Monthly Archives: July 2013

pay HUGE lumpsum or loose 12yrs life. the only choice for INDIAN MEN who WIN family court divorce!!

pay huge lumpsum or loose 12yrs life

the ONLY choice for INDIAN MEN who WIN family court divorce!!

* this couple separated in 2006
* husband WON a divorce at family court
* hubby pays rs 5000 per kid
* wife LOST the divorce at family court

* if some one thought justice was done 7 years ..later just wait ……………
* obviously ablaa naari wife went for an appeal to HC
* when ablaa goes on appeal, HC tells the man, "….hey man..", "…you will loose 12 years in appeal …" …, "…why NOT pay a HUGE … ok substantial moolah (ok money) to ablaa (ok wife ) …."
* …and then I say …"….howzaaaat…."

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

Consider one-time payout to wife than lose 12 years in trial, man told

Swati Deshpande, TNN Jul 13, 2013, 02.01AM IST

MUMBAI: "An appeal once admitted will remain for 12 years" till it is finally decided, said the Bombay high court on Friday to a man whose wife had appealed against a family court decision. The court asked the husband to consider giving a substantial one-time settlement to end their marriage by mutual consent as it was what both appeared to want, rather than lose 12 years of his life.

A bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Gautam Patel on Friday was hearing a wife’s appeal against divorce granted by the Bandra family court to her 50-year-old husband, whose family owns a bakery at Kala Chowkie. Her counsel Neeta Karnik said the husband had problems which he refused to be treated for and hence it was difficult to stay together. The couple, married in 1995, had separated in 2006. The husband provides Rs 5,000 each for his two children—one of who (elder) just passed the Class X exams.

The family court had last year accepted the husband’s petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty, while dismissing her petition on similar grounds. The HC bench asked the husband’s counsel Sarika Mehra to seriously consider mutual consent as an option as Justice Oka said "both of you want a divorce, then must pay a substantial alimony". The judges said, "It’s the first appeal that will have to be admitted. A stay will be granted and 12 years of his life will be lost. Ask your client how much will he give." The judges added, "May be after the fifth year, there can be a plea for enhancement of the monthly maintenance.”

The court fixed July 23 as the next date and asked for a concrete suggestion from the parties by then.

source

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-13/mumbai/40553294_1_mutual-consent-family-court-12-years

married ’75. togethr lessthan 1yr. Separate 19yrs. Marriage irretrievably broken. P&H HC grants divorce

married ’75. together less than 1yr. Separate 19 years. Marriage irretrievably broken. P&H HC grants divorce

Learning
****************************
* married in the year 1975.
* After the marriage, the appellant has resided in the matrimonial home only for about one year (probably even less …say a few months)
* claims of dowry demand by wife
* contradictions in her statement and her dad’s statement on how the dowry was demanded / paid etc
* Husband denies all allegations
* HC Says "…..Thus it is evidence that marriage is irretrievable broken. It is in the interest of justice that decree of divorce be granted so that both the parties can live in peace, harmony and honourable too and thus the tortuous litigation and continuous agony to the parties may come to an end….."
* Man asked to pay permanent alimony

******************************************************************
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 INDIANKANOON SITE
******************************************************************

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Smt. Krishna vs Som Nath on 21 March, 1995

Equivalent citations: I (1996) DMC 667

Author: S Saksena

Bench: S Saksena

JUDGMENT

Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short the ‘Act’).

2. The only admitted fact in the case is that the appellant was married with the respondent in the year 1975 and now they are living separately.

3. In a nut-shell, the appellant-petitioner’s contention was that after marriage she was treated with cruelty by the respondent and his family members. She was taunted and insulted for bringing less dowry. When she expressed her inability to satisfy their lust for more dowry she was treated with cruelty. After two months, she was beaten and was forced to leave the matrimonial home. Thereafter she lived in her parental home for one year. Her parents gave Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent thereafter. She went to live in the matrimonial home. The respondent is a liquor addict. He used to beat her when intoxicated. She lived with the respondent for six months. She was again beaten and turned out of the house. Thereafter she lived with her parents for three years. Again when she went to her matrimonial home in October, 1986 she was turned out therefrom and since then she is living with her parents. Thus she claimed divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

4. The respondent-husband denied the allegations of cruelty and desertion According to him he never treated her with cruelty, never complained of insufficient dowry and never beat her. He does not take liquor. He never turned her out of the matrimonial home. He lived with her in a rented house. She left that rented house in December, 1988. She and her father took away his belongings from that house. When he asked them to return his clothes etc. he was turned out of the house. He is willing to live with the appellant. She became pregnant many a times but due to her ill-health she got premature deliveries.

