Monthly Archives: November 2015

men have stopped insuring themselves and insurance penetration falls to decade low in India

men have stopped insuring themselves as they are worried about fake 498A, fake DV, fake maintenance claims and even instances of wife killing husband to get their insurance money …. Next to be hit will be house construction and savings

Advertisements

Wife gets 2 crores exparte order on US NRI & tries to attach, sell his house ! He runs to HC for setaside

Wife gets 2 crores exparte order on US NRI husband! Promptly she files execution petition to attach and sell his house / property in USA !! Husband tries to set aside exparte at the family court, fails at family court Chennai and then runs 2 Madras HC for setaside after 301 days!

* Wife files OP before Family Court Chennai against US NRI husband for divorce & 2 crores permanent alimony.
* Husband is set exparte. Exparte order was passed on 09.11.2012 directing him to pay Rs.2 crores permanent alumini
* Based on the order, wife lays execution petition for attachment and sale of property in Illinois, USA !!
* Husband files I.A.No.3159 of 2013 to condone the delay of 301 days in filing a petition to set aside the exparte order
* He says notice in original OP was served when he came to India for visiting minor child Magen.
* Since other two children were in USA, he could not stay in India till the hearing of OP and he left India.
* When he came again on 25.11.2013, he was informed that an exparte order was passed against him on 29.12.2012 and seeks condoning 301 days delay
* The Family Court dismisses husband’s petition.

* So Husband runs to Madras HC who allows him to contest the case
* Wife contests that petition also. She claims husband is NOT respecting Indian courts !!
* The Hon HC orders “….Considering the nature of prayer sought for in the OP and the length of delay, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner should be given opportunity to contest the case…..

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Date : 27.01.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

C.R.P(NPD)No.138 of 2015

Peter Sukumar Prakash .. Petitioner / Respondent

Vs

Anna Shobna Pramila .. Respondent / Petitioner

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under 115 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the order dated 09.10.2014 passed in I.A.No.3159 of 2013 in OP No.624 of 2012.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.L.Joseph for M/s.Chennai Law Associates

For Respondent : Mr.T.Mohan for M/s.Shaik Mehrunisa

O R D E R

This revision arises out of the order dated 29.12.2012 passed by the Principal Family Court, Chennai in I.A.No.3159 of 2013 in FCOP No.624 of 2012.

2. The respondent filed OP No.624 of 2013 before the Family Court, Chennai against the petitioner praying for dissolution of the marriage held on 17.06.1996 and for a direction directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.2 crores as permanent alimony. The petitioner was set exparte and an exparte order was passed on 09.11.2012 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2 crores as permanent alumini. Based on the order, the respondent laid an execution petition in EP No.41 of 2013 for attachment and sale of property situated in 907, Pimpernel court, Naperville, Illinois, USA.

3. The petitioner filed I.A.No.3159 of 2013 to condone the delay of 301 days in filing a petition to set aside the exparte order stating that the notice in the OP was served on him when he came to India for visiting the minor child Magen Grace Prakash. Since the other two children were in USA, he could not stay in India till the hearing of OP and he left India. When he came again on 2 5.11.2013, he was informed that an exparte order was passed against him on 29.12.2012. The petition was resisted by the respondent by filing a detailed counter. The Family Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the order, the present revision is filed. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

4. Mr.L.Joseph, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Judge has dismissed the application adopting hyper technical approach instead of deciding the application on merits; that the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent pertain to valuable human rights and therefore he should be given opportunity to contest the case. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had no dishonest or improper intention in failing to appear before the court on the date of hearing as he was in USA and he could not come down to India as he was taking care of his two children. So the learned Judge should have adopted more pragmatic and practical approach while considering the application for condonation of delay.

