Daily Archives: July 27, 2013

Husband asks coffee. Wife refuses. So Husband makes coffee, sets off small fire by mistake. Husband dismissed !! has to run to HC…..and IF any of you think I’m joking, please read the case below

Moral of the story
********************************
* DON’T ask for coffee
* that MAY be considered DOMESTIC violence and / or flatly refused by wife
* EVEN if wife just says go fix it yourself, do NOT !!
* because IF you set off an accidental fire while making coffee you MAY loose job and then you have to fight till High court to get back your job
* and IF any of you think I’m joking, please read the case below

*******************************************************************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF – Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS DOT NIC DOT IN SITE
******************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13.10.2009

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

W.P.No.5811 of 2007

G.Kalidass … Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police
O/o. The Deputy Inspector General of Police
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Superintendent of Police
District Police Office
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District. … Respondents

PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.3444 of 2002 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records of the proceedings of the second respondent in P.R.No.64/2001 Rule 3(b) of TNPSS dated 23.02.2002 and order passed in appeal by the first respondent in his proceedings in C.No.B1/Appeal.12/2002 dated 11.4.2002 and quash the same with the consequential direction, directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service will all attendant and monetary benefits.

For petitioner : Mr.V.Ravikkumar

For respondents : Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya
Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R

The Original Application in O.A.No.3444 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal") is the present writ petition.

2.The petitioner joined the services as Grade Police Constable on 23.12.1985. While so, a charge memo dated 15.09.2001 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, was issued against him, by the second respondent. The following were the two charges made against him.

"1) 1.9.2001 md;W jpUg;gj;J}h; ,e;jpad; t’;fp fhg;g[ mYtyuhf fhiy 10.00 Kjy; 12.00 kzp tiu ghuh mYty; Koj;J ,uz;L kzp neuk; Xa;tpy; jpUk;g 14.00 kzpf;F mYtYf;F tuntz;oath; tuhky; M$hpd;ikahf ,Ue;J 19.50 kzpf;F jdp mwpf;ifa[ld; fhyjhkjkhf gzpf;F mwpf;if bra;j flik jtwpa fz;oj;jf;f Fw;wk;."

2) 1.9.2001 md;W ,ut[ 18.00 kzpf;F v!;.tp/k’;fyk; fhtyh; muR FoapUg;gpy; jdJ kidtp Fhe;ijfis moj;J, nf!; mLg;gpy; kz;bzz;idia Cw;wp nfi! jpwe;Jtpl;L vhpj;J, mz;il tPl;lhh;fSf;F gaj;ij fpsg;gp fhty;Jiwf;F fs’;fk; tpstpj;j xG’;fPdkhd Fw;wk;."

3.The petitioner states that on 01.09.2009, he was on Guard Duty at the Indian Bank, Thirupattur. He had gone for his lunch at 12.00 noon. While so, he suffered acute stomach pain and therefore, he took rest for sometime. Subsequently, he asked his wife to prepare coffee for him. When his wife refused to prepare coffee, he got into the kitchen and proceeded to prepare coffee and tried to light gas stove, which accidentally ignited with uncontrolled flames. According to him, he did not set fire and it was not his intention to create fear among the neighbours. In any event, it is stated that the aforesaid incident that happened in the kitchen did not bring bad name to the Police Department.

4.An enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry, 10 witnesses were examined and 11 documents were marked on the side of the Department. The petitioner gave his defence statement. The Enquiry Officer recorded his findings dated 17.01.2002. In the said findings dated 17.01.2002, the Enquiry Officer found both the charges 1 and 2 were established. After hearing the petitioner on the findings, the second respondent passed the order dated 23.02.2002, removing the petitioner from service.

5.The petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent and the same was dismissed by the first respondent, by an order dated 11.04.2002.

6.The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.3444 of 2002 (W.P.No.5811 of 2007) to quash the order dated 23.02.2002 of the second respondent and the order dated 11.04.2002 of the first respondent and for a consequential direction to reinstate him in service with back wages and all other benefits.

