SC: Alimony from first marriage irrelevant in dispute with second spouse
The case concerned a couple, both previously divorced, who married on July 25, 2015. Their relationship broke down within one year and nine months, with disputes centring on a Mumbai apartment where they had lived.
The husband claimed his wife had already received a 'fair settlement' from her earlier divorce. Alleging constant harassment, he said he left the flat to live with his parents and his disabled child in Faridabad, giving up a lucrative private bank job.
The wife, however, accused him of intimidation and domestic violence, saying he abandoned her without means to survive. In 2018, she lodged an FIR under Section 498-A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code, prompting criminal proceedings. She had also filed a domestic violence complaint in May 2017 against him and his parents, while he petitioned for divorce in a Delhi court.
During mediation, the couple reached a settlement on September 1, 2022: the husband would gift the flat and its parking spaces to her, while she would clear the outstanding loan and maintenance charges. But before the second motion for divorce, the wife withdrew from the agreement, demanding ₹12 crore in permanent alimony in addition to the property.
The husband approached the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the 2018 criminal proceedings, arguing the wife had backed out of the settlement to pressure him into a better deal. His counsel, advocate Madhavi Diwan, told the court the flat was worth around ₹4 crore and the parking spaces could generate rental income.
The wife's counsel countered that she had no job or income, while the husband remained lucratively employed, owned property worth crores, and ran two businesses. She sought ₹12 crore in alimony plus ownership of the apartment free of encumbrances.
Justice K Vinod Chandran, dissolving the marriage, quashed the criminal proceedings against the husband, terming the allegations 'vague'. The court said the wife's earlier alimony was irrelevant, but took into account the husband's responsibility towards his autistic child, her educational qualifications, and the fact that she was gainfully employed.
Finding the apartment transfer adequate compensation, the court rejected her ₹12 crore demand and directed the husband to clear all arrears with the housing society and execute a gift deed transferring the flat to her.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
BJP MP Kangana Ranaut defamation trial resumes in Bathinda court
Bathinda: The defamation case against Bollywood actress and BJP MP Kangana Ranaut resumed in a Bathinda court on Monday, 10 days after the Punjab and Haryana high court dismissed her petition. The trial court has adjourned the matter to Oct 4 for further orders. The proceedings were stayed for over three years while Ranaut's petition was pending before the high court. The petition, which challenged summons issued by the Bathinda court on Feb 22 and April 19, 2022, was dismissed on Aug 1 by a bench led by Justice Tribhuvan Dahia. The defamation case was filed by Mahinder Kaur, an elderly woman farmer from Bahadurgarh Jandian village, following a 2020 social media post by Ranaut. In a retweet, the actress allegedly misidentified Mahinder Kaur as Bilkis Bano of Shaheen Bagh and claimed that such women were available for Rs 100 in protests. Kaur, a farm activist, was participating in protests against the now-scrapped farm laws at the Delhi borders. Her husband, Labh Singh, appeared on her behalf during Monday's hearing. Kaur's counsel, Raghbir Singh Behniwal, informed the court that the high court's order had not placed a stay on the trial's continuation. Ranaut's lawyers, however, told the court they intend to challenge the high court's decision in the Supreme Court. MSID:: 123236887 413 | Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
MPHC quashes Jabalpur collector's order on NSA, imposes Rs 50K on govt
Bhopal/Jabalpur: A division bench of MP high court quashed the order of district collector Jabalpur detaining a person under NSA stating that he was kept in jail unlawfully and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the state govt. The bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice A K Singh directed that the amount be transferred in the petitioner's account within 15 days. Anurag Thakur from Jabalpur in his petition in the high court pleaded that district collector, Jabalpur, in his capacity as district magistrate sentenced him to 3 months of jail under NSA on Nov 28, 2024. The order of the district collector was endorsed by the state govt on Dec 5, 2024. His jail term was successively increased while he was in jail. He argued that the order of the state govt to detain someone under NSA must necessarily be sent to the Central govt but it was not done in his case. Counsel for the state govt, however, argued that it was not necessary to inform the central government about a person detained under NSA. The bench observed in its decision said that provisions of the law must be strictly followed in the matter of special criminal laws like NSA. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
A Court ruling with no room for gender justice
In its judgment, Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal, that was delivered in late July, the Supreme Court of India has effectively endorsed the suspension of the arrest or coercive action under the anti-cruelty law in Section 498-A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC). Apart from being predicated on false premises, the judgment sets a dangerous precedent for both criminal justice and gender equality. In many marriages, women suffer great levels of inequality. Apart from being discriminated against and stereotyped, they also face harassment and violence including torture. To redress violence in the domestic sphere, the Parliament has brought in laws such as Section 498-A in the IPC in 1983. Section 498-A IPC (Section 85 of the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) penalises cruelty against women, by her husband or his relative with imprisonment for three years and a fine. Cruelty is defined wide enough to include dowry harassment and driving the woman to suicide or injury to life or health. The statement of objects of the Amending Act which brought in the law has underlined the need to expand the scope of the law to apply to all kinds of cruelty within marriage. This was done in the wake of a large number of dowry deaths and also noting that