Daily Archives: February 18, 2016

Husband got exparte divorce & happily re-married! 1st wife running around transferring first divorce case!

Excerpts / Key details
* Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife submitted that the respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2012 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu where she entered appearance and subsequently she was set exparte and an exparte order has been passed.
* Husband submitted that since petitioner/wife not filed application to set aside exparte order within time stipulated by law, he got married on 02.02.2015 and living with his wife !!!.
* After two years, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.78 of 2015 to set aside the exparte order passed on 29.04.2013 and the same was allowed on 15.07.2015 even without notice to the respondent/husband.

Now the Hon. Madras HC transfers the case to wife’s place of living, i.e. Salem … so the Hon court is pleased to order “… I am of the view that it is fit case for withdrawing the case in H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2012 from the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Salem….”


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :  27.01.2016

CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA

Tr.C.M.P.No.773 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015

I.Vimala Devi    .. Petitioner

Vs.

M.Ramesh    .. Respondent

Prayer:- Petition is filed under Section 24 of C.P.C., to withdraw the petition in H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2012 from the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu and to transfer the same to the Family Court, Salem.

For Petitioner     : Mr.S.Ramasundaram

For Respondent  : Mr.N.Manokaran

O R D E R

The petitioner/wife who is the respondent in H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu has come forward with this petition to transfer the same to the Family Court, Salem.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife submitted that the respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2012 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu where she entered appearance and subsequently she was set exparte and an exparte order has been passed. He would also submit that the petitioner/wife filed an application in I.A.No.78 of 2015 to set aside the exparte order and that has been allowed. He further submitted that the petitioner/wife is residing at Salem along with her five years old daughter and so, it is difficult for her to attend each and every hearing before the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu. Hence, she prayed for transfer the case in H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2012 from the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu to the file of the Family Court, Salem.

3.Resisting the same, the learned counsel for the respondent/husband submitted that the respondent filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The petitioner/wife entered appearance and subsequently she was set exparte and an exparte order has been passed on 29.04.2013. He would also submitted that since the petitioner/wife has not filed any application to set aside the exparte order within the time stipulated by law, he got married on 02.02.2015 and living with his wife. After two years, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.78 of 2015 to set aside the exparte order passed on 29.04.2013 and the same was allowed on 15.07.2015 even without notice to the respondent/husband. He would further submitted that this petition has been filed by the petitioner/wife only with a view to drag on the proceedings and she has not mentioned about the same in the present petition. He further submitted that the petitioner/wife has also given a complaint before the All Women Police Station on 28.04.2015 and even before the Police Station, she has not disclosed about the application in I.A.No.78 of 2015. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the transfer petition.

4.Considered the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the typed set of papers.

5.The respondent/husband filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2012 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Admittedly an exparte order has been passed on 29.04.2013. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner/wife filed an application in I.A.No.78 of 2015 to set aside the exparte order which was allowed on 15.07.2015. According to the learned counsel for the respondent/husband, no notice has been served in I.A.No.78 of 2015 and notice has been sent to the wrong address where previously both of them lived together and now only he came to know about the allowing of I.A.No.78 of 2015. It is further submitted that since the petitioner/wife has not filed any application to set aside the exparte order within the time stipulated by the Court, he got second marriage and his marriage is valid. Admittedly, H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2012 is pending before the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu and whether the marriage of the respondent with his second wife is valid or not cannot be gone into before this Court.

6.The only point to be decided is that whether it is fit case for ordering transfer? Admittedly, the petitioner/wife is residing within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Salem with her five years old daughter and furthermore, as per Section 19(iii-a) wherein it was stated that privilege has to be given to the wife to file a petition in the place where she resides. Since the petitioner/wife is residing within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, I am of the view that it is fit case for withdrawing the case in H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2012 from the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Salem. The Presiding Officer, Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu is directed to transmit all the records pertaining to H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2012 to the file of the Family Court, Salem within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7.The Transfer Miscellaneous Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, consequently miscellaneous petition is closed.

27.01.2016

Internet:Yes/No

Index:Yes/No

cse

To

1.The Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu.

2.The Family Court, Salem.