5. Per contra, Mr.Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has served notice on the petitioner on 17.09.2012 stating that the case is posted for hearing on 09.11.2012. He had knowledge about the petition filed by the respondent and therefore the contention of the petitioner that he came to know about the exparte decree only on 25.11.2013 is falase. It is further submitted that when the proceeding is pending in the Family Court, Chennai, the petitioner had moved US Court and obtained orders behind the back of the respondent and moreover he has not shown respect to the courts in India. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay of 301 days and the family court has rightly dismissed the application which does not warrant interference by this court.

6. It is not in dispute that the respondent had filed the OP for divorce and also claiming permanent alimony of Rs.2 crores. It is true that the petitioner had received notice on 17.09.2012 and he was aware of the pendency of the case before the family court. It is further stated by the petitioner that at the time when the case was posted for hearing, his two children were in USA and therefore he had to move to take care of them. There is no material to show that the petitioner had adopted dilatory tactics to prolong the litigation and inaction of the petitioner is deliberate.

7. Considering the nature of prayer sought for in the OP and the length of delay, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner should be given opportunity to contest the case. However, considering the inconvenience caused to the respondent, the delay is condoned on payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such compliance, the family court shall dispose of the original petition, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six months thereon.

8. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

27.01.2015

Index:Yes/No

Internet:Yes/No

rgr

To The Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.

K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J

rgr

Order in C.R.P(NPD)No.138 of 2015 27.01.2015

*****************************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 or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. 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 and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . 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 with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

NRI hubby fights 10 CRORE exparte & divorce order ! Madras HC directs Famly court number & hear case

NRI hubby fights 10 CRORE exparte & divorce order ! Madras HC directs Famly court number & hear his IA for set aside and condonation of delay in filing petitions

* wife filed for divorce & claims divorce and 30 CRORES alimony … JUST 30 crores πŸ™‚
* family court grants Ex parte divorce with 10 CRORES alimony … Repeat 10 crores , just in case you wonder If I made a typo !! πŸ™‚
* After winning the exparte order, wife files for execution !! i.e. to collect the 10 crores !!
* The husband, a US based NRI, runs to family court with a set aside IA . He also files condonation of delay of 34 days !
* Family court refuses to number or consider husband’s IAs
* Husband moves HC seeking directions / condonation
* HC orders First addl. family court Chennai to number applications and hear the same
β€œβ€¦.The respondent after obtaining an ex parte order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10 Crores towards permanent alimony filed Execution Petition to recover the money. …..

….. The First Additional Family Court, Chennai is directed to number the applications filed by the petitioner in I.A.Sr.Nos.1943 and 1944 of 2015 in H.M.O.P.No.4028 of 2013, if the same is otherwise in order and without insisting personal appearance of the petitioner or power agent. ….”

 

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.09.2015

CORAM; THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

C.R.P.(PD). No.2131 of 2015
and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2015

Ashwant Akula Venkatram ..Petitioner

Vs

Divya Rayapati ..Respondent

Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for a direction to dispose of Interlocutory applications in I.A.Sr.Nos.1943 and 1944 of 2015 in O.P.No.4028 of 2013 on the file of I Additional Family Court, Chennai.

**********************************************************************************
For Petitioner : Mrs. Chitra Sampath Senior Counsel for Mr.M.A. Gouthaman
For Respondents : Mr.K. Doraisami Senior Counsel for Mrs. Sudharsana Sundar
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
***********

ORDER

The delay on the part of the First Additional Family Court at Chennai to number the applications filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex parte decree and the related condone delay petition, made the respondent in H.M.O.P.No.4028 of 2013 to file this Civil Revision Petition invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The facts:

2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The marriage was solemnized on 25 November 2012. The respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.4028 of 2013 before the Family Court, Chennai praying for a decree of declaration that the marriage is null and void. The respondent made a claim for payment of a sum of Rs.30 Crores towards permanent alimony.

