Daily Archives: September 6, 2013

NO ONE believes hubby/wife on earnings!! wife says hubby earns 18000, hubby say 1800!, court orders 1500 pm!!

Notes
*******************
While a lot is said about the law, the jurisprudence and dispensation of justice, ultimately when it comes to FACTS, the courts do NOT seem to believe either the husband or the wife !!

In this case the wife claims that husband earns 18 thousands a months while husband says 18 hundred …yep 1 / 10th !!

There is NO string proof either side and finally court orders Rs 1500 per month

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
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 Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo .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 / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Anirban Lahiri … vs Soumi Lahiri Nee Banerjee … on 27 August, 2013
Author: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee

27.08.2013.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

C.O. No.611 of 2012

Anirban Lahiri …petitioner.
Versus
Soumi Lahiri Nee Banerjee …opposite party.

Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Mr. Basudeb Gayen, …for the petitioner.
Mr. Biswajit Dutta. …for the opposite party.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

This matter is taken up for hearing on the mentioning by Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, in presence of Mr. Basudeb Gayen, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party.

The husband/opposite party instituted a suit for divorce. In the said suit, an application for maintenance and cost of litigation was filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The application was registered as Miscellaneous Case no.78 of 2010.

The wife claimed that the husband has been a business person and has been earning about Rs.18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand) only per month.

The husband, on the contrary, stated that he has been in small business and has been earning only Rs.1800/- (Rupees one thousand eight hundred) only per month.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial judge fixed the maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only per month. The learned trial judge, also, assessed the cost of litigation at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

After hearing Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing in support of the revisional application and Mr. Basudeb Gayen, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party and considering the fact that the husband is in small business and having regard to the background of the families of the parties, I feel that justice will be sub-served if the husband is directed to pay Rs.1500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) only as alimony pendente lite from the date of filing of the application. I, however, decline to interfere with the order assessing the cost of litigation.

The order impugned is, thus, modified as above. With the aforesaid directions, the revisional application stands disposed of. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

I make no order as to costs.

(Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.)

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

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

Doctr hubby told to pay rs 15K pm. His tax returns, affidavits disbelieved. Wife also gets 20K legal costs (one time) !! Cal HC GEM . Soon we will have a gift pack for the newly married !!!

Doctr hubby told to pay rs 15K pm. His tax returns, affidavits disbelieved. Wife also gets 20K legal costs (one time) !! Cal HC GEM

Notes
*****************
* Marriage on November 22, 2010
* living separately since October 28, 2012
* Husband has filed petition for dissolution of marriage
* Aablaa naari wife has filed restituion of conjugal rights
* wife has ALSO filed for INTERIM maintenance
* district judge has granted Rs 20000 p.m. interim maintenance !!
* Husband has shown IT return and also shown prescrptions proving that he earns maximum of Rs 30000 p.m. and haa expenses of Rs 27500
* Still husband asked to pay Rs 15000 p.m. to ablaa
* The wife stayed with the husband for a period of 2 years and so she can understand the total income of the husband.
* case to go on !!

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
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 / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

C.O. No. 2754 of 2013
With
C.O. No. 2676 of 2013

Present :
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasenjit Mandal

Dr. Soumik Dasgupta.
Versus
Poulami Dasgupta.

For the petitioner : Mr. Biswarup Bhattacharjee, Mr. R.L. Mitra, Ms. Priyanka Dhar.
For the opposite party : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharjee, Ms. S. Bhattacharjee.
Heard On: 07.08.2013
Judgement On: August 29, 2013.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

Prasenjit Mandal, J.:

These two applications are directed against the Order no.9 dated June 18, 2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Barrackpore in Matrimonial Suit No.1314 of 2012 thereby allowing in part an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The husband/petitioner herein of the C.O. No.2676 of 2013 instituted the aforesaid suit for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The wife/opposite party herein of the C.O. No.2676 of 2013 is contesting the said matrimonial suit by filing a written statement claiming a counter-claim for restitution of the conjugal rights in the aforesaid suit. She filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for alimony at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per month and the litigation costs of Rs.4,000/- per month. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

Upon due consideration of the materials on record, the learned Trial Judge granted the alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month in favour of the wife from the date of the order. But, the prayer for litigation costs has been rejected. Being aggrieved by such order, the wife has preferred the Civil Revision No.2754 of 2013 for enhancement of the alimony and grant of litigation costs.