R.MALA,J.

cse

Tr.C.M.P.No.773 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 27.01.2016

US based NRI pays 50 Lakhs to quash 498a 506 case ! How many crores per day? how many per year?

As the multi billion dollar matrimonial and dowry case industry moves on, we see case after case, quash after quash for huge settlements. Here is a case where quash of 498a and mutual divorce is accepted for 50 lakhs !

Worse still, the money paid by the husband is called COMPENSATION as if he is the ONLY wrong doer and he has to compensate the woman !! In spite of this Sad state of marriages and matrimonial legislation in India, men are queuing up to get married as if there is NO tomorrow !!


BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 27.01.2016

CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.11911 of 2015 and 23086 of 2015

1. A.Al.Subramanian
2. S.Palaniappan … Petitioners/A2 & A3 in Crl.O.P.(MD)11911/2015

1. S.Muthukumar … Petitioner/A1 in Crl.O.P.(MD)23086/2015

-vs-

1. State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station (South) Madurai
(Crime No.18/2015) … 1st Respondent/ Complainant in both petitions

2. M.Vallikannu … 2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant in both petitions

Common Prayer: Petitions filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.18 of 2015 dated 11.06.2015 on the file of the 1st respondent police for offences under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) IPC and quash the same as illegal insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy

For R1 : Mrs.S.Prabha Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

:C O M M O N O R D E R

 

  1. These petitions have been filed seeking to quash the case registered in Crime No.18 of 2014 on the file of the 1st respondent police, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties.
  2. It is seen that the case in Crime No.18 of 2014 for the alleged offences under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) IPC, has been registered against the petitioners / Accused. On 02.07.2015, this Court referred the matter in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11911 of 2015, filed by the in-laws of the defacto complainant to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Court. Since the husband of the defacto complainant has filed a separate petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23086 of 2015 seeking to quash the FIR, the same has been clubbed together with Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11911 of 2015 for hearing. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  3. When these matters are taken up for hearing, the petitioners/A2 & A3 in Crl.O.P.(MD) 11911 of 2015 and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent Police. It was represented by the 1st petitioner/A2 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11911 of 2015 that since his son / the petitioner (A1) in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23086 of 2015 is in United States of America, he has executed a General Power of Attorney in his favour to represent the case before this Court and a xerox copy of the said Power of Attorney dated 27.10.2015 has been produced before this Court. As per the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, a Power of Attorney is entitled to appear on behalf of the Principal, present documents and produce materials before the Court.
  4. It is seen from the Mediation Report dated 19.11.2015 that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties in the Mediation Centre and the terms of settlement arrived at between them before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, attached to this Court read as under:
    • “…Both sides, out of their own volition and without any pressure or coercion from any side have agreed as follows:
    • 1.Both parties have agreed to settle the dispute amicably. The 1st petitioner (2nd accused), Son of Thiru.S.Muthukumar (1st accused) and defacto- complainant agrees to live with their life separately.
    • 2.The defacto-complainant accepts to withdraw the complaint given against the petitioners before the All Women Police Station (South), Madurai in Cr.No.18 of 2015.
    • 3.The 1st petitioner (2nd accused) Son of Thiru.S.Muthukumar (1st accused) accepts to pay the compensation amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) to the defacto-complainant. Out of Rs.50,00,000/-, the petitioner has initially paid today (19.11.2015), Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the defacto complainant before the Mediator. At the time of filing the mutual divorce before the Family Court, Madurai, the petitioner agreed that he would pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) and the rest of the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs only) would be paid after six months i.e. both parties appearing for giving evidence before the Family Court, Madurai…”
  5. The defacto complainant / 2nd respondent has stated that she has received the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as per the settlement.
  6. In addition, the parties have also filed a common joint memo of compromise dated 20.11.2015 duly stating that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement by way of compromise among themselves, the second respondent has agreed to withdraw the above case in Crime No.18 of 2015 pending on the file of the first respondent.
  7. Earlier, this Court also entertained such request in similarly placed matters in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.406, 530 and 864 of 2016 (Prabu and others vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police and others), decided on 27.01.2016, by considering various decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard in several cases, namely, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675], Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI [(2008) 9 SCC 677], Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish and others [(2015) 8 SCC 307] and observed as under: “….11. If the offences against women and children and the IPC offences falling under the categories, like, murder, attempt to murder, offence against unsound mind, rape, bribe, fabrication of documents, false evidence, robbery, dacoity, abduction, kidnapping, minor girl rape, idol theft, preventing a public servant from discharging of his/her duty, outrage of woman modesty, counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes, etc., are allowed to be compounded, it will surely have serious repercussion on the society, as the above mentioned list is only illustrative and not exhaustive…” Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences clubbed with Special Enactment, like Arms Act, the Prevention of Corruption Act, TNPPDL Act, TNPID Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity, etc., cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. As held by the Apex Court, insofar the offences arising out of matrimonial dispute, relating to dowry or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature, are concerned, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, in case the parties resolve their entire disputes amicably among themselves. This Court feels that there cannot be any compromise in respect of the heinous and serious offences of mental depravity and in that case, the Court should be very slow in accepting the compromise. If the compromise is entertained mechanically by the Court, the accused will have the upper hand. The jurisdiction of this Court may not be allowed to be exploited by the accused, who can well afford to wait for a logical conclusion. The antecedents of the accused have also to be taken into consideration before accepting the memo of compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law
  8. Taking note of the judgments referred to supra, considering the nature of allegations and in view of the mediation report dated 19.11.2015 and the common joint memo of compromise dated 20.11.2015, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matters pending. Therefore, the entire proceedings in Crime No.18 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent in respect of the petitioners/accused alone, are hereby quashed. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The Mediation Report dated 19.11.2015 and the common joint compromise memo dated 20.11.2015 shall form part of this common order. However, it is made clear that the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23086 of 2015 shall be present before the concerned Court as and when his presence is absolutely necessary. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

