&w=3840&q=100)
DV law doesn't distinguish 1st marriage from 2nd on maintenance: Delhi HC
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on July 15 said once a man voluntarily marries his partner and accepts her and her children from the previous marriage, he cannot use it as a defence later to resist his statutory obligations.
A man moved court against paying maintenance to his estranged wife saying it was his second marriage and the children were from her first marriage.
"As regards the petitioner's (man) submission that the respondent's (wife) marriage with him was her second and that she had children from a previous marriage, such a submission is wholly misconceived," the order said.
The order continued, "Domestic Violence Act does not distinguish between a first or subsequent marriage for the purpose of entitlement to maintenance. Once the petitioner voluntarily entered into the marriage and accepted the respondent and her children, he cannot now use that as a defence to resist his statutory obligations." The high court found "no infirmity" in the trial court's order directing the man to pay Rs 1 lakh monthly maintenance to his wife.
It also found no infirmity in the trial court's order declining maintenance to the woman's sons, who are majors.
The high court, however, found merit in the woman's grievance that the man attempted to alienate his properties during the pendency of the proceedings, allegedly to defeat her legitimate claims.
"The trial court has rightly directed the petitioner not to dispose of his immovable assets without permission of the court. Such conduct lends further credence to the apprehension of the respondent wife and undermines the petitioner's credibility," it said.
The woman claimed that she was presently residing in her ancestral home after being repeatedly subjected to mental, physical, financial and emotional abuse by the husband.
She said after the death of her first husband in 1987 and while raising two sons alone, the man had approached her for marriage with promises of care and fatherly affection for her children.
The man, on the contrary, claimed his wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and made no efforts to return or reconcile.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
3 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Madras High Court tells MEA to reconsider passport application of ‘stateless' 23-year-old
MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of a stateless woman, born to Sri Lankan parents in a refugee camp in Karur, after her passport application was rejected by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) without affording her the opportunity of a hearing. Following a petition filed by the woman, S Harinaa, Justice C Saravanan directed the MEA to reconsider the application within three months by obtaining a fresh report from the police. Harinaa was born to two Sri Lankan nationals in a refugee camp at Rayanoor in Karur district in February 2002. Wanting to study abroad, she had earlier moved the HC in 2022, against rejection of her passport application. While disposing of her petition in June 2023, the court had observed that there are provisions under the Passports Act, 1967, which enables the centre to issue passports to even non-citizens, if it feels it would be in public interest. Since Harinaa holds citizenship neither in Sri Lanka nor India, the court also declared her a stateless person. However, her application was once again rejected in May last year, challenging which she moved the court again. The second rejection order was passed based on a police verification report which included wrong information that Harinaa was born in Sri Lanka. The Deputy Solicitor General of India, opposing Harinaa's plea, told the court the MEA feels that issuance of a Certificate of Identity to Harinaa may not be in the interest of the nation. However, Justice Saravanan observed that there are ample numbers of documents, including Harinaa's birth certificate, to show she was born in India, while there are no records to indicate she was born in Sri Lanka and entered India either legally or illegally. Noting that these aspects were not considered by the MEA, the judge gave the above directions.
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC to first test maintainability for reopening 2022 PMLA verdict
New Delhi The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will first examine whether the review petitions filed against its 2022 judgment in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case, which upheld the Enforcement Directorate's sweeping powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), are legally maintainable before proceeding to consider the substantive issues raised by the petitioners. The bench posted the matter for hearing on August 6, making it clear that the preliminary objections raised by ED must be addressed first. (ANI PHOTO) A three-judge bench led by Justice Surya Kant emphasised that the scope of a review jurisdiction hinges on certain fixed parameters and therefore, the petitioners demanding a reconsideration of the 2022 judgment must cross the first hurdle of maintainability. 'Since the proposed issues are arising in the review proceedings, we propose to first hear the parties on the issue of maintainability of the review petitions followed by a hearing on the questions proposed to be raised on behalf of the review petitioners. Eventually, the questions that would finally arise for consideration will also be determined by us if we hold that the review petitions are maintainable,' noted the bench, also comprising justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh, hearing a bunch of petitions seeking a complete review of the impugned judgment. The bench posted the matter for hearing on August 6, making it clear that the preliminary objections raised by ED must be addressed first. 