7.Heard Mr.V.Ravikkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

8.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are totally perverse. According to him, there is no legal evidence let in before the enquiry that the petitioner poured kerosene on the stove and that he created fear among the neighbours and that he brought disrepute to the Police Department.

9.The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the evidence. The second witness examined in the enquiry was the wife of the petitioner. She did not support the case of the Department. She stated that there was a quarrel over the preparation of "RASAM". She further stated that after sometime, he wanted coffee. She replied that he took meals only just now, for which, the petitioner got angry and he got into the kitchen to prepare coffee. She further stated that for preparing coffee, he lighted the gas stove and that there was a fire in the kitchen. Thereafter, she shouted and the others came and the fire was put off. The evidence of the second witness was in favour of the defence. But she was not treated as hostile and no cross examination was done by the Department.

10.The third witness was the Sub-Inspector of Police of S.V.Mangalam Police Station. He deposed in the enquiry that while he was on duty on 01.09.2001 at 07.00 p.m., the writer Mr.Ramalingam of the Police Station came and told him that there was some fire in the house of the petitioner. He informed the fire service and also contacted the wireman of the Electricity Department. He proceeded to the house of the petitioner and he found that there was a fire. There is nothing in his evidence that he deliberately set fire in the kitchen and there is nothing in his evidence that the neighbours were frightened due to the action of the petitioner.

11.The fourth witness was Mr.Ramalingam, Writer of S.V.Mangalam Police Station. He deposed that Tmt.Meenal W/o. Grade Police Constable Mr.Vijayaraghunathan, came to the Police Station at 07.00 p.m. on 01.09.2001 and informed him that there was a fire in the house of the petitioner and that there was some quarrel between the petitioner and his wife. Thereafter, he went to the scene of occurrence along with the Sub-Inspector of Police and that the Fire Service personnel extinguished the fire, when they reached the spot.

12.The fifth witness was Tmt.Meenal, W/o. Grade Police Constable Mr.Vijayaraghunathan. The sixth witness was Tmt.Rajeswari, W/o. Head Constable Mr.Ramalingam. The seventh witness was Tmt.Meenambal, W/o. Grade Police Constable Mr.Ravindran. The eighth witness was Tmt.Deivanai, W/o. Head Constable Mr.Masilamani. The nineth witness was Tmt.Fathima Kani W/o. Head Constable Mr.Mohammed Sultan. The witnesses 5 to 9 were all the residents of the police quarters. On seeing the fire and also hearing the shouts from the wife of the petitioner, these people went to the residence of the petitioner and found that there was some fire in the kitchen. Their depositions nowhere states that the petitioner deliberately set fire in the kitchen and that the petitioner had an intention to threaten the neighbours by causing fire. The tenth witness was Mr.Srinivasan, wireman of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. He was not an eye-witness to the incident.

13.Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is no evidence against him, particularly, regarding charge No.2. It is also argued that the findings of the Enquiry Officer, does not give any reason for his conclusion except his ipse dixit. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Enquiry Officer nowhere discusses on what basis he comes to the conclusion that the charge No.2 was proved. In fact, the findings regarding charge No.2 are as follows:

VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED

14.The learned counsel for the petitioner describes the aforesaid findings are his ipse dixit. Apart from the aforesaid passage in the findings, there is nothing in the findings of the Enquiry Officer, regarding charge No.2.

15.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to my notice the following passage from the impugned order of the second respondent, removing him from service.

VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED

16.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid conclusions of the second respondent have no basis. The second respondent proceeds as if the wife of the petitioner deposed against the petitioner. The second respondent states that other witnesses spoke on the lines of the second witness. As stated above, the second witness, did not speak against the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the second respondent simply stated that the residents of the police quarters were made to frighten by the act of the petitioner and that the petitioner brought disrepute to the Police Department, without any basis.