 

To

  1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (South) Madurai
  2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. .

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

 

Even married daughters eligible 4 compassionate job’s on father’s death, with NOC from other heirs

The Hon Madras HC has ordered that Even married daughters  eligible 4  compassionate job’s on  father’s death, with  NOC from other heirs

We applaud this far reaching and compassionate order by the HC. IF the government is kind enough to consider un married and married daughters on the same footing and provide them benefits from the father’s side, why is that the HUSBAND ALONE is asked to pay alimony in the same country / court !! ?


BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 29.01.2016

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN         

W.P(MD)No.1985 of 2016

M.Hemakarthiga                … Petitioner      

Vs.

1)The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
TANGEDCO,
144, Anna salai,
Chennai.

2)The Superintending Engineer,
Virudhunagar Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO,
Virudhunagar-626 001.         … Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records
relating  to the order passed  by the 2nd respondent in Letter No.
019785/NB2/UDAVI.2/KO.VARISU   VELAI/2015  dated 11.11.2015 quash the same
and consequently direct  the respondents to appoint the petitioner on
compassionate  ground based on her qualification within time limit stipulated
by this Hon’ble court.

!For Petitioner         : Mr.A.Sivaji
^For Respondents                : Mr.G.Kasinathadurai

:O R D E R

The father of the petitioner was working as a Foreman under the second respondent. He died on 28.10.2014, while in service, leaving his wife, two daughters and mother as legal heirs. The petitioner who is one of the daughters of the deceased employee, got married prior to the death of the employee.

2.After getting No Objection Certificate from the other legal heirs, when the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment, the said request was rejected by the second respondent by the impugned order dated 11.11.2015 on the sole ground that the petitioner is a married daughter and hence she is not entitled to compassionate appointment.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

3.This writ petition is filed against the aforesaid order dated 11.11.2015 of the second respondent and to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

4.Heard both sides.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents are not correct in relying on B.P (Ch)No.330, Administrative Branch, dated 02.11.1993, to deny compassionate appointment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the TANGEDCO issued B.P.No.13, Administrative Branch dated 08.08.2011 which is the latest one and the same is based on G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010. It is also submitted that the said TANGEDCO always follows the scheme relating to compassionate appointment that is applicable to the Government servant and he has brought to my notice that B.P (Ch)No.330, Administrative Branch, dated 02.11.1993 is based on G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993 and B.P.No.13, Administrative Branch dated 08.08.2011 is based on G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.96, Labour and Employment Department, dated 18.06.2012 after passing G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010. He has also submitted that this Court considered the aforesaid Government Orders in W.P.No.20437 of 2015 dated 09.07.2015 [A.Vimala V. The Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department] and as per the said order, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment. The learned counsel has submitted that there is no male issue to the deceased employee and he had left behind his wife, two daughters and mother as legal heirs.