On the other hand, the husband has filed the C.O. No.2676 of 2013 for granting a lesser amount of alimony pendente lite. Since both the applications have been preferred against the same and one order, they are disposed of by this common judgment and order. The question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that admittedly, the marriage between the two was solemnized on November 22, 2010 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. They have been living separately since October 28, 2012. Admittedly, the wife is residing at her paternal house. It is also an admitted position that the husband is a Pediatrician. Admittedly, the wife does not want divorce at all and that is why, by way of a counter- claim she has prayed for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Admittedly, the parties have no issue. Admittedly, the husband is an M.B.B.S. D.C.H. Child specialist. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

The wife has contended that the husband earns Rs.80,000/- per month minimum from his medical profession. On the other hand, husband has contended that his earning is Rs.30,000/- per month.

Mr. Biswarup Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate appearing for the husband has contended that the husband has filed materials such as Income Tax Return, prescriptions issued by him etc., which indicate that the income of the husband cannot be more than Rs.30,000/- per month and he has drawn my attention to the probable expenditure that the husband is to incur as appearing in Page No.61 of the application of the husband to the tune of Rs.27,500/-.

He has also contended that the wife is a teacher of the D.A.V. School, Chinar Park, Baguiati and she earns by salary from the said school and also by private tuition. So, it is not correct that the wife is depending on her parents.

Mr. Bhattacharjee has also referred to the Income Tax Return filed by the husband as appearing at Page No.67 to show that the annual gross total income of the husband is to the tune of Rs.2,18,992/- and as such the Court is not justified at all in granting the alimony at the exorbitant rate.

He has also contended that the husband has to maintain his parents including the expenses of their medical treatment and other charges as indicated at Page No.61. So, the application under Section 24 of the Act should be dismissed. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

On the other hand Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattcharjee, learned Advocate appearing for the wife has contended that the wife has given probable expenditure of Rs.35,000/- per month as per her application appearing at Page No.56. Moreover, the learned Trial Judge did not grant any litigation costs. So, the impugned order could be modified.

Having regard to the materials on record and the submissions, I am of the view that the husband did not come to the Court with clean hands. He has suppressed his total income as a Pediatrician by sitting in different Nursing Homes, Medical Shops, Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality etc. The Income Tax Return does not support the income even claimed by the husband, because if the gross annual income of Rs.2,18,992/- as indicated in the Income Tax Return is divided by 12, his monthly income will be less than Rs.20,000/- whereas, he has admitted that he earns Rs.30,000/- per month. The prescription of the husband as appearing at Page No.71 indicates that the husband is not only a child specialist attached to different Nursing Homes, but, also to other medical shops such as Anita Medical Hall, Success Diagnostics, Drug Centre and also at his residence. By a rejoinder, he has admitted that he also gets remuneration for working at Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality. The contention that the doctor having been engaged in the profession in different medical shops, residence and Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality would earn Rs.30,000/- only per month as claimed by him, cannot be believed.

I have shown earlier that he has suppressed the fact by tendering the Income Tax Return, which is not at all in conformity with his admission of earning of Rs.30,000/- only per month. The wife stayed with the husband for a period of 2 years and so she can understand the total income of the husband.

In such circumstances when the husband did not come to the Court with clean hands, the Court is to deal with the mater by guesswork as to the income of the husband. The husband has contended that the wife earns from a school at Baguiati and by private tuition, but, there is no material at all to that effect. Accordingly, it is held that the statement of the wife that she has no income should be accepted. So, the wife is entitled to get the alimony as well as the litigation costs from the husband.