17.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the first respondent, the Appellate Authority, also committed error in holding that the petitioner nourishes a homicidal tendency. It is also pointed out that the first respondent was on erroneous view that the petitioner thought of burning his entire family, while it was nobody’s case. He brings to my notice the following passage from the order dated 11.04.2002 of the first respondent.

"….. The second charge shows that even in his family the appellant nourishes a homicidal tendency and for such a person to be allowed to continue in force is grave risk. When he can think of burning his family then his colleagues will not be of any importance to him and in a rage he can utilize the service weapon against them."

18.I have considered the submissions made on either side. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are well founded. There is absolutely no evidence that the neighbours of the petitioner were frightened. None of the neighbours deposed in the enquiry that the petitioner acted in such a way to frighten them by setting fire. All the witnesses deposed that there was a fire in the kitchen. Apart from that, there is nothing in the evidence to show that the petitioner had an intention to frighten them and in order to frighten them, he set fire in the kitchen. In fact, all the witnesses stated that he went inside the kitchen for preparation of coffee as deposed by the wife of the petitioner. It is also stated by the second respondent that all the witnesses deposed on the lines of the wife of the petitioner. As noted above, the wife of the petitioner deposed in favour of the defence. In such an event, the second respondent is not correct in coming to the conclusion that the charge No.2 was established. The learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submissions that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse as the findings are not based on evidence. Though the findings run through several pages, the actual findings on charge No.2 was as extracted above and the rest of the report of the Enquiry Officer is simply extracting the depositions of the witnesses.

19.In these circumstances, the findings of the Enquiry Officer is correctly characterised by the petitioner as perverse and the ipse dixit of the Enquiry Officer. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out the following passage of the Honourable Apex Court in A.L.KALRA VS. PROJECT AND EQUIPMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, reported in 1984 (3) SCC 316.
"28.Mr.Ramamurthi on behalf of the appellant further contended that the order of removal from service is void as it is passed in violation of principles of natural justice and at any rate an order imposing penalty by a quasi-judicial tribunal must be supported by reasons in support of its conclusions. It was urged that duty to give reasons would permit the court hearing a petition for a writ of certiorari to ex facie ascertain whether there is any error apparent on the record. It was conceded that for the present submission adequacy or sufficiency of reasons is not questioned. What is conceded is that the inquiry office has merely recorded his ipse dixit and no reasons are assigned in support of the findings. The mental process is conspicuously silent. A speaking order will at its best be reasonable and at its worst be at least a plausible one (M.P. Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India. What prevents the authority authorised to impose penalty from giving reasons? If reasons for an order are given, there will be less scope for arbitrary or partial exercise of power and the orders ex facie will indicate whether extraneous circumstances were taken into consideration by authority passing the order. This view in A.Vedachala Mudaliar V. State of Madras was approved by this Court in Bhagat Raja V. Union of India. As pointed out earlier, the findings of the inquiry officer are merely his ipse dixit. No reasons are assigned for reaching the finding and while recapitulating evidence self-contradictory positions were adopted that either there was no misconduct or there was some misconduct or double punishment was already imposed. Rule 27(19) casts an obligation upon the inquiry officer at the conclusion of the inquiry to prepare a report which must inter alia include the findings on each article of charge and the reasons therefor. The report is prepared in contravention of the aforementioned rule".

20.The aforesaid dictum of the Honourable Apex Court squarely applies to the facts of the case. Further, the first respondent also erroneously proceeded as if the petitioner attempted to set fire to his entire family. In fact, that was not the charge at all. The charge was that he went into the kitchen and locked himself inside and set fire, while the wife and children were left outside the kitchen. Hence, the first respondent totally proceeded on wrong assumption that he thought of setting fire on his family members. Hence, the charge No.2 was not proved in the enquiry.