7.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has sought to sustain the impugned order placing reliance on B.P (Ch)No.330, Administrative Branch, dated 02.11.1993.

8.I have considered the submissions made by either side.

9.It is useful to extract clause 1(iii) of B.P (Ch)No.330, Administrative Branch, dated 02.11.1993.

”Only the dependants viz. Wife/Husband/Son/Unmarried daughter are eligible for appointment married daughter deserted by her husband/widowed or divorced daughter living with the family may be considered for employment assistance if the widow of the deceased employee gives her consent in writing.”

10.The aforesaid Board Proceedings is based on G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993. As per the scheme of compassionate appointment as provided in B.P.330, married daughter will not come under the zone of consideration.

11.But the scheme of compassionate appointment as provided under G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993 was altered by issuing G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010 and G.O.Ms.No.96, Labour and Employment Department, dated 18.06.2012 as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

12.At this juncture, it is useful to trace the history relating to compassionate appointment and in fact I have traced the same in my order dated 09.07.2015 in W.P.No.20437 of 2015 [A.Vimala V. The Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department], wherein, I have quashed the G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 18.06.2012, insofar as fixing the cut off date for providing compassionate appointment to the married daughter as 29.11.2001. It is useful to extract the following paragraphs in the said order dated 09.07.2015 which read as follow :

?9. I have considered the entire issue including the validity of G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010 in detail in my order dated 13.04.2015 in W.P.No.10565 of 2015 (R.GOVINDAMMAL VS. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE AND NUTRITIOUS MEAL PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AND OTHERS) and held that G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010 declining to provide compassionate appointment to married daughter, if she got married before making application for compassionate appointment after the death of her father/mother, who was a Government servant, is violative of the provisions of the Constitution. In that order, I have also considered the judgments of this Court reported in G.GIRIJA VS. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PANCHAYATS), KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT [2008 (5) CTC 686] and KRISHNAVENI VS. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KADAMPARAI ELECTRICITY GENERATION BLOCK, COIMBATORE DISTRICT [2013 (8) MLJ 684], which are referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. In Govindammal’s case (cited supra), I traced the scheme of compassionate appointment in government service with regard to the married daughters. In the original scheme providing compassionate appointment in G.O.Ms.No.560 Labour and Employment Department, dated 03.08.1977, there is a total deprivation for married daughters to seek compassionate appointment. While married sons are eligible to make compassionate appointment, married daughters are ineligible to make application for compassionate appointment.

11. Later, the Government made certain improvements to G.O.Ms.No.560 by issuing G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993 after 16 years of the issuance of the first Government Order viz., G.O.Ms.No.560.

12. G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993 provided compassionate appointment to married daughters of government servant, if the daughter was abandoned by her husband or a divorcee or a widow i.e., G.O.Ms.No.155 included certain categories of married daughters to claim compassionate appointment. However, discriminatory treatment was not removed in total, that is, while marriage is not a pre-condition prescribed in the matter of providing compassionate appointment to sons of a deceased government servant, the same was placed as a condition in the case of daughters.

13. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010 was issued making further improvements in the Scheme. As per G.O.Ms.No.165, the married daughter could also claim compassionate appointment, if she was unmarried at the time of making application. In the said Government Order, it is stated that taking into account the decisions of this Court, such relaxation was granted in providing compassionate appointment to the married daughters, who got married subsequent to the death of the Government Servant and more particularly after making application for compassionate appointment, i.e, G.O.Ms.No.165 also did not render full justice to women. Still, discriminatory treatment was meted out to women. While no such condition is prescribed in the case of a son, that the son shall be unmarried at the time of making application after the death of the deceased government servant, a condition is prescribed in the case of daughter that she shall be unmarried at the time of making application for compassionate appointment.