cruelty cases 'culminate in suicide by, or murder of, the helpless woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction of the cases involving such cruelty'. Penal legislation such as the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were enacted to operate harmoniously with other laws enacted for violence against women. Therefore, Parliament, as the policymaker, after legislative deliberation and study, has chosen to enact the anti-cruelty law in this particular socio-cultural context. Blanket protection from arrest However, it is without properly appreciating these social realities that the Allahabad High Court directed that no arrest or coercive action must be taken against the accused persons for a 'cool-off' period of two months from the complaint. It also directed the district-level constitution of family welfare committees, to which cases are directed to be transferred to. These directions are now endorsed by the Supreme Court, amounting to a temporary but blanket protection for the accused from arrest or coercive action, when it is permitted by the criminal law. Importantly enough, this was done in an individual dispute without examining in detail the socio-political implications of such a suspension. Nor was the State government heard in elaborate detail — at least going by the top court's judgment — before approving the suspension concerning a central criminal enactment. As a result of the judgment and its binding nature, even when there is overwhelming evidence of this serious crime, no arrests can be made by the police for at least a period of two months after its filing. This move also places a chilling effect on the complainants, who are otherwise already disadvantaged and discouraged from filing police complaints. The safety of the complainant is also severely put to risk. Further, the delay and inaction of the police in a proper investigation of complaints pertaining to 'problems inside marriage' are also legitimised by the judgment. Now, it might be true that family law jurisprudence in the country could improve with alternate dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation, rather than adversarial litigation. There is substance in the general argument that in cases of divorce or custody of children, conciliatory and effective resolution is more desirable than a long adjudicative process. Family cases are also highly sensitive and emotionally charged, which makes them much more suitable for the former than the latter. These aspects do not, however, apply when serious allegations of violence are made which come under the ambit of the penal law. The question of 'misuse' The narrative of 'misuse' of the anti-cruelty law is often heard in popular discourse. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court itself has echoed a similar sentiment in a series of cases. In Preeti Gupta and Anr. vs State Of Jharkhand and Anr. (2010), the Court held that several cases which are not bona fide are filed under this provision. In Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India and Ors. (2005), the Court even said that 'by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed'. In Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar and Anr. (2014), the Court already issued strict guidelines before arrest in anti-cruelty cases. It directed 'the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters' under Section 41 of the earlier Criminal Procedure Code which deals with appearance before police officers. Such guidelines have already rendered police action difficult. Yet, before the Court, apart from individual allegations, there is no concrete empirical data with evidence of any such 'misuse' of the anti-cruelty law. Every time the Court is faced with a dispute, it pertains to individual facts and counter versions. Being a complex social problem, this is also an area where the Court has much less institutional competence to conclude that there is overall 'misuse'. To venture into the terrain of legislative wisdom, therefore, is outside the corners of judicial expertise. One of the arguments often used is the allegedly low conviction rate in such cases, which is around 18% as per the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data in 2022. This means that almost one out of five cases leads to conviction, which is much higher than those in several other offences. Even otherwise, a low conviction rate does not automatically translate into the misuse of the law. In a society such as ours, with close-knit and dominating family relationships, it is attributable to various factors such as the problems in investigation, systemic bias and social and familial pressure on the woman to settle matters. The requirement of family members having to testify in criminal court is a daunting task. Moreover, there is a high burden of proof of 'beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal cases in addition to the difficulty in finding evidence for violence in intimate spaces. Survey findings The NCRB recorded that at least 1,34,506 cases were registered under the law in 2022. The National Family Health Survey-5 has reported the ground reality — that there is a gross under-reporting of violence against women in several States. The rising number of cases, a report by the women's centre Humsafar said, 'may be attributed to growing awareness among women about the law'. Therefore, to draw conclusions of widespread misuse from individual cases 'reflect institutional bias that exists within the criminal justice system' (A comprehensive study on the efficacy of Section 498-A). Now, even if we assume that there are false cases filed under the law, the potential for misuse is inherent in any law. The veracity of the allegation under any criminal complaint can only be determined upon a proper investigation. Now, by selectively suspending the anti-cruelty law, the Court has made the victims of cruelty much more vulnerable than ever under India's justice system. To subject certain criminal provisions to a more rigorous test than the others also has effects on the uniformity and the consistency of the criminal law. The Court itself reiterated in Sushil Kumar Sharma (2005), wherein the constitutional validity of this very law was under challenge, the settled legal principle that misuse of a law is no ground to strike it down. Now, it has acted exactly against this idea, making rigid the possibilities of victims of cruelty to aspire for any meaningful semblance of justice. Thulasi K. Raj is a lawyer at the Supreme Court of India