3. Since the petitioner failed to contest the mater, the original petition was allowed by order dated 17 December 2014. The learned First Additional Judge dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce. The petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.10 Crores towards permanent alimony. The petitioner thereafter filed I.A.Sr.Nos.1943 of 2015 to condone the delay of 34 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte order. Similarly, he filed I.A.Sr.No.1944 of 2015 to set aside the ex parte order. The applications were not taken up for consideration by the trial Court and the same resulted in filing this Civil Revision Petition.

4.This Court earlier passed an order on 4 June 2015 injuncting the respondent from re-marrying during the currency of the application to set aside the ex parte order.

Submissions:

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial Judge without considering the background facts and the maintainability of the petition for declaration, passed an order dissolving the marriage besides directing the petitioner to pay substantial amount of Rs.10 Crores towards permanent alimony. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner is settled at California in connection with his employment. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte order immediately on receipt of information. The trial Court without numbering the applications is making attempt to execute the order in O.P.No.4028 of 2013. The learned Senior Counsel therefore wanted this Court to direct the trial Court to number the applications and to maintain status quo in the meantime.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent contended that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to contest the proceedings in O.P.No.4028 of 2013. He was sitting on the fence. The petitioner watched the proceedings from outside deliberately and abstained from attending the Family Court. The trial Court was therefore perfectly correct in passing the ex parte order of divorce and permanent alimony. The learned Senior Counsel contended that no direction could be issued to the trial Court to number the applications in view of the fact that the petitioner failed to take steps to register the applications in spite of filing the Civil Revision Petition as early as on 4 June 2015. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Analysis and conclusion:

7. The petitioner seeks a direction to the First Additional Family Court, Chennai to dispose of the interlocutory applications in I.A.Sr.Nos.1943 and 1944 of 2015 on merits. The applications are pending on the file of the trial Court. The respondent after obtaining an ex parte order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10 Crores towards permanent alimony filed Execution Petition to recover the money. The petitioner is therefore correct in his submission that his applications for setting aside the ex parte order and the related condone delay petition should be heard at the first instance.

8. There is no need to consider the relative merits of the case pleaded by the parties in view of the limited relief prayed for by the petitioner.

9. The First Additional Family Court, Chennai is directed to number the applications filed by the petitioner in I.A.Sr.Nos.1943 and 1944 of 2015 in H.M.O.P.No.4028 of 2013, if the same is otherwise in order and without insisting personal appearance of the petitioner or power agent. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of two days from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order.

10. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed. No costs.

25.09.2015

Index:Yes/No

Note:- Issue on 25.9.2015 Tr/ To I Additional Family Court Chennai.

K.K.SASIDHARAN, J

Tr C.R.P.(PD). No.2131 of 2015 25.09.2015

*****************************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 or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. 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 and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . 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 with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

AB in Dowry, 306 case as accused is 52 yrs old diabetic & other accused already quashed. Guj. HC

“…regarding the FIR, … vide order dated 6.2.2015 quashed and set aside the FIR against other co- accused. ….”

“…that present applicant is aged about 52 years and suffering from diabetes and other ailments. ….”

“…Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. ….”

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 19319 of 2015

****************************************************************
RANJANBEN MANILAL BHANDARI….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)
****************************************************************
Appearance:
MR ADIL R MIRZA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
****************************************************************

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED

Date : 30/10/2015

ORAL ORDER

1. This is an application for anticipatory bail Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the FIR bearing CR No. I – 85 of 2009 registered with Umargam Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent lady and has not committed any alleged offence. He submitted that regarding the FIR, one application being Criminal Misc. Application No.4201 of 2010 was filed before this Court and this Court vide order dated 6.2.2015 quashed and set aside the FIR against other co- accused. He submitted that against present applicant, the FIR was not quashed, as said applicant was not pressed at that time. He also submitted that present applicant is aged about 52 years and suffering from diabetes and other ailments. He therefore, submitted that the present applicant may kindly be granted anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. Heard learned APP for the respondent State. He has vehemently opposed the present application and submitted that no discretionary relief is required to be exercised in favour of the present applicant.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., reported in (1980)2 SCC 565.