21.Regarding charge No.1, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only witness, who spoke on the charge No.1 was the first witness. It is submitted that the first witness stated that the petitioner was absent from 01.50 p.m. to 17.50 p.m. and the petitioner told him that he was not well and that therefore, he was not able to report at 01.50 p.m. In any event, I am of the considered view that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for about six hours. But the first respondent is not correct in describing that the petitioner was in the habit of deserting the post. The absent from duty for six hours could not be called as desertion of post, that too habitual desertion. Desertion can be inferred only when the employee has no intention to return back to the work. In fact, the charge itself is not desertion. The charge was that he was not present between 02.00 p.m. to 07.50 p.m on 01.09.2001. The petitioner has to be blamed for his absence for six hours period, for which he has suffered a lot. I am of the view that deprival of wages for the period of his non-employment is sufficient punishment for the charge No.1.
22.In these circumstances, the order of removal imposed by the second respondent, that was confirmed by the first respondent, is modified as reinstatement without any backwages, but with continuity of service for all purposes. The writ petition is allowed to the extent stated above and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without any back wages and however, he is entitled to notional fixation of pay for the period of non-employment.

23.With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

TK

To

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police
O/o. The Deputy Inspector General of Police
Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Superintendent of Police
District Police Office
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District

IF you are A MALE, you cannot voluntarily sit at home &demand money. Madras HC. Ok, what abt females?! “…If a person is an able bodied person and is well qualified and has already been in the job is not expected to remain as an idle spectator nor squeeze out the other spouse by relieving her purse for a cut in the nature of pendente lite maintenance claim. ….” Oh Goody Goody …what would the decision be when the shoes is on the other foot ??

IF you are A MALE, you cannot voluntarily sit at home &demand money. Madras HC. Ok, what abt females?! "…If a person is an able bodied person and is well qualified and has already been in the job is not expected to remain as an idle spectator nor squeeze out the other spouse by relieving her purse for a cut in the nature of pendente lite maintenance claim. …." Oh Goody Goody …what would the decision be when the shoes is on the other foot ??

***************************************************************************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF – Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS DOT NIC DOT IN SITE
******************************************************************

* Husband is un employed
* Wife earns well
* Wife files divorce
* Husband seeks maintenance
* All courts upto HC reject maintenancec claim
* Honourable HC says "….If a person is an able bodied person and is well qualified and has already been in the job is not expected to remain as an idle spectator nor squeeze out the other spouse by relieving her purse for a cut in the nature of pendente lite maintenance claim. In fact, Section 24 is not meant for entertaining such person, who will have to be paid a dole granted by his wife, against whom, she has got a grievance and also come to Court in H.M.O.P. proceedings. To put it differently, law will not come to the aid of any idle person or any indolent person….."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Date:- 22.03.2013

Coram

The Honourable Mr. Justice M. VENUGOPAL

C.R.P. PD. No.1909 of 2010
and
M.P. No.1 of 2010

Ramesh … Petitioner

..Vs..

Ambigeswari … Respondent

Civil Revision Petition filed against the order dated 30.3.2010 passed in I.A. No.10 of 2010 in H.M.O.P. No.13 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Rasipuram.

For Petitioner : Mr. N. Manokaran

For Respondent : [Court Notice served on 18.7.2010

 Private Notice served on 8.7.2010]
Yet No appearance

`
O R D E R

The Petitioner/Respondent(Husband) has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 30.3.2010 in I.A. No.10 of 2010 in H.M.O.P. No.13 of 2009 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Rasipuram.

2. The Learned Subordinate Judge, Rasipuram, while passing the order in I.A. No.10 of 2010 in H.M.O.P. No.13 of 2009 on 30.3.2010, has among other things, observed that on the side of the Petitioner (Husband), no evidence has been produced to show that he has got some deformity in his body and the only stand taken on his side is that the Respondent (Wife) is going for work and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month and therefore, without going for employment, the Petitioner(Husband), by sleeping in bed in his house, thinking of earning money from the Respondent(Wife) and to live in a comfortable manner as he likes, for which Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act will not come to his aid etc. and resultantly, dismissed the application with costs.