So far as the quantum of alimony is concerned, as noted above, upon certain guesswork as to the income of the husband and the materials on record and the engagement of the husband in different Nursing Homes, Municipality, Medical Shops etc., it is not absurd to hold that the husband earns Rs.80,000/- per month. The husband has contended that he earns Rs.30,000/- per month minimum and his expenditure is Rs.27,500/- per month meaning thereby, a nominal amount is left for granting the maintenance to the wife i.e. the balance amount. This is, in my view, is nothing but to frustrate the prayer of the wife. The learned Trial Judge has rightly held that the wife is entitled to lead the same status as the husband enjoys as a medical practitioner. This being the position, upon due consideration of the materials on record, certain guesswork as to income of the husband and the fact that the husband has not come to the Court with clean hands as to his income, I am of the view that the husband should be directed to pay the alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month. The learned Trial Judge has granted the alimony with effect the date of the order and since it is the discretion of the learned Trial Judge, I am of the view that this discretionary power should not be interfered with. As regards the quantum of litigation costs, in my view, since the learned Trial Judge has held that the wife has no income, certainly, she should be entitled to get the litigation costs from the husband particularly, when she has expressed her eagerness to have a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

Accordingly, upon due consideration of the entire situation as recorded above, I am of the view that, for the time being, the husband should have directed to pay the litigation costs of Rs.20,000/- only to the wife and such amount must be paid within 30 days from date. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

The impugned order is, therefore, modified in the following manner:-

i) That the husband is directed to pay the alimony pendente lite to the wife at the rate of Rs.15,000/- only per month with effect from the date of the order passed by the learned Trial Judge, i.e., w.e.f. June 18, 2013;

ii) That the husband is also directed to pay the litigation costs of Rs.20,000/- only to the wife within a period of 30 days from date for the time being;

iii) That the arrears of alimony must be paid within 30 days from date; and

iv) That the husband is directed to pay the current alimony within the 10th day of the succeeding English Calendar Month.

Both the applications are disposed of in the manner indicated above.

Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.

(Prasenjit Mandal, J.)

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

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

NO maint enhance u/s 12 DV act! P&H HC GEM. Wife separate since 1972 (40+ years) tries enhance undr DV act. Looses!! However court says wife and co can seek ALTERNATE / PROPER REMEDY FOR ENHANCEMENT !! :-(

NO maint enhance u/s 12 DV act! P & H HC GEM. Wife separate since 1972 (40+ years) tries enhance undr DV act. Looses!! However court says wife and co can seek ALTERNATE / PROPER REMEDY FOR ENHANCEMENT !! 😦

Notes
****************************
* couple sepeate since 1972 … year 40+ years
* allegations and counter allegations
* husband paying enhanced maintenace and fixed deposit
* husband is 65 years old !!!
* two questions arise, is there a possibility of enhancement under DV act and is there a DV case or case of domestic violence per say

Honourable Court states NO Enhancement and NO case of domestic violence
************************************************
* “…..The core question still would be whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners could invoke the provisions of protection provided under this Act which was enacted only in the year 2005 and was enforced w.e.f. 26.10.2006. This court in Smt.Gita’s case (supra) has held that when certain act is not an offence according to law in force at the time when the Act is done, the person who does that act must not be held guilty of an offence merely because subsequently a law is made making such act and offence. ….”
* ……..Under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, Court can grant monetary relief, but apparently cannot enhance maintenance. ……..
* ………….If the petitioners are in need of some enhanced maintenance, they have to invoke a proper remedy. …………
* Prima-facie, the application under Section 12 for seeking enhanced maintenance is not maintainable and as such no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
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 / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

PUNJAB-HARYANA HIGH COURT
Krishna Devi & Another vs Malkhan Singh on 14 January, 2013
Criminal Revision No.2554 of 2011 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/
Date of Decision: January 14, 2013

Krishna Devi & another …Petitioners
Versus
Malkhan Singh …Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

Present:
Mr.Sushil Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate, for the respondent.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

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

RANJIT SINGH, J.

