Latest news with #AurangabadBench
News18
13 hours ago
- News18
Son, Daughter-In-Law Can't Force Elderly Parents To Share Home Against Their Will: Bombay HC
The senior citizen couple had moved the high court challenging an order in favour of the daughter-in-law that quashed the eviction issued by the senior citizens tribunal. The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has recently held that a son and daughter-in-law cannot compel their ageing parents to let them reside in their home against their wishes, while reaffirming the rights of a senior citizen couple. A bench presided over by Justice Prafulla S Khubalkar held that the son and daughter-in-law had no legal right to reside in the house, especially when relations had become hostile. The judge said, 'In any case, the son and daughter-in-law cannot compel their parents to allow them to reside in their property against their desire. As such, there is no legal basis for the claim of respondent No.4 to reside in the petitioners' house, and on the contrary, the petitioners are entitled to invoke provisions of the Act to seek eviction of respondent Nos.3 and 4." The verdict came in response to a plea filed by the senior citizen petitioners, challenging the appellate tribunal's order that had ruled in favour of the daughter-in-law and set aside an earlier direction asking the son and daughter-in-law to vacate the house. Before the High Court, it was the petitioners' case that they had allowed their son and daughter-in-law, who had a love marriage, to reside in their home, considering their immediate needs after marriage. However, the relations soon turned sour, as the petitioners alleged that the daughter-in-law began filing frivolous cases against them. They then approached the senior citizens' tribunal seeking eviction of both the son and the daughter-in-law from their property. The tribunal had allowed their plea. The daughter-in-law had then contested the order passed by the tribunal before the appellate tribunal. Notably, she had filed divorce proceedings against her husband, along with proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 498-A against her husband and in-laws. Before the Appellate Tribunal, she contended that she had a right to reside in the property in question, mainly because the matrimonial proceedings filed by her were still pending. While allowing her plea, the appellate tribunal denied the relief sought under the Senior Citizens Act by the petitioners in the present case. It asked the petitioners to initiate appropriate civil proceedings, noting that the dispute was civil in nature. The senior citizen petitioners before the high court, represented by Advocate NS Jain, had argued that the appellate tribunal had adopted a perverse approach, defeating the object and purpose of the Senior Citizens Act, which ensures the protection of the rights of senior citizens. It was argued that the daughter-in-law had filed frivolous and malicious cases against them. On the other hand, Advocate ML Sangit, the Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the tribunals, contended that the tribunal had merely allowed the daughter-in-law's appeal and asked the parents to pursue eviction through civil courts. It was argued that the tribunal had rightly refused the claim for eviction. Rejecting these claims, the high court said that directing the petitioners to initiate fresh civil proceedings for the eviction of their daughter-in-law was detrimental and defeated the purpose of the Senior Citizens Act. While considering the factual matrix of the present case, the court opined that the appellate tribunal had grossly erred in allowing the appeal and directing the parties to approach the civil court to seek eviction. In a noteworthy interpretation of the statute, which specifically refers to the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the court said that it was a beneficial legislation aimed at protecting and upholding the welfare of senior citizens. 'It is thus evident that the appellate tribunal has adopted an unduly hyper-technical approach, thereby defeating the very object and purpose of the special statute, which is in the nature of beneficial legislation enacted to safeguard the rights and interests of senior citizens. Although vested with statutory powers under the said enactment, the appellate tribunal has displayed an indifferent attitude towards the issues raised by the senior citizens," the court added. Accordingly, the high court set aside and quashed the order passed by the appellate tribunal. It went on to uphold the order passed by the senior citizens tribunal, which had granted the elderly couple relief. Thus, the son and daughter-in-law were directed to vacate the property within 30 days. The court also imposed costs on them for failing to comply with a previous order by which it had directed them to pay Rs 20,000 per month for continued occupation. First Published: June 23, 2025, 15:44 IST News india Son, Daughter-In-Law Can't Force Elderly Parents To Share Home Against Their Will: Bombay HC
