Monthly Archives: March 2012

Even Second wife is entitled to *interim* maintenance

Even Second wife is entitled to interim maintenance

Not only that, the interim maintenance is enhanced too !!! Even though she was the one who backed out of the reconciliation proceedings

Long live Abla Naris and Benevolence  !!

She even gets additional right of residence on the second floor of his building !!!

=================================================================

Supreme Court of India
Narinder Pal Kaur Chawla vs Manjeet Singh Chawla on 21 April, 2004
Bench: S V Patil, D M Dharmadhikari.

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 2606 of 2004

PETITIONER:

Narinder Pal kaur Chawla

RESPONDENT:

Manjeet Singh Chawla

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/04/2004

BENCH:

Shivaraj V. Patil & D. M. Dharmadhikari.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. We have also perused the counter affidavits and rejoinders along with the written submissions filed by the parties.

The present appeal arises out of an interim order dated 11.1.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in the course of proceedings instituted by the present appellant claiming to be the second wife of the respondent for grant of maintenance to her under section 18 read with section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act [for short the Act]. The learned Single Judge on the original side of the High Court in the pending proceeding under the Act has by order dated 11.1.2002 granted an interim maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month to the wife.

The wife appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court. By order dated 25.7.2003 which is the subject matter of this appeal, the interim maintenance has been increased to Rs.700/- per month. Not satisfied with the increase in the amount of interim maintenance granted by the Division Bench, the wife has approached this Court seeking further enhancement of rate of interim maintenance.

By this appeal, interim maintenance @ Rs. 12,000/- per month has been claimed on the ground that the respondent/husband has taken voluntary retirement from the Bank’s services and has received substantial amount of retiral benefits. It is stated that he is possessed of valuable properties and assets which are sufficient to pay higher amount of maintenance to the wife to enable her to maintain a reasonable standard of living to which the parties are accustomed.

The husband is contesting the maintenance proceeding both on the ground of competence of the present wife to claim maintenance and the quantum.

Normally, this Court would not have entertained this appeal as it is directed against an order fixing only interim maintenance pending adjudication of claim of maintenance by the wife under the Act. On the prima facie evidence with regard to the social and financial status of the parties, this Court finds that interim maintenance of Rs. 700/- per month fixed by the Division Bench of the High Court is extremely low. Therefore, after notice issuing on the Special Leave Petition, this appeal is entertained.

Before the High Court, it appears that at one stage, reconciliation efforts were made in which the husband had agreed to provide second floor of the accommodation owned by him for separate residence of the wife with Rs. 1,500/- per month as permanent alimony to her during her life. Efforts of reconciliation, however, failed as at a later stage, the wife backed out. The copies of orders passed by the Division Bench of High Court on 13.2.2003 and 17.2.2003, in the course of reconciliation proceedings, have been produced by the parties in this appeal.

As the legal right of the second wife to claim maintenance under the Act and its quantum are hotly contested issues in the main case, we refrain from expressing any opinion on merit of the claims and contentions of the parties. For the purpose of fixing appropriate amount of interim maintenance, we may assume that the financial position of husband is such that he can easily pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month as interim maintenance without disturbing the right of separate residence provided to the wife at the second floor of the husband’s premises.

The appeal, therefore, is partly allowed by increasing the amount of interim maintenance to Rs. 1,500/- per month which shall be payable at the above rate from the month of May, 2004 until decision of the main case pending under the Act on the original side of the High Court. It is made clear that the High Court shall decide the main case on merits uninfluenced by orders passed for fixing interim maintenance.

In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

 

Source : indiankanoon.org

 

பெண்கள் நாட்டின் கண்கள் – தொடர் !!

பெண்கள் நாட்டின் கண்கள் – தொடர் !!

