Grandfather from Kochi shot dead in Pahalgam while riding horse
One of the tourists killed in the terror attack in south Kashmir's Pahalgam on Tuesday was identified as Kochi resident Ramachandran.
The 65-year-old had gone to Kashmir with his wife Sheela, daughter Arathi and her two children.
'Ramachandran was shot while he was riding a horse. All others in the family are safe. Later, Arathi identified the body of her father at a local hospital,' said Jayalakshmi, a neighbour of the family in the Edappally area of Kochi.
The family had set out for Kashmir on Monday morning from Kochi via Hyderabad. 'During a recent gathering of locals, we were informed about their trip. This evening, when the news about the attack was splashed on TV channels, some of the relatives managed to speak to Arathi, who told them her father was shot dead. The incident happened in her presence,' said Jayalakshmi.
Ramachandran had worked in the UAE for several years before moving back to Kochi four years ago along with his wife.
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan said the government would take steps for the safe return of Ramachandran's family. 'The death of the Ernakulam native is painful. NORKA ROOTS (the nodal agency for matters concerning non-resident Keralites) has been asked to take all steps necessary to help those in Kashmir,' he said.
The Chief Minister said three High Court judges, Anil K Narendran, P G Ajith Kumar and G Gireesh, who are also touring Kashmir, are staying at a hotel in Srinagar. They will return Wednesday, he said. State legislators M Mukesh, T Siddique, K P A Majeed and K Ansalan are also safe in Srinagar, Vijayan said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
2023 fake drug case: Kerala woman's fight to find who framed her brings family under police lens, son ‘goes into hiding'
Two years after she was exonerated in what turned out to be a fake synthetic drugs case, 53-year-old Sheela Sunny has been involved in a legal battle to find out who framed her. However, the police investigation into this has come very close to home for Sheela, whose son has allegedly gone into hiding, and his wife's sister was arrested on Sunday. Sheela owned a beauty parlour at Chalakudy in Kerala's Thrissur district when she was arrested by the Excise Department on February 27, 2023, following the recovery of what was suspected to be LSD stamps from her scooter. Slapped with the stringent Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, Sheela spent 72 days in jail before the High Court granted her bail. The case against her collapsed when chemical tests of the seized stamps tested negative for LSD. On Sunday, police arrested Liviya Jose, 23, the sister of Sheela's daughter-in-law, Liji. Last month, police had arrested Liviya's friend, M N Narayana Das, 55, who had allegedly given wrong information to the Excise Department about the fake LSD stamps found in Sheela's scooter. Police said the probe now involves Sheela's son, Sangeeth, and his wife, Liji. Sangeeth has allegedly gone into hiding after recently being thrice served notice by the police, officers said. Tables turn After lab results of the seized stamps showed they did not contain any synthetic drugs in 2023, the Excise Department registered a case against Narayana Das and Liviya under the NDPS Act. Early this year, when Das moved an anticipatory bail plea in the High Court, the judge directed the police to take over the probe. After the Supreme Court rejected his anticipatory bail plea, Das was arrested in April. Kodungallour DySP V K Raju, who is heading the probe, said: 'The entire picture behind the conspiracy will be out only after we question Sheela's son, Sangeeth. So far, he is not listed as an accused, but we had served him notices three times. We have intensified our investigation into him.' According to police, Liviya had used Sheela's scooter on February 26, 2023, and allegedly concealed the stamps in the scooter before asking Das to inform the Excise Department. The next day, Sheela was arrested with what was then believed to be LSD stamps. Contested motive Police said Liviya told them the motive for her attempt to implicate Sheela in the drugs case was that Sheela allegedly had sent a voice message to her son that could damage Liviya's reputation. The DySP said Das had half a dozen criminal cases, including those related to extortion, honey trapping and theft, against him. 'He had met Liviya in Bengaluru and they were in a live-in relationship. In the drug case, Das acted as per Liviya's instructions. She had collected the LSD stamps from Bengaluru. She collected them on the assumption that they were genuine. At the same time, we have no information suggesting her links with any drug racket. We need to bring in more clarity regarding how she got the stamps. For this, we will seek their custody,' the officer said. Amid the probe, Liviya had moved to Dubai, where she worked in the hotel management sector. Last Saturday, Kerala Police got a tip-off that she had landed in Mumbai, which led to her arrest. Sheela, however, is not willing to buy Liviya's theory regarding the motive behind the crime. 'I strongly suspect my daughter-in-law. Liviya might have given a wrong statement to the police to save her sister from the case. I had not spoken to my son against Liviya's character. When Liviya came home with costly items for us, I had raised doubts about her source of income. She was frequently flying between Kochi and Bengaluru with no source of income.' She claimed that her daughter-in-law wanted to avoid her and may have considered her an 'obstacle'. 'Hence, they conspired to put me behind bars,' Sheela alleged. After her release on bail, Sheela said her son moved out of their house. 'I don't know where he is now. If he is involved in the conspiracy, he should be punished,' she said. After the 2023 arrest in the fake drug case, many parts of Sheela's life derailed. Relatives and friends abandoned her, and she had to shut down the beauty parlour and vacate the rented premises on which she used to run it. Her husband, Sunny, who was working in a hotel, later became bedridden. Sheela had taken up a job at a daycare centre in Chennai, but had to give it up to look after her husband.