14. Now a further improvement is made in the scheme providing compassionate appointment by issuing G.O.Ms.No.96, Labour and Employment Department, dated 18.06.2012. It is useful to extract the entire Government Order, namely, G.O.Ms.No.96:-“

1. அரசாணை (நிலை) எண்,212.

பணியாளர் மற்றும் நிர்வாகச் சீர்திருத்தத் துறை.

நாள்,29,11,2001,

2, அரசு கடிதம் எண்,6777,,0ப்பி,,2001-1.

பணியாளர் மற்றும் நிர்வாகச் சீர்திருத்தத் துறை.

நாள்,19,12,2001,

3,அரசாணை (நிலை) எண்,16

பணியாளர் மற்றும் நிர்வாகச் சீர்திருத்தத் துறை.

நாள்,21,02,2006,

4,அரசாணை (நிலை) எண்,165

தொழிலாளர் மற்றும் வேலைவாய்ப்புத்துறை.

நாள்,3,008,201,0

ஆணை

மேலே நான்கில் படிக்கப்பட்ட அரசாணையில். பணியிடை மரணமடைந்த அரசு ஊழியரின் நெருங்கிய உறவினர்கள் (நேரடி வாரிசுகள்) என்று குறிப்பிடப்பட்டுள்ள நபர்களுள் திருமணமாகாத மகள் என்ற நிலையில். பணிநியமனம் கோரி விண்ணப்பம் அளித்து. பணி நியமனம் வழங்கப்படுவதற்கு முன்பே திருமணம் செய்து கொண்டவர்கள். கருணை அடிப்படையிலான பணி நியமனத்திற்கு இதர தகுதிகளை நிறைவு செய்யும் பட்சத்தில் அவர்களுக்கும் பணி நியமனம் வழங்கிட கீழ்கண்ட நிபந்தனைகளுக்குட்பட்டு ஆணைகள் வெளியிடப்பட்டுள்ளன,

1) திருமணமாகாத நிலையில் உள்ள பெண்களுக்கு. அக்குடும்பத்தில் உள்ள பிற வாரிசுதாரர்கள் அளித்த மறுப்பின்மைச் சான்றிதழ் திருமணமான பின். அப்பெண்ணுக்கு பணி அளிக்கப்படும்போது மீண்டும் மற்ற வாரிசுதாரர்களால் மறுப்பின்மைச் சான்றிதழஞ் வழங்கப்பட வேண்டும், http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

2) திருமணம் செய்து கொண்ட பின்னர் பணி வாய்ப்பு பெறும் தனியர். தனது பெற்றோரின் குடும்பத்திற்கு உதவிபுரியும் வகையில் உறுதி ஆவணம் வழங்கப்பட வேண்டும்,

3)கருணை அடிப்படையில் பணிவாய்ப்பு கோரியுள்ள திருமணமாகாத பெண்ணைத் திருமணம் செய்து கொள்ளவிருக்கும் நபர். எதிர் காலத்தில் அவரால் அவரது பெற்றோருக்குச் செய்யும் உதவிக்கு மறுப்பு ஏதும் ஏற்படுத்த மாட்டேன் என்று உறுதிமொழயை அளிக்க வேண்டும், மேற்படி அரசாணை. அது வெளியிடப்பட்ட நாளிலிருந்து நடைமுறைப்படுத்தப்பட்டது, 2, மேலே ஒன்றில் படிக்கப்பட்ட அரசாணை மு்லம் நேரடி பணிநியமன தடையாணை பிறப்பித்த நாளான. அதாவது 29,11,2001-க்கு முன்னர் கருணை அடிப்படையிலான பணி நியமனம் கோரி விண்ணப்பம் அளித்து. 29,11,2001-க்கு பின்னர் திருமணம் செய்துகொண்ட பெண் வாரிசுதாரர்களுக்கு அவர்கள் இதர தகுதிகளை நிறைவு செய்யும் பட்சத்தில். கருணை அடிப்படையில் பணி நியமனம் வழங்கலாமா என்பது குறித்து தெளிவுரைகள் வழங்குமாறு வணிகவாp ஆணையர் அரசிடம் கோரியிருந்தார், 3, இந்நேர்வினை கவனமாக ஆய்வு செய்த அரசு 29,11,2001-க்கு முன்னர் கருணை அடிப்படையிலான பணி நியமனம் கோரி விண்ணப்பம் அளித்து 29,11,2001-க்கு பின்னர் திருமணம் செய்துகொண்ட பெண் வாhpரிசுதாரர்களுக்கு அவர்கள் இதர தகுதிகளை நிறைவு செய்யும் பட்சத்தில். கருணை அடிப்படையில் பணி நியமனம் வழங்கலாம் என்று முடிவு செய்துள்ளது,