The petitioners had approached the court under Sections 12 and 25 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”) seeking enhancement of a compensation, which had earlier been awarded to them. The said prayer of the petitioners was declined by the trial court, against which they filed an appeal before Addl.Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, who has also dismissed the said appeal. The petitioners accordingly have filed this revision petition to impugn the said orders.

Krishna Devi petitioner filed this private complaint under Sections 12 and 25 of the Act against Malkhan Singh, who is husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2. Earlier, Civil Judge Junior Division, Kurukshetra has allowed maintenance of `1,000/- each to both the petitioners under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Marriage and Guardianship and Maintenance Act on 25.8.2012. As per the allegations, respondent is a retired employee and earning a pension of `9,153/-. The petitioners had accordingly filed this petition for enhancement of this maintenance of `1,000/- which according to them was not sufficient. It is stated that petitioners are in dire need and respondent after retirement is dealing with property from which he is earning a handsome income. Accordingly, the petitioners had prayed for maintenance allowance of `4,000/- per month each and had also demanded a sum of `50,000/-, which is needed for conducting certain medical tests of petitioner No.1.

Respondent appeared in response to notice. As per the reply, the petitioners initially were getting `300/- per month and had twice sought enhancement of the maintenance allowance, firstly on 24.12.1997. The same, however, was got dismissed for non- prosecution on 11.12.2000. The petitioners again filed a petition on 16.5.2003, but withdrew the same on 25.7.2007 without any reason. Thereafter the petitioners have filed the present petition, which is, thus, stated to be an abuse of process of court. It is disclosed that petitioner No.1 owns a shop and is having a fixed deposit of `10.00-`12.00 lacs in her name. Respondent states that he is 65 years old and is suffering from heart attack. He is having a meager pension, out of which he is already paying sum of `2,000/- per month as maintenance. The respondent accordingly has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. The perusal of the material on record would show that this marriage was performed in the year 1970 and the couple has separated since 1972. The respondent has opposed the prayer on a purely legal ground. He would urge that domestic violence, if any, would relate to a period must before the time even the Domestic Violence Act was legislated. The respondent accordingly would contend that no proceedings can be initiated under the Act against him. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

The plea of the respondent appears justified and reasonable. The couple is living separately since 1972. The Domestic Violence Act has been legislated in the year 2005. There may be certain provisions under this Act on the basis of which the claim for grant of maintenance may be maintainable, but the issue in the present case is whether the petitioners can invoke the provisions of Domestic Women Violence Act having regard to the factual position in this case. As per the respondent, there is no provision in the Domestic Violence Act, under which the maintenance granted under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act or under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. could be enhanced by invoking the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. In this regard, reference is made to Smt.Gita Versus Smt.Raj Bala etc., 2010(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 84. During the course of arguments, counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that sum of `3.00 lacs has been deposited in a fixed deposit in the name of the petitioners by the respondent and, thus, it is not only a sum of `2,000/- which he is paying monthly as a maintenance.

Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act makes a provision for grant of monetary reliefs. This section provides that while disposing of application under sub-section (1) of Section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and the losses suffered by the aggrieved person and by any child of the aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence and such relief may include, but is not limited to the loss of earnings, medical expenses, the loss caused due to destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of aggrieved person; and the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force. No doubt, this section makes a provision for grant of monetary relief, but that relief cannot be made available in isolation and has to be when an application under sub-section (1) of section 12 is filed by an aggrieved person. As per Section 12, an application can be filed before a Magistrate by an aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or by any other person on behalf of aggrieved person seeking one or more of the reliefs under the Act. As per the proviso, before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider. The relief sought under this section may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages etc. Though the petitioners in this case have filed an application, but it is not relating to any domestic incident, which was the cause for approaching the Magistrate under the provisions of this Act. The domestic violence is defined in Section 3 of the Act which only relates to causing of harm, injuries or endangering the health, safety, life, limb or where it tends to do so or when any mental or physical etc. is caused. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