News18
3 hours ago
- News18
'Judicial Balance To Be Struck In Grant Of Alimony': SC Raises Settlement Amount From Rs 1 L To Rs 5 L
Last Updated: The Supreme Court observed that the fact that the husband is not earning does not absolve him of the obligation to maintain his wife The Supreme Court has said that the objective of granting permanent alimony is to ensure that, in a marriage that does not survive and has one of the two spouses dependent on the other, such a spouse is not left without any source of support. At the same time, it is clear that the grant of permanent alimony cannot be a method of punishing the spouse who is asked to pay the said amount. A judicious balance has to be struck between the interests of both parties, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra said. The court here enhanced the alimony awarded by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to an appellant wife from Rs one lakh to Rs five lakh. The High Court, by its judgement and order of June 2, 2022, confirmed the decree of divorce granted in favour of the respondent-husband, as originally granted by the Family Court, Faridabad, on December 14, 2018. The High Court further ordered that the respondent-husband would pay the appellant-wife a sum of Rs one lakh as alimony. The appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married on November 9, 2008. Soon thereafter, it was alleged that harassment of the former began at the hands of the latter's family. This culminated, according to the appellant-wife, with her being turned away from her matrimonial home on January 5, 2011, after being physically assaulted. A few months thereafter, litigation began inter se the parties in one form or another. The respondent-husband at first filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955; the appellant-wife thereafter filed an FIR on November 15, 2011, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. Prior thereto, she also filed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, on May 26, 2011. The divorce proceedings were initiated by the respondent-husband on March 25, 2013. In its pendency, protracted and acrimonious litigation ensued between the parties. In the proceedings under the DV Act, the concerned court awarded Rs 2,000 per month to the appellant-wife. On September 17, 2016, she filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which eventually resulted in an order in her favour granting Rs 6,000 per month as maintenance on September 5, 2019. The order of Rs 2,000 per month maintenance in the DV Act proceedings was also appealed against and was enhanced to Rs 5,000 per month by an order on January 20, 2018. The Additional Principal Family Judge, Faridabad, passed the judgment and decree on December 14, 2018, dissolving the marriage. The High Court confirmed the grant of dissolution of marriage and awarded Rs one lakh alimony to the appellant wife. Examining the matter limited to the quantum of alimony, the bench cited Parvin Kumar Jain Vs Anju Jain (2025), which, upon considering a host of pronouncements, culled out a non-exhaustive list of factors that a court must consider in granting permanent alimony, including status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife and children, individual qualifications and employment status, independent income and assets, standard of life enjoyed by the wife, etc. The court also referred to Rajnesh Vs Neha, in which the Supreme Court observed that in computing permanent alimony, the fact that the husband is not earning (as the respondent-husband has submitted in his counter affidavit) does not absolve him of the obligation to maintain his wife. It has also been held that if the wife has been awarded maintenance in any other proceeding, she must disclose the same, and a set-off must take place. Having considered the law, the bench said, 'We are of the view that the High Court's determination of permanent alimony at Rs one lakh is insufficient. As such, in the attending facts and circumstances of this case, and without interfering with the final conclusion reached by both the Family Court and the High Court regarding the grant of divorce, we enhance the permanent alimony to be paid by the respondent-husband to the appellant wife by a sum of Rs four lakhs, bringing the total thereof to Rs five lakh." The court clarified that this would be a full and final settlement of all claims. It also said the amount would be payable in 10 equal instalments, with the final instalment being payable in the month of March 2026. The bench further held that the effect of this order would be that all other proceedings regarding maintenance stand subsumed by this payment. Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 18, 2025, 04:15 IST News india 'Judicial Balance To Be Struck In Grant Of Alimony': SC Raises Settlement Amount From Rs 1 L To Rs 5 L
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
HC puts stay on OBC list, asks state: ‘Why not wait for SC order?'
