.' Priyanka Desai, Co-founder and Partner, The Fort Circle, says: This judgment clarifies that maintenance can be increased based on the husband's higher income, irrespective of his remarriage. It also holds that financial support is not mandatory for a child who has attained majority. A key takeaway is that the maintenance amounts mentioned in the divorce decree is not set in stone and may be modified based on changed circumstances. Anand says: 'The Supreme Court refused to accept the husband's claimed reduction in income at face value. Despite his assertion that his current monthly net income was Rs 1,64,039, the court considered his "past earnings" and professional background, including his previous employment with a hotel at an annual salary exceeding Rs 21 lakh. This sends a clear warning that spouses cannot deliberately reduce their income or accept lower-paying positions to evade maintenance obligations. The court's approach creates a stronger deterrent against income suppression tactics and encourages a more robust assessment of a party's true earning potential based on their professional trajectory and historical income patterns.' Ruchita Datta, Partner, D&T JURIS, says: "The instant judgement is a reiteration of the fact that while deciding the alimony amount the court needs to weigh in various factors viz., residential rights, wife's status of living before divorce, any medical ailment, dependence of children, Inflation rates etc. In this case, the wife remained unmarried and had no other source of income to sustain herself except the amount which has been provided to her by her husband. So, therefore the amount of ₹20,000 provided to her as an alimony by the High court was enhanced by the Supreme Court to ₹50,000 per month along with 5 % increase after every two years keeping in mind the high cost of living and the prevailing inflation. In my opinion, it is imperative to be pragmatic while deciding the alimony amount as the amount so awarded will not only cater to her basic needs of sustenance but also provide her with a life of dignity and respect."
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
More money on the Street draws bulls to realty, auto, financials
Following the RBI's policy rate cut and CRR reduction, interest rate-sensitive sectors like banks, financials, property, and autos experienced a surge, propelling the Nifty past 25,000. The Nifty Bank index reached a new high, while realty and financial services also saw significant gains. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Interest rate-sensitive sectors, such as banks, financials, property and automotives, surged after Friday's twin policy announcements on funding costs and liquidity enhancement , pushing the benchmark Nifty higher by more than 1% past the 25,000 Nifty Bank index made a fresh high of 56,695 level on Friday, ending 1.5% higher. Nifty's Realty index was up 4.7% at close, the Financial Services index advanced 1.75%, and the Auto index closed 1.5% higher. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) slashed the policy rate by half a percentage point - the most since March 2020 - and reduced the cash reserve ratio (CRR) to the Covid-era record low."The market has responded appropriately to the RBI's repo rate and CRR cuts, which could translate into longer-term gains if consumption also picks up," said Amit Khurana, head of equities at Dolat Capital Market. "Rate-sensitive sectors are gaining momentum, driven by short covering, but sustained growth depends on increased cash market participation."The Nifty Bank and Financial Services indices are also seeing a change in trend on the technical charts."Bank Nifty witnessed a bullish breakout from a seven-week consolidation phase on Friday, marking fresh all-time highs. Finnifty has also seen a similar breakthrough," said Vipin Kumar, assistant vice president of derivatives and technical research at Globe Capital said Bank Nifty is poised to move towards the 57,500-57,800 range in the near term, with key support around 55,400. This implies about a 2.1% upside in the index from current levels.A rate cut usually translates into lower lending rates for the banks, prompting citizens to borrow more at cheaper rates, either for investing or buying new assets like homes or vehicles. Due to the cut in CRR rates, NBFCs will also get easier access to bank funds, which may increase their lending said from a longer-term perspective, some of these sectors may be attractive to investors."Valuations for banks remain modest, with NBFCs favoured due to the CRR cut. Real estate may also benefit from improved sentiment, though auto demand remains weak and is unlikely to be significantly impacted by these measures," he the shorter term, Kumar said that the auto index has formed a fresh buying pivot with renewed buying interest and he will reassess the index near the 24,150 level."In the real estate sector, we recommend buying the index heavyweight DLF on dips, while other stocks within the space can be considered at current levels," he said.