In the present case, the couple is living separately since 1972. There cannot be and there is no occasion for the respondent to harm or injure or endanger the health, safety, life or limb or well being of the petitioners whether mentally or physically for which any proceedings could be initiated under the protection of Domestic Violence Act.

The core question still would be whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners could invoke the provisions of protection provided under this Act which was enacted only in the year 2005 and was enforced w.e.f. 26.10.2006. This court in Smt.Gita’s case (supra) has held that when certain act is not an offence according to law in force at the time when the Act is done, the person who does that act must not be held guilty of an offence merely because subsequently a law is made making such act and offence. This would also be in violation of Article 20(1) of the Constitution. This is what has precisely weighed with the courts. The very approach of the petitioners to file this application appears to be misplaced. Under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, Court can grant monetary relief, but apparently cannot enhance maintenance. If the petitioners are in need of some enhanced maintenance, they have to invoke a proper remedy. Indeed the petitioners had filed a petition for enhancing the maintenance on two occasions, but for some undisclosed reasons, applications either were not pressed/withdrawn or was dismissed for non-prosecution. Prima-facie, the application under Section 12 for seeking enhanced maintenance is not maintainable and as such no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. This order, however, shall not be a bar for the petitioners to invoke any proper remedy to seek enhancement of maintenance. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

The present petition is accordingly dismissed. January 14, 2013

( RANJIT SINGH )

JUDGE

ramesh

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

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

ready for 1 month arrest? U CAN keep delaying maint for years!! husb erng 3510. BUT 2lakhs lumpsum+ 8000 pm int maint!! Husb arrested 1mnth, BUT NOT PAID A PENNY. I think we should gift such cases to husbands who are getting married …. do you think they will believe us ??? Gem from Honourable Delhi HC ….ANYONE knows this husband ??

ready for 1 month arrest? U CAN keep delaying maint for years!! husb erng 3510. BUT 2lakhs lumpsum+ 8000 pm int maint!! Husb arrested 1mnth, BUT NOT PAID A PENNY. I think we should gift such cases to husbands who are getting married …. do you think they will believe us ??? Gem from Honourable Delhi HC ….ANYONE knows this husband ??

Notes
*******************
* Delhi HC Gem
* Nitin Gupta (husband) says that Ruchika Gupta (wife) has not shown any documentary proof which could substantiate her averments with regard to the income of Nitin Gupta (husband).
* Husband says Ruchika Gupta (wife) has not been able to show any proof with regard to her standard of living in the matrimonial home and also having given a Honda City car.
* Husband says that though these facts have been duly recorded by the learned MM as well as the learned ASJ in their orders dated 03.03.2008 and 21.05.2009 respectively, however they have erred in considering the same at the time of passing the orders.
* husband says that learned MM and learned ASJ failed to take into consideration paying capacity of Nitin Gupta (husband) at the time of granting interim maintenance to Ruchika Gupta (wife).
* It is contended that Nitin Gupta (husband) is currently working in Meerut at Marwari Bhoj (UP) and gets a salary of Rs. 3510/- per month and is thus unable to pay the amounts as fixed by the learned ASJ.
* It is further submitted that Nitin Gupta has already undergone civil imprisonment from 14.08.2008 to 03.09.2008 due to his inability to pay the interim maintenance amount.