The Hindu
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court dismisses Dhule Lok Sabha constituency BJP candidate's plea
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has dismissed an election petition filed by former member of Parliament Subhash Ramrao Bhamre of the Bharatiya Janata Party, who challenged the election of Shobha Dinesh Bacchav from the Dhule Lok Sabha Constituency last year. The order was made available on Monday. Mr. Bhamre had secured the second highest votes. The elected candidate secured 5,83,866 votes while the petitioner secured 5,80,035 votes. He lost by a narrow margin of 3,831 votes. In the petition, Mr. Bhamre claimed that after conducting inquiries, he came to know from the residents of Malegaon and party workers associated with him that votes were polled in the name of persons who were already dead and that these votes are polled in favour of Ms. Bacchav. He claimed that multiple votes under identical names were cast across different booths, also, burkha-clad women were allowed to vote despite their names not being on the electoral rolls, and all these votes were in favour of Ms. Bacchav. Ms. Bacchav sought dismissal of the plea, arguing that the petitioner's allegations were vague and unsupported. 'The original election petition does not disclose the source of information from where the election agent of petitioner received information that votes from about six electric voting machines have not been counted.' She contended that the petition is 'not based on verifiable facts but mere assumptions' and 'there is no legally admissible evidence or definite pleading to back the charges.' A Single Bench judge, Justice Arun R. Pednekar dismissed the petition and noted, 'There is no prima facie material to indicate that votes are cast in the name of dead persons. The data was asked from the petitioner and the Election Commission i.e. register maintained under Form 17-A and 17-C of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 with CCTV footage so as to verify, whether votes are cast in the name of dead persons and multiple votes are cast in the name of same persons at different booths.' There is no affidavit by polling agents that they have noticed votes being cast in the name of dead persons or that the polling agent had raised objection to the casting of the votes in the name of dead persons, the order said. In the absence of material that can prove that voting took place in the name of dead persons, the judge said, 'Thus there is an element of speculation and inquiry by this court at the instance of the election petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record the names of dead persons, whose names continues to be on the electoral roll, so also, has placed names of voters at multiple places. However, there is no evidence that voting has taken place in the name of dead persons or that voting has taken place at multiple places by the same voter.' By merely having names of dead persons on the electoral roll, this court will not presume that votes are cast in their names, the court said. 'The polling agents in the booth are aware of the votes cast by persons and an affidavit of polling agents present in the polling station stating that votes are cast against the dead persons would at least indicate that voting has taken place against the name of dead persons.' In the election petition, the pleadings have to be precise, specific and unambiguous. If the allegations contained in election petition do not set out grounds as contemplated in Section 100 and do not conform to the requirement of Section 81 and 83 of the Act, the election petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, the court observed. Dismissing the petition, the court said, 'Omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action or omission to contain a concise statement of material facts on which the election petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, would entail rejection of election petition under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 83 and 87 of the Representation of the People Act.'