5. Learned counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.

6. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being C.R.No.I- 85 of 2009 registered with Umargan Police Station, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands only) with one surety of like amount, on the following conditions that she shall:

[a] cooperate with the investigation and make herself available for interrogation whenever and wherever required.

[b] shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 4.11.2015 at 11.00 AM [c] shall not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

[d] at the time of execution of bond, furnish her residential address to the investigating officer and the Court concerned and shall not change the residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders;

[e] not leave State of Gujarat without the permission of the Court and, if holding a passport, she shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week;

[f] not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

7. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

8. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.

9. Rule is made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

(Z.K.SAIYED, J.)

YNVYAS

*****************************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 or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. 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 and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . 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 with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

Smart NRI does NOT return 2 India aftr 498a. Gets case quashed aftr divorce &wife’s remarriage! GujHC

“…It appears that although charge-sheet was filed, yet the applicant could not be tried as he is still in U.K. On the other hand, the other co-accused came to be tried by the Court below and were acquitted of all the charges. I am told that against such order of acquittal the State preferred an acquittal appeal, which also came to be dismissed. Mr. Ansari has brought to my notice that the respondent No.2 had filed a petition for divorce in the Court of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot and the Court has passed a decree to dissolve the marriage. ….”

Finally the court quashes this 498A also !!

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 14056 of 2014

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
**********************************************************
VIMALKUMAR RAJNIKANT THAKKAR….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)
**********************************************************
Appearance:
MR AFTABHUSEN ANSARI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
**********************************************************

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 30/10/2015

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the first information report registered as C.R. No.I- 306 of 2008 with the City Police Station, Vadodara for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 406, 420, 504, 506(2) read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The respondent No.2, original first informant, although served with the notice of rule issued by this Court, has chosen not to appear and oppose this petition either in person or through an advocate.

3. On 5th November, 2014, the following order was passed by this Court;

“Mr. Ansari, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner – original accused, submits that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized on 14.12.2007 with the respondent No.2 at Rajkot. Thereafter, on 31.12.2007, the applicant left for U.K. In the year 2008, the respondent No.2 joined the applicant herein at U.K. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 came back to India and lodged the first information report against the applicant herein and his parents.

It appears that although charge-sheet was filed, yet the applicant could not be tried as he is still in U.K. On the other hand, the other co-accused came to be tried by the Court below and were acquitted of all the charges. I am told that against such order of acquittal the State preferred an acquittal appeal, which also came to be dismissed. Mr. Ansari has brought to my notice that the respondent No.2 had filed a petition for divorce in the Court of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot and the Court has passed a decree to dissolve the marriage. According to Mr. Ansari, in wake of all these developments, probably the respondent No.2 may not be interested to pursue further with the complaint so far as the applicant is concerned.

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 27.11.2014. Mr. Shah, the learned APP waives service of notice for and on behalf of the State of Gujarat. The respondent No.2 be served directly through the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station. Direct service permitted.”

4. It appears that all other family members of the husband were tried and acquitted by the trial court. The State of Gujarat preferred an acquittal appeal which was also ordered to be dismissed by this Court. I am told that the marriage has also been dissolved by a decree passed by the Civil Court. I am told that the respondent No.2 has got married with another person. This is probably the reason why she is now not interested in the matter. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

5. Even otherwise, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of cruelty punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code are spelt out. The marriage was solemnized on 14th December, 2007. On 31st December, 2007, the applicant left for U.K. In the year 2008, the respondent No.2 joined the applicant at U.K. and on 24th December, 2008, the first information report was lodged. There is hardly any period which they spent as husband and wife. The case seems to be one of marital maladjustment.

6. In the result, this application is allowed. The further proceedings of the first information report registered as C.R. No.I-306 of 2008 with the City Police Station, Vadodara are hereby ordered to be quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

Direct service is permitted.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)

Vahid

*****************************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 or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. 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 and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . 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 with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************