* Still HC says it need NOT go into all the details of the husband’s income etc
* Honourable HC says "….Nitin Gupta unjustifiably did not comply the said order of payment of Rs. 2.00 lacs despite the extension of time granted by this Court. …. There was no dispute that arrears of maintenance due from Nitin Gupta, and for which Ruchika Gupta was made to file nine execution petitions, were much more than Rs. 2.00 lacs……………non-payment of the arrears due and even the amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs by Nitin Gupta was nothing, but an open disobedience to the authority of law.

* Still hubby does NOT pay a penny !!!!

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
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 / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

NITIN GUPTA VS RUCHIKA GUPTA ON 27 APRIL, 2012
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:27.04.2012
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/
+CRL.M.C. 3240/2009 with
Crl. M.A. 10964/2009 and 5753/2011
**********************************************
NITIN GUPTA ….. Petitioner Through: Mr. Jai Bansal, Adv. with petitioner in person.
Versus
RUCHIKA GUPTA ….. Respondent Through: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Adv. with respondent in person.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

+CONT.CAS(C) 106/2012
**********************************************
RUCHIKA GUPTA ….. Petitioner Through: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Adv. with petitioner in person.
Versus
NITIN GUPTA ….. Respondent Through: Mr. Jai Bansal, Adv. with respondent in person.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. The petitioner Nitin Gupta has filed his petition being Crl.M.C. 3240/2009 assailing the order dated 21.5.2008 of the learned ASJ, whereby the maintenance of Rs. 8000/- per month granted to his wife Ruchika Gupta by the M.M. vide order dated 3.3.2008 was enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- per month.

2. In the petition filed by Nitin Gupta, an order was passed by this Court on 2.12.2011, directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs without prejudice and subject to adjustment in two installments of Rs. 1 lakh each to Ruchika Gupta. On Nitin Gupta having failed to comply with the said order, his wife Ruchika Gupta has filed the instant Contempt Petition No. 106/2012 against him. Both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

3. The brief facts necessitating the disposal of the present petition are that marriage between Nitin and Ruchika was solemnized on 16.01.2005 and a son was born out of the wedlock. The relations between the parties were not cordial as a result of which Ruchika filed a complaint against Nitin under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "DV Act") in the Court of learned MM on 25.06.2007. Thereafter, she filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC before the MM claiming maintenance from her husband. The learned MM vide order dated 03.03.2008 awarded interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 8000/- per month to Ruchika from the date of filing of the petition. A revision was filed before the learned ASJ by the Ruchika Gupta seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded. The learned ASJ vide order dated 21.05.2008, enhanced the interim maintenance amount to Rs. 15000/- per month. Later, on the failure of Nitin Gupta to pay the interim maintenance amount, the learned MM vide order dated 14.08.2008 sentenced Nitin Gupta to 1 month civil imprisonment. Ruchika Gupta filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the year 2008. Nitin Gupta preferred the petition being Crl M.C. 3240/2009, assailing the order of the learned MM dated 03.03.2008 awarding maintenance of Rs. 8000/- and further enhancement of the amount to Rs. 15000/- by the learned ASJ vide order dated 21.05.2008. This Court in Crl M.C No. 3240/2009 vide order dated 02.12.2011, directed Nitin Gupta to pay Ruchika Gupta Rs. 2 lacs in 2 equal monthly instalments towards the arrears of maintenance. Nitin Gupta failed to comply with this order of this Court. Thereafter, Ruchika Gupta has preferred a contempt petition, being Cont. Cas. No. 106/2012. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

4. The learned counsel for petitioner Nitin Gupta in Crl.M.C.3240/09 submitted that Ruchika Gupta has not shown any documentary proof which could substantiate her averments with regard to the income of Nitin Gupta. It is submitted that Ruchika Gupta has not been able to show any proof with regard to her standard of living in the matrimonial home and also having given a Honda City car. It is further submitted that though these facts have been duly recorded by the learned MM as well as the learned ASJ in their orders dated 03.03.2008 and 21.05.2009 respectively, however they have erred in considering the same at the time of passing the orders. It is submitted that the learned MM and the learned ASJ failed to take into consideration the paying capacity of Nitin Gupta at the time of granting interim maintenance to Ruchika Gupta . It is contended that Nitin Gupta is currently working in Meerut at Marwari Bhoj (UP) and gets a salary of Rs. 3510/- per month and is thus unable to pay the amounts as fixed by the learned ASJ. It is further submitted that Nitin Gupta has already undergone civil imprisonment from 14.08.2008 to 03.09.2008 due to his inability to pay the interim maintenance amount.