5. The Trial framed three issues. On appraisal of parties evidence the appellant’s petition for divorce was dismissed

6. Appellant learned Counsel contended that the Trial Court has not weighed the parties evidence properly. She has stated how on dowry demand she was maltreated by the respondent and his family members and many a times she was beaten by her husband. She was turned out of the matrimonial home and therefore she had to take refuge in her parental home. He further stressed that the Trial Court has not properly framed the issues. No issue on the alleged ground of cruelty and desertion was framed. The Trial Court has believed the statement of the husband which is patently unbelievable. The respondent has stated that he resided in Chuni Lal’s house on rent with the appellant for 13 years but still he does not remember the number of that house. In his further cross-examination he has stated that he lived in Chuni Lal’s house for 4/5 years. According to the husband one week prior to the institution of the divorce petition the appellant and her father turned him out of the house of Chuni Lal and they also refused to return his belongings but surprisingly enough no report was lodged by him at the Police Station. The Trial Court has believed such a witness and has discarded the credible evidence of the appellant and her father. He admitted that there are certain discrepancies in the statements of the appellant and her father but according to him they are bound to occur as they are not literate persons and their evidence was recorded after a long lapse of time.

7. Finally the appellant’s learned Counsel submitted that the parties were married in the year 1975. After the marriage, the appellant has resided in the matrimonial home only for about one year. Since 1986, the parties are living separately. Thus the marriage has irretrievably broken. Hence justice will be done to both the parties if divorce is granted and they are allowed to live in peace, honourably and separately but at the same time he prayed that the husband should be directed to pay some amount to the appellant as permanent alimony. In this connection he pointed out that the Court had already ordered that the respondent should pay Rs. 500/- as maintenance per month and Rs. 1500/- as litigation expenses to the appellant vide order dated 27.7.1990. Amount of permanent alimony should be determined keeping in view the aforesaid order.

8. None appeared for the respondent.

9. I have gone through the parties evidence on record.

10. The appellant has stated that she was teased and insulted for bringing inadequate dowry. She was treated with cruelty. The respondent beat her and three/four times she was turned out of the matrimonial home. She has also stated that on one of such occasions when she was to be rehabilitated her father had to give Rs. 5000/- to the respondent. There are contradictions in the statements of appellant and her father on the point as to when and how this amount of Rs. 5000/- was paid but nevertheless her explanation for leaving the matrimonial home stands to reason.

11. The respondent-husband has denied that he demanded dowry or treated her with cruelty or turned her out of the matrimonial home. According to him he was living separately with the appellant in Chuni Lal’s house where they resided for 13 years. He gave that statement to a Court question but later on in the cross-examination he deposed that he lived with the appellant in Chuni Lal’s house for 4/5 years. A week before the presentation of the divorce petition the appellant and her father took away all the articles including his clothes of daily use from the house of Chuni Lal. When he demanded his clothes back he was turned out of the house. But surprisingly enough this fact is not put to the appellant or her father in the cross-examination. They have been only asked whether she ever lived with the respondent in Chuni Lal’s house. The respondent does not know the number of the house of Chuni Lal. He did not lodge any report with the police when according to him his articles including his clothes were taken away by the appellant and her father. He has not examined Chuni Lal to corroborate his testimony. All these facts prove the hollowness of his statement. From the appellant’s evidence respondent’s faults and failings are evident. He has treated her with cruelty and has compelled her to leave matrimonial home. Thus he is guilty of constructive desertion. In my view the respondent’s evidence is not trustworthy at all.

12. From the parties evidence it is evident that this wedlock has rather become a deadlock, since 1986 they are living separately. After marriage till 1986 she has lived only for a few months in the matrimonial home. Wife has made allegations of cruelty and desertion against the husband and husband has made counter allegations against her. Thus it is evidence that marriage is irretrievable broken. It is in the interest of justice that decree of divorce be granted so that both the parties can live in peace, harmony and honourable too and thus the tortuous litigation and continuous agony to the parties may come to an end.

13. So far as the ground of permanent alimony is concerned this Court has already ordered the respondent to pay Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance and Rs. 1,500/-as litigation expenses to the appellant vide order dated 27.7.1990. In her petition filed under Section 24 of the Act, supported by affidavit, the appellant has alleged that the respondent is earning Rs. 4000/- per month from his business of manufacturing of furniture. This is not rebutted by the respondent by filing a reply or counter affidavit. This prehistory of the case throws light on the financial capacity of the respondent.