4.அதன்படி. 29,11,2001-க்கு பின்னர் திருமணம் செய்துகொண்ட பெண் வாhpசுதாரர்களுக்கு அவர்கள் இதர தகுதிகளை நிறைவு செய்யும் பட்சத்தில். கருணை அடிப்படையில் பணி நியமனம் வழங்கலாம் என்று அரசு ஆணையிடுகிறது, எனினும். 29,11,2001-ற்கு முன்னர் திருமணம் செய்துக் கொண்ட பெண் வாரிசுதாரர்களுக்கு இவ்வரசாணை பொருந்தாது என்றும் அரசு ஆணையிடுகிறது,

15. In my considered view, this Government order also does not put an end to the discriminatory treatment meted out to the daughters in the matter of providing compassionate appointment. Even as per this Government Order, marriage is a bar for a daughter, if she got married prior to 29.11.2001. The daughters, who got married after 29.11.2001 are alone entitled to seek compassionate appointment based on the death of her father/mother, who was a government servant. There is no explicit reason given as to why the cut-off date was fixed as 29.11.2001.

16. The reference column of G.O.Ms.No.96 refers to G.O.Ms.No.212 P & AR Department, dated 29.11.2001. That Government Order, namely G.O.212, is relating to imposition of ban on recruitment in Government service. Hence, I fail to understand as to how the date viz., 29.11.2001 has any nexus to the object of the scheme providing compassionate appointment to the married daughters. Hence, I have no hesitation to declare that the cut-off date fixed in G.O.Ms.No.96 as 29.11.2001 is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. By such declaration and by quashing paragraphs 3 and 4 of the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.96 in so far as fixing 29.11.2001 as the cut-off date, the discrimination meted out to married daughters will be totallly wiped out. Accordingly, paragraphs 3 and 4 of G.O.Ms.No.96 Labour and Employment Department, dated 18.06.2012 fixing cut-off date as 29.11.2001 are quashed.

17. In fact, the third respondent passed the impugned order without any application of mind and also in violation of G.O.Ms.No.96 dated 18.06.2012. The daughters, who got married after 29.11.2001, are entitled to seek compassionate appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.96. In the impugned order, the third respondent has mentioned the date of marriage of the petitioner as 01.05.2002. If that be so, the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment even as per G.O.Ms.No.96. In fact the date of marriage is erroneously mentioned in the impugned order as 01.05.2002, whereas, the date of marriage is 19.02.1999. Since the marriage of the petitioner took place on 19.02.1999, which is prior to the cut-off date of 29.11.2001 as fixed in the G.O.Ms.No.96, the impugned order declined to provide compassionate appointment, based on G.O.Ms.No.96.

18. Since I have quashed the fixation of 29.11.2001 as cut-off date for married daughters to claim compassionate appointment , the impugned order, dated 20.03.2013 is also set aside and a direction is issued to the third respondent to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the the date of receipt of a copy of this order.?

13.From the above said judgment, it is clear that this Court held in categorical terms that the Government cannot deny compassionate appointment to the daughter of the deceased Government servant on the ground of marriage and quashed the Government Orders denying compassionate appointments to the married daughters. It is relevant to note that the deceased employee had left behind his wife, his two daughters and mother and he had no male issues.