3. It is to be pointed out that the Revision Petitioner (husband), in I.A. No.10 of 2010, has claimed ad interim alimony of Rs.5,000/- per month and also litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- from the Respondent/Wife. The Respondent/Wife has filed a detailed counter to I.A. No.10 of 2010 on the file of the trial Court, inter-alia stating that after marriage and after they have been to Bangalore, the Petitioner/Husband has informed that he has no liking for his job and wanted to do business and therefore, he has not gone for job and has remained in the house and also for doing business, he demanded from her that she should bring a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents and by so saying, he indulged in drinking and also beat and harassed her etc.

4. In the affidavit in I.A. No.10 of 2010 in H.M.O.P. No.13 of 2009, the Revision Petitioner/Husband (as Petitioner) has stated that at the time of his marriage, he has been employed at Bharathi Airtel at Bangalore on a monthly salary of Rs.17,000/- and that his wife has been employed in Tata Sky Software Company on a low salary. This Court pertinently points out that the Respondent/Wife in H.M.O.P. No.13 of 2009 on the file of the trial Court as Petitioner in paragraph 4 has clearly averred that the Revision Petitioner/Husband has stated that he is working as Technical Engineer in Airtel Company at Bangalore on a monthly salary of Rs.17,000/-.

5. The Respondent/Wife has averred that the Petitioner/Husband has snatched her thirty sovereigns of jewels and also cash of Rs.30,000/- paid by her parents at the time of marriage. Even she has been driven to a stage of asking the Petitioner/Husband to spend for her essential expenses and also that the Petitioner/Husband has taken all her monthly salary in entirety. In view of the fact that she has filed a divorce petition in H.M.O.P. no.13 of 2009 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rasipuram seeking the relief of dissolution of marriage that had taken place on 21.11.2007 between herself and the Revision Petitioner/Husband under Section 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and because of the pendency of the said petition, in order to escape from the same, the Revision Petitioner/Husband has filed I.A. No.10 of 2010 seeking interim maintenance and litigation expenses as stated supra.

6.. It is to be borne in mind that an application praying for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is to be disposed of/decided by means of affidavits filed by the parties concerned. As a matter of fact, Section 24 of the Act is enjoined of the provisions of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (permanent alimony and maintenance) or the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 or Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Also that, when the Respondent/Wife is in employment, the Petitioner/Husband cannot make himself only dependant on her income by filing an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, especially in the absence of any handicap or fetter to earn. The words "Expenses of Proceedings" occurring in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act will include within its ambit like Advocate’s fees, purchase of stamp papers/Court fees, clerical expenses, expenses incurred towards stationery, expenses for summoning witnesses etc.

7. At this juncture, this Court worth recalls the decision in GOVIND SINGH v. SMT. VIDYA reported in A.I.R. 1999 RAJASTHAN at page 304 wherein in paragraph 3 it is inter-alia observed and laid down as follows:-

" 3. ……………… It is true that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 entitles either party to move an application for maintenance provided such party has no means of subsistence and the other party is in a position to provide maintenance. But it does not mean that the husband who is otherwise capable of earning his living should stop earning the living and start depending on earning of his wife. In the instant case it appears that the appellant Govind Singh has incapacitated himself by stopping the running the autorikshaw on hire. It is a well-established maxim of Anglo Saxon jurisprudence that no person can be allowed to incapacitate himself. That maxim is applicable to the case of earning husband. A person who voluntarily incapacitates himself from earning is not entitled to claim maintenance from the other spouse."

8. Also, this Court points out the decision in A.I.R. 2004 CALCUTTA at page 61 reported in ROUSSEAU MITRA v. V. SHRIMATI CHANDANA MITRA at special pages 62 and 63 wherein at paragraph 9, it is observed and held as follows:-

" 9. There is no fixed principle for determining the amount of maintenance pendente lite or expernses of the proceedings. The Court has to consider the status of the parties, their needs and the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to the reasonable expenses for the maintenance of the wife and the child, which he is obliged to meet under the law. The amount of maintenance pendente lite should be fixed for the wife and the child taking into consideration the cost of living index so that she does not feel handicapped. The husband was an employee of a private firm and he used to earn by undertaking private typing jobs. It is alleged by the husband that he has left his service voluntarily with effect from November 2001 and presently he is unemployed and has no income at all to pay the maintenance pendente lite or expenses of the proceedings. The husband is an able-bodied person capable of earning. The husband voluntarily incapacitated himself from earning, but he cannot avoid his liability to maintain his wife and the child."