14. In view of the above discussion and findings as decree of divorce is granted in appellant’s favour. Trial Court’s impugned judgment and decree is set aside, and appeal is hereby allowed Respondent-husband is hereby directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- to the appellant-wife as permanent alimony within a period of six months. No order as to costs.

Marriage ’85 triplets ’90; wife earng well & 2 dghters in MNCs still husb to pay 15laks dghtr’s ABROADstudy! ….SUPER GEM FROM MUMBAI HC !!! Please note …. in 2012 he was directed to pay rs 10 lakhs for their education

simple notes / main news below :

* The Marriage was ’85

* triplets were born in ’90;

* The wife is a physiotherapist and is supposedly earning well

* The daughters are 23 years old now …. obviously major by any count

* Two of the daughters are working in MNCs !!!

* The poor daughters who of course are majors want to go abroad only and study ONLY abroad and NOT in India

* So the ablaa naari wife wants the dad to pay

* So the honourable court asks the dada to pay Rs 15 lakhs ONLY for the daughters to study abroad

* The poor guy husband does NOT seem to have understood the whole bloody issue

* obviously he is NOT a member of our blogs or our forum !! ???

* He is trying to earn more and more and trying to fight more and more

Hey Ram /// Ok Hey Rahim ….. / Hi Jesus …….

* IF you have money you pay !!
* Moral (ok II Moral) of the story, you may forsake your son at 18 … BUT NOT daughter ….for the rest of her life ….. till she finds another man to pay for her ……

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

Parents cannot influence child’s education choice: High court

Rosy Sequeira, TNN Jul 23, 2013, 02.49AM IST

MUMBAI: Can parents influence children on their choice of education? The Bombay high court (HC) asked this on Monday to a businessman who refused to fund his three daughters for studies abroad.

The observation came while the court was hearing the man’s challenge to a 1996 order of the family court (FC) granting him judicial separation, but not divorce. The wife, a physiotherapist, challenged the order as well for it not granting her maintenance. The FC had directed the man to pay Rs 7,500 a month for his daughters-triplets-till they turned 18. The couple’s marriage was in 1985; the triplets were born in 1990.

In 2012, the HC directed him to deposit Rs 10 lakh for their education. This year, the HC ordered him to pay Rs 15 lakh for the admission of one daughter to the London Business School. The man’s advocates, Rajendra Desai and Prabha Badadare, argued that the wife earned well and two daughters were working with MNCs-the implication being the wife and daughters can fund studies abroad. "But you (the father) can’t ignore your daughters," replied Justice Gautam Patel, who was hearing the matter with Justice Abhay Oka.

When Desai said the couple’s relationship was acrimonious, Justice Patel retorted with: "Don’t make children pawns in your battle. Your daughters do not have to hear allegations in public."

The wife’s counsel, Prasad Dhakephalkar, said two daughters wanted to pursue MBA courses and one a masters in physiotherapy-all abroad. Desai said their father would pay for their higher studies in India.

"Management education in India is better than in foreign countries," Desai said. Justice Oka asked, "Are you suggesting that parents can influence children regarding education? We are dealing with grown-up children. If a child feels she has better prospects abroad, what is wrong with that? It is a fact of life that grown-up children are keen on going abroad for better education. We don’t agree with your proposition that daughters must not go."

The judges said the couple must share the responsibility of their daughters’ education and agree for divorce by mutual consent. "If the dispute is over, it is better for the daughters," said Justice Oka.

SOURCE

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-23/mumbai/40747781_1_daughters-education-choice-family-court

Married Indian male s EXPECTED to maintain wife, wife’s sister, dog, Fathr inlaw, mthr inlaw etc. If wife gets unhappy FOR ANY REASON & goes away to her father’s house you have to send money by money order, paypal, TT or any fast means. IF NOT ….. !! you will be really pulled up … BEWARE …. and follow the law … don’t think you can change jobs…. that is STRICTLY not allowed !!!!! don’t think you can fudge your salary…that is a NO…NO….!!!! Now please go on and read the news below for your happiness and well being

Married Indian male EXPECTED maintain wife, wife’s sister, dog, Fathr inlaw, mthr inlaw… If wife go away send money order, paypal, TT, any fast means. IF NOT ….. !! you will be really pulled up … BEWARE …. and follow the law … don’t think you can change jobs…. that is STRICTLY not allowed !!!!! don’t think you can fudge your salary…that is a NO…NO…. Now please go on and read the news below for your happiness and well being

Court raps couple for fudging pay

TNN | Jul 31, 2013, 04.23 AM IST

NEW DELHI: A trial court criticized the couples who conceal their income when it comes to claiming or giving maintenance to their spouse making it difficult for courts which are left with "guesswork".