====================================================

படித்து இருக்கும் ஆண்கள், நல்ல வேலையிலோ வியாபாரத்திலோ இருக்கும் ஆண்கள், அதாவது ஊருக்கு உபயோகமாய் இருக்கும் ஆண்கள் இடைக்கால ஜீவனாம்சத்தில் (interim maintenance) சிக்கித் தவிக்கின்றனர்
====================================================
யார் தவறு செய்தவர், எதனால் விவாகரத்து என்று சற்றும் சிந்தியாமல் இடைக்கால ஜீவனாம்சம் (interim maintenance) வழங்கப் படுகிறது
====================================================
அதோடு நில்லாமல், மேல் முறையீடுகளும், ஜீவனாம்சத் தொகை அதிகரிப்பும் அனுமதிக்கப் படுகிறது  !!!!

====================================================

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/further-proof-that-educated-productive-men-get-scrwed-in-maintenance-proceedings/

Further proof that educated productive men get scr&wed in maintenance proceedings.

Further proof that educated productive men get scr&wed in maintenance proceedings. Interim maintenance is allowed without seeing who is the cruel and deserting party !!

Appeal for enhancement of interim maintenance is also allowed !!!

==================================================================

“……In a case such as the present one, the stand of the husband that he is drawing salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month from the company since August 2005 is inherently improbable. The husband is highly qualified; he is CA, ICWA, CIMA and has also completed course of Computer Information Technology. He has worked with renowned and big companies like M/s. Kimberly Clark and M/s. Tata Technology as Finance Manager and Senior SAP Consultant respectively before he started on his own in January, 2000. He did not leave the job due to any compulsion but because he wanted to grow big. He has admitted that having worked for six years, he decided to do his own business and started the company, namely, M/s. Paysquare Consultancy Limited in which he has sought financial/administrative help of his brother and one Ms. Nilima Apte. How can it be believed that a person who has started his own business leaving the job in 2000 would start drawing the salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month from the company from August, 2005? The High Court has not taken into consideration these vital aspects and accepted the statement of the husband that he was drawing salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month as a gospel truth. …..”

==================================================================

Supreme Court of India

Neeta Rakesh Jain vs Rakesh Jeetmal Jain on 20 July, 2010

Author: R.M.Lodha
Bench: Aftab Alam, R.M. Lodha

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5660 OF 2010

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6736 of 2007)

Neeta Rakesh Jain …. Appellant Vs.

Rakesh Jeetmal Jain ….Respondent JUDGMENT

R.M.LODHA,J.

Leave granted.

2. The order dated September 21, 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Appellate Side), which fixes the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12000/- per month pending appeal, is under challenge at the instance of the wife – appellant in this appeal by special leave.

3. The parties were married on May 8, 1995. The respondent-husband petitioned for divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, `the Act’) on the ground of cruelty and desertion against the wife. The Principal Judge, Family Court No. 5, Pune, passed an ex-parte decree on April 7, 2005 dissolving the marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty. The wife has preferred an appeal before the Bombay High Court challenging the ex-parte decree. The appeal has been admitted. On July 18, 2005 an ad-interim order was granted staying the operation of the ex-parte decree. The husband was also restrained from re-marrying until further orders. The ad-interim stay order is operative although the husband has informed the High Court that on July 22, 2005 he had re-married. The factum of re-marriage has been disputed by the wife before the High Court.

4. The wife made an application (Civil Application No. 107 of 2006) for direction to the husband to pay to her interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month. In that application it was stated that husband’s income is Rs. 2,00,000/- per month approximately. It was stated that the husband is a highly qualified person; he is Chartered Accountant (CA) and has also passed Cost and Works Accounts of India (ICWA). He passed Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA), U.K., examination in May, 1999 and also completed course of Computer Information Technology. According to wife, at the time of marriage the husband was working with M/s. Kalpataru Constructions at Mumbai drawing a salary of Rs. 40,000/- per month; in 1996 he changed his job and was appointed as Finance Manager with M/s. Kimberly Clark, Pune (a multi-national company) at double the salary and in May, 1998 he joined a highly reputed software company, namely, M/s. Tata Technology on substantially increased salary. In 1999, the husband was sent to Sri Lanka by the company as a Senior SAP Consultant where he was entitled to a chauffeur driven Toyota Van and a large bungalow to live. He returned to Pune in August 1999. At that time his monthly income was about Rs. 1,50,000/-. The wife averred that somewhere in the month of January, 2000 the husband started his own company in the name and style of M/s. Paysquare Consultancy Limited at Pune and engaged several computer and IT engineers, chartered accountants and MBAs as employees. As regards her own income, the wife stated that she did not have any independent source of income and was pursuing her studies of Ph.D. at the mercy of her elder sister who has been supporting her since 2001.