9. More importantly, in the decision in A.I.R. 2001 MADHYA PRADESH at page 67 reported in YASHPAL SINGH THAKUR v. SMT. ANJANA RAJPUT at special page 68 wherein in paragraph 9, it is held thus:-

" 9. ………… In the case at hand it can be irrefutably concluded that the husband petitioner has, by his own conduct decided to lead a leisurely life, and has made no attempts to earn money which he is capable of earning. He can not afford to incapacitate himself and sustain an application under Section 24 of the Act. It will be an anathema to the very purpose of the said provision. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the conclusion reached at by the Trial Judge is absolutely defensible and the impugned order does not warrant any interference."

10. An able bodied individual is entitled to maintain his wife. It is the statutory obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and he cannot wriggle out of the situation in any manner whatsoever. The present case is not where the Petitioner/Husband is either in a situation of penury or he is suffering from any disability/ailment. Per contra, he is an able bodied person, aged 31 years at the time of filing I.A. No.10 of 2010. Also the Respondent/Wife has clearly stated in her counter to I.A. No.10 of 2010 that the Petitioner/Husband has stated that he is not liking his job and wants to do business, but remained in the house without going for any work etc.

11. It is true that the proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is of summary one. While dealing with the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the prime consideration before the Court of law is the inability of the spouse to maintain himself or herself for want of financial means or inadequacy of funds/means to maintain at the level of social status of the other spouse from whom interim maintenance is sought and not the mis-conduct of the spouse.

12. There is no dispute with regard to the payment of maintenance pending main H.M.O.P. proceedings and litigation expenses can be decided on the basis of the affidavit of the parties without recording evidence. As per Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court of law has to decide for ad interim maintenance whether the claimant has got all sufficient independent income or not. In the instant case on hand, the husband has informed the Respondent/Wife that he is not liking his job and wanted to do business and therefore, he has remained in the house without going for employment and also according to the Respondent/Wife, the Petitioner/Husband has harassed her and ill treated her in numerous ways.

13. If a person is an able bodied person and is well qualified and has already been in the job is not expected to remain as an idle spectator nor squeeze out the other spouse by relieving her purse for a cut in the nature of pendente lite maintenance claim. In fact, Section 24 is not meant for entertaining such person, who will have to be paid a dole granted by his wife, against whom, she has got a grievance and also come to Court in H.M.O.P. proceedings. To put it differently, law will not come to the aid of any idle person or any indolent person.

14. Be that as it may, on a careful consideration of overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the present case i.e. in respect of maintenance, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the trial Court has rightly held that the Revision Petitioner/Husband is not entitled to file I.A. No.10 of 2010 seeking interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- towards ad interim alimony and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses because of the fact that he is not in a position to maintain his wife. The said order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails.

15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. Resultantly, the order passed by the trial Court in I.A. No.10 of 2010 in H.M.O.P. No.13 of 2009 dated 30.3.2010 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rasipuram is confirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this revision. Consequently, the connected M.P. is also dismissed.

22.03.2013
Index:- Yes/No.
Internet:- Yes/No.
ssa.
To
The Sub Court,
Rasipuram.

M. VENUGOPAL, J.

ssa.

C.R.P. PD. No.1909 of 2010
and connected M.P.

22.03.2013

Questions to “…can my father transfer all SELF earned proprty to brother , sister..” and will I escape IRBM

Fear of Inherited Property / Inheritable property / Inheritable house being claimed by estranged wife when new Hindu marriage act amendment comes in :

**************************************************************

FIRST OF ALL father’s self earned property is NOT inherited or inheritable as of now. BUT if father dies intestate (without will ) during the divorce case, then that self earned property also becomes inheritable by you (your share say ) so you MAY be in a soup as your estranged wife may claim a share !!!