14.In fact, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, B.P.No.13, Administrative Branch dated 08.08.2011 is based on G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010. This G.O provides for compassionate appointment to married daughters also. However, the said G.O places a restriction that the daughter of the deceased employee should not have got married at the time when she is making application for compassionate appointment and the marriage thereafter could not be a bar to provide compassionate appointment. This portion was quashed by this Court and the same is dealt with in the judgment that is extracted above.

15.In view of the same and also taking into account the aforesaid judgment, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, without reference to marriage, if she is otherwise eligible. Such exercise shall be undertaken within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.

To

1)The Chief Engineer (Personnel), TANGEDCO, 144, Anna salai, Chennai.

2)The Superintending Engineer, Virudhunagar Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Virudhunagar-626 001. .

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

Matri cases filed 5 YEARS ago haven’t moved a bit ! Husband files transfer petition to wife’s place ! Madras HC

India is a strange land where youth spend “date” after “date” in court after having been told that “dating” is against social norms !!

Here is a case where wife and husband have instituted matrimonial cases in family court circa 2011 (cases are numbered 2011). Nothing seems to have moved in these cases and now husband approaches Madras HC seeking transfer to wife’s jurisdiction which the Hon HC is pleased to grant !!


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.02.2016

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

TR.C.M.P.No.318 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015

Dr.Vivekananth Kanaganayagam … Petitioner

Vs.

Geetha Kuppusamy … Respondent

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code praying to withdraw the proceedings in HMOP No.129 of 2011 file by this petitioner pending on the file of Sub Court at Pollachi and transfer the same to the file of Hon’ble Principal Family court, Coimbatore to be tried along with HMOP No.1168 of 2011 pending before the Principal Family Court, Coimbatore.

For Petitioner : Dr.C.Ravichandran

ORDER

 

  1. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is his wife. The respondent filed HMOP No.1168/2011 on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore, which is now pending on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore, for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner (husband) filed HMOP No.129/2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Pollachi for divorce. Now the petitioner (husband) has approached this court with the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition for transfer of his HMOP, namely HMOP No.129/2011 from Sub Court, Pollachi to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore for being tried along with HMOP No.1168/2011 filed by the respondent (wife) for restitution of conjugal rights. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com.
  2. As directed by this court, notice was served on the respondent and the respondent’s name finds a place in the cause list. Despite the fact that the respondent was served with notice and her name appears in the cause list, none appears on her behalf. Hence this court deems it appropriate to hear the submissions to be made on behalf of the petitioner and pass orders. Accordingly, the arguments advanced by Dr.C.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner are heard. The Transfer CMP, supporting affidavit and the connected papers produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.
  3. It is a fact which can be ascertained from the particulars found in the typed set of papers that the HMOP No.129/2011 filed by the husband for divorce was filed earlier in point of time and the petition, namely HMOP No.1168/2011 for restitution of conjugal rights, came to be filed by the wife subsequently. Even then the petitioner showing fair play wants his case instituted on the file of the Sub Court, Pollachi, to be transferred to the court of the choice of the respondent, namely the court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore, in which her HMOP is pending. This court is not in a position to see any lack of bona fide or malafide on the part of the petitioner in seeking the transfer of the divorce OP filed by him to the Family Court, Coimbatore to be tried along with petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by his wife. The respondent also has not chosen to enter appearance to oppose this petition. Hence this court deems it appropriate to allow the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition.
  4. Accordingly, the transfer civil miscellaneous petition is allowed. HMOP No.129/2011 pending on the file of Sub Court, Pollachi is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore to be tried jointly with HMOP No.1168/2011 filed by the respondent (wife). The Principal Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore, shall make every endeavour to dispose of the HMOPs as early as possible, in any event, within six months from the date of receipt of records of the transferred case, namely HMOP No.129/2011 from Sub Court, Pollachi. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com.

 

02.02.2016

Index :Yes/No

Internet:Yes/No

gpa

To

1.The Principal Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore
2.The Sub Judge, Pollachi

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR,J.

gpa

TR.C.M.P.No.318 of 2015

02.02.2016

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