5. The husband responded to the application by filing his affidavit. Substantial part of the reply affidavit deals with the proceedings before the Family Court. As regards his income, he stated that he joined the service with M/s. Kalpataru Constructions as an entry level job with a total income of Rs. 7,000/- per month. According to him, his salary in M/s. Kimberly Clark was Rs. 15,000/- per month while his salary in M/s. Tata Technology was Rs. 20,000/- per month. He stated that having worked for six years, he decided to start on his own and put all his savings in the company – M/s. Paysquare Consultancy Limited. He also stated that he was not the sole owner or proprietor of the company and that from August 2005 he has started drawing the salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month from the company.

6. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment observed that since an application for interim maintenance was being considered, it was not inclined to deal with the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties on the earning capacity of the husband in extenso and accepting the husband’s statement that he was getting Rs. 30,000/- per month, fixed an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the wife.

7. Section 24 of the Act makes a provision for maintenance pendent lite and expenses of proceedings.

It reads thus

|| “….S.24.- Maintenance pendent lite and expenses of
|| proceedings.- Where in any proceeding under this Act
|| it appears to the court that either the wife or the
|| husband, as the case may be, has no independent income
|| sufficient for her or his support and the necessary
|| expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application
|| of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to
|| pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding,
|| and monthly, during the proceeding such sum as, having
|| regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income
|| of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be
|| reasonable.
||
|| Provided that the application for the payment of the
|| expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during
|| the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed
|| of within sixty days from the date of service of
|| notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may
|| be……”

8. Section 24 thus provides that in any proceeding under the Act, the spouse who has no independent income sufficient for her or his support may apply to the court to direct the respondent to pay the monthly maintenance as the court may think reasonable, regard being had to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent. The very language in which Section is couched indicates that wide discretion has been conferred on the court in the matter of an order for interim maintenance. Although the discretion conferred on the court is wide, the Section provides guideline inasmuch as while fixing the interim maintenance the court has to give due regard to the income of the respondent and the petitioner’s own income. In other words, in the matter of making an order for interim maintenance, the discretion of the court must be guided by the criterion provided in the Section, namely, the means of the parties and also after taking into account incidental and other relevant factors like social status; the background from which both the parties come from and the economical dependence of the petitioner. Since an order for interim maintenance by its very nature is temporary, a detailed and elaborate exercise by the court may not be necessary, but, at the same time, the court has got to take all the relevant factors into account and arrive at a proper amount having regard to the factors which are mentioned in the statute.

9. In a case such as the present one, the stand of the husband that he is drawing salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month from the company since August 2005 is inherently improbable. The husband is highly qualified; he is CA, ICWA, CIMA and has also completed course of Computer Information Technology. He has worked with renowned and big companies like M/s. Kimberly Clark and M/s. Tata Technology as Finance Manager and Senior SAP Consultant respectively before he started on his own in January, 2000. He did not leave the job due to any compulsion but because he wanted to grow big. He has admitted that having worked for six years, he decided to do his own business and started the company, namely, M/s. Paysquare Consultancy Limited in which he has sought financial/administrative help of his brother and one Ms. Nilima Apte. How can it be believed that a person who has started his own business leaving the job in 2000 would start drawing the salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month from the company from August, 2005? The High Court has not taken into consideration these vital aspects and accepted the statement of the husband that he was drawing salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month as a gospel truth. Insofar as wife is concerned, it appears that she does not have any settled job; she has worked at few places for few months. We think this is eminently a case in which the High Court must reconsider the wife’s application for interim  maintenance.

10. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed, the impugned order dated September 21, 2006 is set aside and Civil Application No. 107 of 2006 made by the wife for interim maintenance is restored to the file of the High Court for fresh consideration. We expect the High Court to dispose of the application for interim maintenance expeditiously and before it proceeds with the hearing of the main appeal, being Family Court Appeal No. 10 of 2006. The cost of the appeal is quantified at Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) which the respondent shall pay to the appellant within one month from today.

………………………J.

[AFTAB ALAM]

……………………….J.

[R.M. LODHA]

New Delhi,
July 20, 2010.

 

கணவனைக் கொன்று குளியறையில் புதைத்த கற்புக்கரசி !!!

கணவனைக் கொன்று குளியறையில் புதைத்த கற்புக்கரசி !!!

=================================================
தனியாளாக ஒரு பெண் குழி தோண்டி பிணத்தை குளியறையில் புதைக்க முடியுமா ? வேறு நபரும் உடந்தையா ? போலீஸ் சந்தேகம்

=================================================

 

Woman kills husband, buries him in bathroom

  • March 28, 2012
In a gruesome incident, a young housewife killed her husband and then buried his body in her bathroom in Ganganagar in Meerut district.

An unrepentant Varsha Patel, 28, told reporters on Wednesday after she was arrested that she had no regrets about killing her husband Rajendra Patel, 40.

“He would come home drunk and then would beat me up and the children. This continued for years and when I sought help from relatives, no one was ready to help us. Finally, I knocked him on the head while he was asleep and then kept hitting him on the head till he died. Since I could not carry his body outside, I dug a pit in the bathroom and buried him there,” she told reporters.

A neighbor, who suspected something was amiss in the household, informed the police who first interrogated Varsha, who soon confessed to the crime. The body was dug out and sent for post mortem.

Varsha was produced before a magistrate and sent to jail on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, police officials suspect that another person could also be involved in the murder.

“It is not possible that the wife could have dug up a tiled floor in the bathroom and buried her husband on her own. We are looking for another suspect in the case,” said a senior police official in Meerut.

 

Source

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/nation/north/woman-kills-husband-buries-him-bathroom-523

Cabinet clears bill granting wife right in husband’s property

Cabinet clears bill granting wife right in husband’s property

PTI | Mar 23, 2012, 07.55PM IST

Cabinet clears bill granting wife right in husband's property

The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010, was introduced in the Rajya Sabha in August two years ago and then referred to the parliamentary standing committee on law and justice and personnel.
 
NEW DELHI: A bill seeking to give a woman a share in her husband’s property was approved by the Union Cabinet today. Apart from giving women the right to their husbands’ property, the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010, also aims at giving rights to adopted children on par with biological offspring. The Cabinet meeting was chaired by Prime Ministe Manmohan Singh.

The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010, was introduced in the Rajya Sabha in August two years ago and then referred to the parliamentary standing committee on law and justice and personnel.

Supporting the bill which sought to make “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” a new ground for grant of divorce, the standing committee had in March last year opposed doing away with the prevailing waiting period before moving a joint motion for annulling marriage.

Partially accepting the recommendation, the government has now decided the cooling off period will be decided by courts.

According to the redrafted bill passed by the Cabinet, adopted children will have rights on par with biological off springs of a couple in case the parents go for a divorce.

The government has also accepted the recommendation of the parliamentary committee that women should have a share in the property of her husband in case of a divorce but the quantum of share will be decided by the courts on case-by-case basis.

According to the Cabinet Note, while a wife can oppose a husband’s plea for a divorce under the new “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” clause, the husband will have no such rights to oppose if the wife moves the court on the same grounds.

source

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Cabinet-clears-bill-granting-wife-right-in-husbands-property/articleshow/12382930.cms