'Review has limitations…You will (petitioners) proceed on the premise as if the entire matter has been reopened... but they (ED) are justified in raising preliminary issues… first what we will suggest is you address preliminary issues,' the bench told senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Vikram Chaudhri, leading counsel for the petitioners in the matter. The court's observation came during a brief hearing on the clutch of review petitions filed against the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary ruling, a decision that has since become a constitutional flashpoint for its endorsement of the ED's broad powers related to arrest, search, seizure and the attachment of property. ED, represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, argued that the review jurisdiction of the court is narrow and cannot be used as a backdoor to file an appeal. Raising three preliminary objections, the ASG contended that the review petitions must be dismissed unless they clearly demonstrate an 'error apparent on the face of the record' in the 2022 verdict. He read out the three objections framed by the agency -- Whether the review petitions meet the threshold of an 'error apparent on the face of the record; whether the petitions amount to an appeal in disguise and whether the review can be confined only to two issues, as mandated by the court's August 25, 2022 order. By the August 2022 order, the top court had agreed to take a re-look at only two issues -- the supply of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) to the accused and the constitutionality of the reverse burden of proof under Section 24 of the PMLA. The 2022 order issuing notice in the review petition, filed by Congress lawmaker Karti Chidambaram, had noted that these two issues required reconsideration. During the hearing, Sibal contested the ED's claim that the review was limited to two issues, pointing out that no such restriction was recorded in the August 2022 order. He also urged the bench to tag a separate but related batch of cases, where the correctness of the Vijay Madanlal verdict had been raised, with the current review proceedings. That batch had remained dormant following the retirement of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul in December 2023. In this batch of petitions, sections 50 and 63 of the PMLA have been assailed, besides a reconsideration of the entire 2022 judgment. These sections relate to the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) powers to summon witnesses, extract confessions and prosecute for providing false information. Responding, Justice Kant advised Sibal to mention the matter before the Chief Justice of India to seek listing of that batch. The petitioners, in their list of 13 issues submitted to the court, have sought reconsideration of key aspects of its 2022 ruling, arguing that the judgment diluted the offence of money laundering by misreading a pertinent provision, retrospectively applied the law in violation of fundamental rights, and wrongly upheld the ED's powers to compel statements under Section 50, undermining protections against self-incrimination. They have also challenged the court's classification of ED officers as non-police personnel, non-supply of the ECIR to the accused, constitutional validity of the reverse burden of proof for securing bail, which, they claim, strips accused persons of basic due process safeguards.
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
3 cops get jail for sexual harassment of woman, minor niece in neighbourhood
New Delhi: Three cops who are alleged to have sexually harassed and used vulgar language against a woman and her minor niece in their neighbourhood in 2013 were handed down prison terms by Delhi High Court on Thursday. "The convicts are none other than the police officials who are responsible for maintaining law and order in society. Furthermore, they were the neighbours of the complainant and the child victim and were fully aware and conscious of their offensive acts towards them. It is not a case where a restorative or rehabilitative approach would be justified while sentencing," Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed in her order. Convicts Jaidev, his brother Jagmal, and son Suraj Bhan were acquitted by the trial court earlier, but the high court found enough material to set aside the verdict and hold them guilty under provisions of IPC and Pocso Act after it found that they indulged in sexual harassment and public obscenity against the victims in 2013. While Jaidev was sentenced to 2 years in prison, the remaining three will have to serve one year in jail. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi The high court noted that Jaidev's conduct "was persistent, who would regularly stand in the street and strip himself naked on seeing the complainant and her niece. Such an act of the convict, who was in Delhi Police, cannot be forgiven or overlooked. He, being a police official, was duty-bound to abide by the law and to ensure the maintenance of law and order. However, he instead indulged in sexual offences, not only towards the complainant but also a little child of about 6 years of age. " It cannot be overlooked that all the three convicts belong to the same family and they all together on the date of the incident, misconducted themselves and persisted in committing the offence, the court added, highlighting that the victims were also kin of a cop. Deciding their punishment, the court on Thursday stressed that it is a case "where there is no other choice but to adopt the punitive approach, which may also send a signal to society and act as a deterrent for the convicts like them in society." The punishment came for offences under sections 509 and 354A IPC for sexual harassment and using vulgar language, words, gestures, and acts to insult the modesty of the woman, obscene acts done in a public place, and under the Pocso Act vis-a-vis Jaidev. Citing the "consistent testimony of the child about being a victim to such exposure by Jaidev," the court stated that evidence could not have been discarded, overlooked, or disbelieved. "There is overwhelming evidence confirming the alleged obscenity on the part of Jaidev towards the child victim and there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the child," it added.