The court assessed the monthly income of a man who was earning close to Rs 30,000 per month but claimed to be earning only Rs 6,000 per month in automobile repair work. The court was deciding the interim maintenance to be awarded to his estranged wife and their two children.

"Spouses conceal their income when it comes to claiming or opposing interim maintenance. The court is left with guesswork in the absence of sufficient material," additional district judge Sujata Kohli said. The court directed the man to pay Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance and Rs 5,000 as litigation expenses.

IT Woman attacks + injures bus conductor because he asked her for change !! OMG ..women are really powerful I should say … may bus conducters have asked me change …. but NEVER …NEVER have I thought of … hmmmm ; IF this ablaa naari could do this to a bus conducter, imagine what she could do her husband ???

IT Woman attacks + injures bus conductor because he asked her for change !! OMG ..women are really powerful I should say … may bus conducters have asked me change …. but NEVER …NEVER have I thought of … hmmmm ;

IF this ablaa naari could do this to a bus conducter, imagine what she could do her husband ???

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

Woman techie slaps BMTC conductor, lands in judicial custody

Woman techie slaps BMTC conductor, lands in judicial custody

Manjunath Chandra

Posted On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 at 12:56:18 AM

Conductor Manjaiah denies assaulting Swati

It was supposed to be a short, uneventful ride on a Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) Volvo bus for Swati Nigam, a techie, on Saturday. Instead it turned out to be a trip right to prison — all because she allegedly lost her temper over a very trivial issue.

Swati, a native of Uttar Pradesh who works for Accenture in the city, was on her way to Marathalli and had boarded a Volvo (Route No. 500D) near Echo Space on the Outer Ring Road in Sarjapur. According to the police, she asked the conductor C Manjaiah, for a ticket. Manjaiah asked her to pay Rs 25, but since the distance was barely 4km, Swati objected and demanded an explanation. Manjaiah explained to her that the fare was Rs 25 if she alighted after the Marathalli Bridge, but the fare was only Rs 15 if she got down before the bridge. He told her that the stage changes after the bridge and that there is an increase of Rs 10 in fare for every stage.

Swati appeared satisfied with the explanation and told the conductor that she would alight before the bridge. She asked for a Rs 15 ticket and gave the conductor a Rs 100 note. BMTC conductors suffer from a perennial problem of lack of small change and Manjaiah appeared no different. Manjaiah told Swati he did not have change and asked her to get change while he attended to other passengers.

When Manjaiah returned after a trip around the bus, Swati still didn’t have change. Manjaiah told her to pay the minimum fare of Rs 10 and to get down at the next stop. This triggered an argument between the two. Swati refused to pay since she was, quite literally, being forced off the bus. The conductor retorted that she should not have boarded the bus if she didn’t have the exact fare.

According to the police, Manjaiah then broke out into Kannada, and Swati, under the impression that he was abusing her, resorted to violence. She slapped the conductor, hitting him on his right ear and followed up by clawing him. The driver, realising an altercation had broken out, locked the doors and, on the advice of other passengers, drove to the nearest police station.

At the HAL police station, statements of both parties were recorded as were the statements of four other passengers. The passengers blamed Swati for starting the row and accused her of bad behaviour. A case of assault and obstructing a government servant was registered against Swati. Manjaiah was sent for a medical examination which confirmed an injury to his ear and temporary loss of hearing. He also had suffered bruises from scratching. Swati was then taken to a magistrate’s house who remanded her to 15 days judicial custody.

A depressed and disconsolate Swati was taken to Parappana Agrahara Central prison. Jail authorities say she spent most of Saturday night and Sunday weeping and had refused to eat.

“Passengers should cooperate with the bus crew,” said KM Auradkar, BMTC Volvo divisional controller. “Small issues like this need to be sorted out . We will conduct an in-house inquiry on this issue.”

A friend of Swati, who wished to remain anonymous, claimed Manjaiah’s conduct was wholly unjustified. “When the conductor said he had no change and Swati agreed to get down, the conductor should not have insisted on her paying the Rs 10 minimum fare,” the friend said. “If she had change, she would have paid Rs 15 and continued the journey. From where will she get change? The conductor and some commuters misbehaved with Swati and provoked her by making comments in Kannada. She too has been assaulted. Once she is out of jail, we will register a complaint against the conductor and the driver.”

Manjaiah, however, claims the allegations that he and the driver had assaulted Swati were untrue and an afterthought. “If she was assaulted on board, she should have stated it before the police or the magistrate,” Manjaiah said.

http://www.bangaloremirror.com/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=10&contentid=2013073020130730005646106ebff1dfd