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday put an interim stay on notifications issued by the West Bengal government with regard to reservations to 140 subsections under OBC-A and OBC-B categories made by it. This comes days after Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee presented the new OBC list in the Assembly. The Opposition BJP had claimed that most of the new sub-sections in the list belonged to the Muslim community. Hearing a petition, filed by one Amal Chandra Das, challenging the new OBC list, the Division Bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Rajasekhar Mantha directed that executive notifications made between May 8 and June 13 about Other Backward Classes (OBC) categories will not be in effect till July 31. The Bench, however, said those who received OBC certificates before 2010 are not barred from employment or admission in educational institutes. In May last year, the same bench of the Calcutta High Court had ordered cancellation of OBC certificates issued since 2010. About 1.2 million certificates were cancelled. The Calcutta High Court had in May 2024 struck down the OBC status of several classes — 77 classes of reservation given between April 2010 and September 2010, and 37 classes were created based on the state's Reservation Act of 2012 — finding such reservations illegal. The High Court's ruling was challenged in the Supreme Court, where the matter is still pending. In the petition filed in March this year, the counsel of Das claimed that the state government prepared the new list hastily in violation of the High Court's order. The petitioner, who had made both the national and the state commissions for Backward Classes parties in the case, argued that the survey was not conducted in accordance with the High Court's ruling. 'The High Court had ordered that a survey be conducted among every economically, socially, and professionally diverse population in the state. However, the state allegedly conducted a survey among a few families based on districts,' the petitioner claimed, adding there was a little difference between the current list and the previously published list, scrapped by the High Court. During the hearing on Monday, Additional Solicitor General ASG Ashok Chakrabarty, representing the Centre's National Commission for Backward Classes, sought to know from the state government about the procedure for providing reservation, 'The NCBC in its report found out that Hindu Backward Classes were being converted to Muslim Backward Classes. Minutes recorded by the State Commission show concern shown by officers of the Commission about the communities whose designations have been struck off by the order of the High Court.' Representing the West Bengal government, State Advocate General Kishore Dutta told the court: 'The matter is pending before the Supreme Court. So, we should wait for the decision. We have informed the Supreme Court about the survey, and the Supreme Court permitted us to continue with the (survey) exercise.' Questioning the locus standi of the petitioner, the Advocate General said: 'Third party rights are being affected without bringing the third parties in the petition. Which class are the petitioners representing? Why can't they come to the court? Who is Amal Chandra Das? A public interest litigation cannot be a case for one person to keep on filling litigations. These people don't go and object to the commission and come to the court. How do I carry out the admission process? The Supreme Court ordered us to place a report before the legislature… Upon whose desire, I am making these submissions, the court needs to see that too. This will have a deep effect.' The Bench then said, 'So there is deep concern of the Commission. Why did not you wait for the decision of the Supreme Court? Have you mentioned to the Supreme Court that you will also issue notification on the basis of the fresh survey? You don't take further steps… The exercise that has been undertaken will either be tested by the Supreme Court or by us.' 'Don't give effects to the notification till the Supreme Court decides,' the High Court ordered. On the survey by the state OBC commission, the Bench observed: 'You are supposed to carry out a review after every 10 years or 5 years. Have you done the review? What improvements have taken place in their lives? Today, we want to ask you, when we have specifically ordered in a judgment that your actions of giving a parallel power to the State executive and State Legislation is unsustainable in law. How could you have given effect to these recommendations by an executive order under the 1993 Act.' 'The notification was issued by the State before the report was tabled before the legislature. You complied with half the procedure and the rest half you did according to yourself,' the Bench added. The High Court asked all the parties to file their affidavits on their contentions with regard to the challenge over new benchmark surveys for the purpose of inclusion under OBC categories in a PIL and the notifications. The state government has included 49 subsections under the OBC-A and 91 under the OBC-B categories vide the executive notifications. It has been stated that while more backward sections of people have been included under OBC-A, the less backward people come under OBC-B. —With PTI