The Hindu
06-05-2025
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court takes suo motu notice of ‘copy-pasted' witness statements by the police
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court took suo motu cognisance of the practice of copy-pasting witness statements by the Maharashtra Police and directed the State government to issue necessary guidelines to put an end to it. 'We have noticed that even in serious offences, the investigating officer recording the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has literally copy-pasted the statements,' the Division Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A. Deshmukh said, passing the order. Even the paragraphs began with the same words and ended with the same words, the court noted. 'The culture of copy-pasted statements is dangerous and may, in certain cases, unnecessarily provide advantage to the accused persons. In such circumstances, the seriousness of a genuine case may vanish,' the court said. The Bench observed that two witnesses could not provide completely identical statements, with the only difference appearing to be in the relationship of the witness to a deceased person or an informant. 'We have noticed this in many cases, including cases under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. We may also wonder whether these witnesses were really called by the police for making a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or not, but their statements appear in the chargesheet,' the order said. The court had made similar observations in another matter, the Bench said, adding that copy-pasted statements in cases of serious offences, including under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, required it to take suo motu cognisance of the issue, and consider what challenges or shortcomings the investigating officers faced when they resorted to such a practice. The observations came in the case of a family from Maharashtra's Jalgaon district that sought the quashing of criminal proceedings against its members for alleged abetment in the suicide of a 17-year-old girl. The case was initially treated as accidental death and reported under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the First Information Report was lodged, the concerned police officer did not take note of the age of the deceased, and thus appeared to have registered the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Later, it appeared that the birth certificate of the deceased had been fetched, and the offence under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code had been added to the case. 'When this copy-paste method is adopted even in such serious matters, it is not a good indication for the criminal justice system and, therefore, we are taking cognisance of it. We want the State to come out with specific guidelines for the investigating officers, also in respect of how to record the statements,' the court said. The Bench appointed advocate Mukul Kulkarni as amicus curiae. 'He may collect data and suggest measures to be taken by the State government to avoid such situations of copy-pasting, and overall improve the quality of the investigation. He may prepare a complete petition and file it on or before 20th June, 2025,' the court said. The court placed the matter for further hearing on June 27.
The Hindu
29-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Parbhani violence: HC restrains police from finalising inquiry into custodial death of 35-year-old man
In the custodial death of Somnath Vyankat Suryavanshi in Parbhani district of Maharashtra, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (April 29, 2025) issued significant directions and restrained the police from finalising any kind of investigation in the matter till the next date of hearing. Expressing grave concern, a Division Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A. Deshmukh said that the ongoing police inquiry appears to be conducted with a preconceived notion, thus it is jeopardising the fairness and impartiality of the case. The court said it is important to preserve the integrity of the investigation. Public prosecutor A.B. Girase representing the Maharashtra government informed the Bench that it would file an affidavit in reply. The petitioner, Vijayabai Vyankat Suryawanshi, mother of Somnath Vyankat Suryavanshi was represented by advocate Prakash Ambedkar, assisted by advocates Sandesh More and Hitendra Gandhi, urged the court for an immediate registration of an F.I.R. against the responsible police officers in the custodial death as well as formation of a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct an independent and impartial investigation. 'When the police themselves are the accused, how can they conduct an enquiry in the case? The first step should be registration of F.I.R. against all the accused police officers in the case. Once the F.I.R. is registered, an impartial investigation should be conducted by the court-monitored SIT. We have referred to the directions issued in the Badlapur custodial death case and asked the Bench to form a guideline for matters concerning custodial deaths,' advocate Gandhi said. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on May 8, 2025. In the Badlapur custodial death case, Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale had ordered an SIT to probe the five policemen who are allegedly involved in the fake encounter of Badlapur sexual assault case accused Akshay Shinde. The court had also formed a magistrate inquiry that found the five police officers responsible for the death of Shinde. The SIT was formed under the supervision of Lakhmi Gautam, the current Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime, Mumbai and the court had given the SIT the liberty of selecting officers of his choice from any department and the team shall be headed by a Deputy Commissioner of Police. In the instant case, Somnath Suryavanshi, 35, who had come from Pune for his law entrance examination, was allegedly picked up by the police on December 11, 2024, from where he was staying. A few days later, he died in judicial custody. According to police, he died due to shock following multiple injuries. He was rushed to a government hospital after he complained of chest pain during his time in Parbhani district central prison. He was detained after violence was triggered in Parbhani on December 11 following the desecration of a Constitution replica on December 10. He was one among 50 persons that Parbhani police arrested between December 11 and December 12. On March 20, 2025, a magisterial inquiry concluded that police were responsible for his death. The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission issued notices to the Chief Secretary, additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, additional Director General of Police CID (crimes), and the deputy superintendent of police Parbhani, seeking their reports in the matter.