We assume you wish to avoid this …. hence the whole discussion

So your dad has to make a will and give away all SELF EARNED property to all children / mother etc , i.e. people other than you . for the sake of this discussion …. Lets assume your dad does it

Situation :

***********************
Stage 1. Your dad has given away property to mother / sister / brother without considering you

Stage 2. Some years later Your divorce case with your estranged / ex wife is over and after you have escaped IRBM ,

Stage 3 : let is say you are at a point (stage 3) when you and your good goody brother / sister / mother are ready to re split the property once again and give you your share

Are there any possible issues / problems :
*****************************************************

1. Sister’s spouse, brother’w wife can oppose … and claim share [say 1 YEAR.. 2 Years…5 years… 10 years from now … after all divorce case etc appeal etc etc AND when sister / brother is trying to transfer back]

2. sister herself / brother can change her mind !!:-) and refuse to give you anything and you can’t do much about it

3. Brother’s son, sister’s son will have a right to the property because it NOT self earned by brother (brother’s son’s father) and it IS ancestral for grand son (brother’s son -> brother -> brother’s father) I am reasonably sure about this . …. [ this is say 1 YEAR.. 2 Years…5 years… 10 years from now … after all divorce case etc appeal etc etc and they are trying to give the property back to you ]

4. IF before all of this, IF you (the fighting husband) has a son and IF that son (your son) is with the mother (your estranged wife), that son himself can file a minor suit and drag sister / brother or their children to court and block property for 2… 3… 5… 10 years , because he can claim that he was shut out of HIS dues for NO fault of his …. ..little shaky …but worth a try

5. sister / brother will have to pay stamp duty at the time of transfer back to you … IF it is a gift other tax implications (NOT so for inherited property )

6… there may be other issues I have NOT thought of

I humbly request all legal experts to comment and indicate flaws to my thinking !!

thanks in advance

AmartyaSen left Bengali ex-wife &married 2 foreign females: If Nobel Laurette does it, think of Amm Adhmi HINDU : Dr Subramanian Swamy Janta Party president, said Dr. Amartya Sen left his Bengali ex-wife & married two foreign females, hence lost his Indian ness : Dr Swamy there is another angle to it. An Indian wife is TOO costly EVEN for a Nobel Laurette. If Nobel Laurette has to leave India and run, just think of what the Amm Adhmi HINDU will have to do … !!

Dr Subramanian Swamy Janta Party president, said Dr. Amartya Sen left his Bengali ex-wife & married two foreign females, hence lost his Indian ness : Dr Swamy there is another angle to it. An Indian wife is TOO costly EVEN for a Nobel Laurette. If Nobel Laurette has to leave India and run, just think of what the Amm Adhmi HINDU will have to do … !!

**********************************************************

Sen ‘lost Indian-ness’ after dumping Bengali wife for foreign brides: Swamy

Swamy alleged that Sen was ‘meddling’ into the political affairs of the country to bail himself out of the corruption charges against him at Nalanda University

Subramanian Swamy Subramanian Swamy

Reacting to Amartya Sen‘s comment on Bharatiya Janata Party leaderNarendra Modi that expressed his concerns towards the prospect of theGujarat Chief Minister becoming the Prime Minister of the country, Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy in a shocking comment today said that the nobel laureate was not Indian because he had separated from his Indian wife and married two foreigners.

"Amartya Sen is not Indian. He had lost his Indian-ness after he left his Bengali ex-wife and married two foreign females. He has lived abroad and only visits the country for a couple of months, which cannot make you Indian", Swamy said here today.

Additionally, Swamy alleged that Sen was ‘meddling’ into the political affairs of the country to bail himself out of the corruption charges against him at Nalanda University. In 2007, the Government of India appointed Sen as the chairman of the Nalanda Mentor Group.

Yesterday, Sen told a television channel during an interview that Modi could have done more for Gujarat’s education, health and for secularism, instead of focusing solely on physical infrastructure development in that state.

Referring to Modi, Sen said "I think I would like a more secular person to be prime minister. I would not like a prime minister who generates concern and fear among minorities. That is the primary reason. I am in favour of someone who looks at social administration and not just business administration seriously. That doesn’t mean that I don’t see what he has done and why people admire him."

Sen went a step further in saying that as an economist he didn’t approve of the ‘Modi model’ of governance saying, "I don’t think the record is very good. I don’t have to be a member of the minority in order to feel insecure. I could be a member of the majority."

Sen said:"We Indians don’t want a situation where the minority feel insecure and could legitimately think that there was an organised violence against them in 2002. I think that is a terrible record and I don’t think Indian Prime Minister as an Indian citizen … Of who has that kind of record. No, I do not.

source :

http://www.business-standard.com/article/politics/sen-lost-indian-ness-after-dumping-bengali-wife-for-foreign-brides-swamy-113072300490_1.html

False cases behind Delhi’s tag of rape capital: Court :: soon India will be rape country of world

False cases behind Delhi’s tag of rape capital: Court

Press Trust of India | Updated: July 27, 2013 18:21

False cases behind Delhi's tag of rape capital: Court

New Delhi: False cases are the reasons behind labelling of Delhi as ‘rape capital’; a court in Delhi has held while acquitting a 75-year-old man of the charge of sexually assaulting his maid after the woman turned hostile.

The court said after the December 16 gang-rape of a 23-year-old girl in a moving bus lead to the creation of an atmosphere that "the mere statement of a lady that she has been raped, came to be taken as gospel truth, the accused arrested and chargesheeted".

"This lead to an unprecedented surge in filing of false rape cases…It is these false cases which play havoc with the crime statistics, leading to the labelling of Delhi as a ‘rape capital’," Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat said, while acquitting Bhopal Sharma of the charge of sexually assaulting his maid.

The court observed that as acquittals in such cases are hardly ever reported, the falsely implicated persons lose their honour, dignity and status in the society and though these cannot be restored, "these victims" can be compensated so that they can start life afresh.

It also noted that "it is a matter of intense regret that even the frail, sick and aged persons are not spared from the false allegations of rape".

According to the prosecution, Sharma and his neighbour Anita had become friends when they met in a hospital where his ailing wife was admitted. After his wife’s death, Anita had arranged for the woman, who was in her 30s, to work as a maid in his home.

The maid in her complaint had said a few days after she started working at Sharma’s house in July 2012; he had raped her and after the incident, had promised to marry her.

Thereafter, he continued to have sexual relations with her on the pretext of marrying her, the maid had alleged, adding that she lodged the police complaint on October 11, 2012 after Sharma expressed his unwillingness to keep his promise.

However, during the trial, the woman turned hostile and said she had levelled false allegations on the advice of Anita and another person Kuldeep.

While acquitting Sharma, the judge noted that the maid, a divorcee, had levelled the allegation of rape against the senior citizen on the behest of her neighbour Anita and Kuldeep in order to usurp the man’s property.

Expressing the need for courts to be empowered to award compensation to victims of false rape cases, the judge also lamented that media turns a blind eye to acquittals in such cases.

"Nobody bothers to see in how many cases the accused in fact are convicted. Media turns a blind eye towards acquittals. The acquittal of an accused is not noticed at all and he continues to be labelled as a ‘rapist’ even after his honourable acquittal.

"Their lost honour, dignity and status in the society cannot be restored but they can be compensated so that they are able to start life afresh. The courts need to be empowered to award compensation to men acquitted in false rape cases," the court said.

The judge also said right from the first day when accused was produced before him, he had wondered, "How such a frail old man, who cannot even stand straight, would rape a young lady in her mid-30’s, having lot more strength than the accused?"

source
http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/false-cases-behind-delhi-s-tag-of-rape-capital-court-397821