5. Per Contra, the learned counsel for Ruchika Gupta submitted that Nitin Gupta has deposits to the tune of Rs.21.00 lacs. It is submitted that Nitin Gupta failed to comply the order of this Court dated 02.12.2011, whereby he was directed to pay to Ruchika Gupta Rs.2.00 lacs, without prejudice to his rights and also subject to adjustments, as towards arrears of interim maintenance, in two equal monthly installments and this amounts to contempt of this Court. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. This Court has in Rajeev Preenja v. Sarika & Ors 159 (2009) DLT 616 reiterated the guidelines as laid down in the decision of Gaurav Sondhi v. Diya Sondhi 120 (2005) DLT 426 in the context of an application for interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The relevant guidelines read as under:

"The matrimonial courts should follow the following procedure while granting interim maintenance:

(i)Whenever maintenance/interim maintenance is ordered, the Court will direct that it will be paid on or before 10th day of every month unless the Court finds that the nature of the employment of the husband and his manner of income makes such monthly payments impractical. In such a situation appropriate orders may be passed which shall take into account the circumstances of the husband which warrant departure from the time bound monthly payment directions contained in this order. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

(ii) whenever the wife has a bank account and indicates it, such payment may directly be deposited in such bank account every month before the 10th day of the month.

(iii) The payment shall be made to the wife/child and in case of any difficulty in receiving or tendering the payment, it should be made through counsel. The order of deposit in Court needlessly makes it difficult for the wife to withdraw sums from the registry of the concerned court, apart from adding unnecessarily to the burden of the Court’s registry. If for good reasons upon finding difficulty in payment to a wife and her Counsel the deposits in Court are made such deposits should be in the name of the wife by a draft/crossed cheques, which may be retained on the court file for retrieval by the wife without the time consuming process of deposit in the Court account and subsequent withdrawal by the recipient;

(iv) In case there is first default for payment of maintenance, the Court may condone it. However, in case of second default without justification, it will be open to the Court to impose a penalty up to 25% of the amount of monthly maintenance awarded; http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

(v) In case there is third or fourth default, the penalty may go up to 50% of the monthly amount of maintenance upon the court finding that the default was not condonable or contumacious in nature.

(vi) The Court must ensure that the orders of maintenance are not a mere rhetoric and are meaningful and effective and give real sustenance and support to the destitute wife and/or the chilearned

(vii) In case interim maintenance is being paid and adequate litigation expenses have been awarded to the wife, it should be ensured that the written statement/reply is filed within a reasonable time.

(viii) However, in judging the nature of default the relative affluence of the husband and the regular nature of his occupation and income will be taken into account. Obviously husbands having irregular employment and/or daily wages or those having casual employment would be entitled to have their defaults viewed more liberally. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

The above directions are reiterated and it is expected that the learned MMs dealing with applications under Section 125 CrPC will ensue their compliance".

8. Further in the case of in Rajeev Preenja (Supra), it was held that,

"19. Keeping in view the fact that interim maintenance applications are likely to take a year for being disposed of and that the payment to the wife is likely to be made only thereafter, it is only just and fair that the revisional court should insist on the deposit in Court of the interim maintenance payable in terms of the order under challenge as a pre condition to entertaining the revision petition. Otherwise a recalcitrant husband can, despite suffering an adverse order, defeat that order merely by filing a revision petition and not being burdened with the responsibility of complying with it."

9. In the present case, Nitin Gupta has even failed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs even without prejudice to his rights and subject to adjustment as towards arrears of maintenance as directed by this Court and further has tried to show his inability to pay the same. This order came to be passed in the backdrop of the fact that Ruchika Gupta had filed as many as nine execution petitions against Nitin Gupta for recovery of maintenance. Nitin Gupta unjustifiably did not comply the said order of payment of Rs. 2.00 lacs despite the extension of time granted by this Court. There was no dispute that arrears of maintenance due from Nitin Gupta, and for which Ruchika Gupta was made to file nine execution petitions, were much more than Rs. 2.00 lacs. The non-payment of the arrears due and even the amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs by Nitin Gupta was nothing, but an open disobedience to the authority of law. The contentions of Nitin Gupta have been duly dealt with by the learned MM and the learned ASJ while disposing the petition of Ruchika Gupta for interim maintenance. This Court under its inherent powers ought not to dwell into these issues, as they are disputes over facts and have already been dealt with by the learned MM and the learned ASJ. I find no infirmity in the order of the learned ASJ or learned MM.

10.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that Nitin Gupta failed to comply with the orders of this Court, directing him to pay Rs. 2.00 lacs towards arrears of maintenance to his wife Ruchika Gupta, I am not inclined to entertain his petition being Crl M.C. 3240/2009. The same is hereby dismissed. The Contempt petition filed by Ruchika Gupta being Cont. Cas.(C) No. 106/2012 is also dismissed with the liberty to Ruchika Gupta to pursue her execution petitions. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

11.The petitions are disposed accordingly.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

APRIL 27, 2012

awanish

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

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

Can husbands use this route to fight TV channels defaming men and their mothers and sisters ??? Start TV to Apologise to Actress Rangitha

Channel ordered to apologise to Ranjitha

By Pratul Sharma – NEW DELHI

Published: 03rd September 2013 10:08 AM

Last Updated: 03rd September 2013 10:08 AM

In a significant ruling that is likely to set a precedent in cases involving privacy of an individual, the self regulatory body of entertainment channels has asked a private channel to apologise to actress Ranjitha Menon for showing a “morphed” video featuring her in a compromising position with Swami Nithyananda.

Justice AP Shah (retired)-led self regulatory body, Broadcast Content Complaints Council (BCCC), directed the channel ‘Star Vijay’ to apologise to Ranjitha Menon for telecast of its programme ‘Nadanthadhu Enna Kutramum Pinnaniyum’ on 21 March 2012. The channel has been asked to run a scroll featuring the apology every two hours on its channel for seven days starting September 9.

The order delivered on Monday said, “In the Council’s opinion, the channel is guilty of violating the complainant’s privacy and dignity and is consequently liable to apologise to the complainant, Ranjitha Menon. This Programme was found to be in violation of the self-regulatory guidelines of Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF). The channel has clearly undermined the basic rights of the complainant.”

Ranjitha Menon had earlier filed a writ petition before the HC of Karnataka against several respondents saying certain clippings on the programme ‘Nadanthadhu Enna- Kutramum Pinnaniyum’ telecast by STAR Vijay TV, depicting her in a compromising position with Swami Nithyananda.

As Star Vijay was an entertainment channel, the HC routed the complaint to BCCC by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting along with a CD of programme.

“The programme not only used her name liberally but also continued to reinforce it on viewers by using her public film photos, videos repeatedly which were totally unconnected. This conduct of the channel totally disregards the complainant’s reputation, honour and basic rights of existence,” said BCCC’s order.

The order said the channel did not exercise any caution, as the telecast was without confirming the authenticity. Even its contention that it was creating awareness, then where was the need of constantly make references to the complainant and show her completely unconnected videos from public life, the order questioned.

http://newindianexpress.com/nation/Channel-ordered-to-apologise-to-Ranjitha/2013/09/03/article1765099.ece

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

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist