Monthly Archives: October 2017

Married woman can live with her lover: Rajasthan HIGH court !!!

Married woman can live with her lover: court

“It is improper to pass an order to hand over any unwilling married woman to her husband with whom she does not want to stay,” says Rajasthan High Court. KS Tomar reports.

Updated: Apr 19, 2007 03:43 IST

By KS Tomar, None

Can a married woman lawfully live with her lover against the will of her husband? The Rajasthan High Court says yes.

In a judgment on Wednesday, the court allowed a married woman, Manju, to live with her lover, Suresh. “It is improper to pass an order to hand over any unwilling married woman to her husband with whom she does not want to stay,” said justices GS Mishra and KC Sharma. The court also said that nobody should consider an adult woman as a consumer product.

While dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by Manju’s husband, the court came down hard on the misuse of habeas corpus petitions by people who want to thrust their will upon adult women without their consent. The court said the husband was free to approach the family court for divorce.

Commenting on the judgment, senior Supreme Court advocate and noted women’s rights activist Indira Jaising said, “Though it sounds strange, I am in complete agreement with the high court.”

“At the end of the day an adult woman has a right to decide whom she wants to live with. She can’t be forced to go with her husband against her will,” Jaising said.
In this case, Jaising said, it is clear that the woman was prepared for divorce. She also felt that Manju’s husband had abused the habeas corpus petition because such petitions were generally filed when somebody is actually missing.

Asked whether it amounted to adultery, Jaising clarified that the woman could not be prosecuted for this offence under the law. As for the other man, she said, “it seems he is ready to face that”. National Commission for Women Chairperson Girija Vyas said that although it seemed like an important judgment, she could not comment on it since she had not seen it yet.

Manoj Chaudhry, the counsel for Manju and Suresh, had earlier rejected as baseless the allegations that Manju had been kept in illegal confinement by Suresh.

He said that the duo had been living together by their free will and that the relationship had begun even before Manju had got married.

With inputs from Satya Prakash and Sutirtho Patranobis.

#Fake #DV against parents of NRI husband #quashed. #Madras High Court.

P. Karunambikai vs S.Shobana on 12 October, 2017

P.Karunambikai vs S.Shobana on 12 October, 2017
Madras High Court

P.Karunambikai vs S.Shobana on 12 October, 2017

DATED: 12.10.2017
Crl.O.P.No.19213 of 2017
and Crl.M.P.Nos. 11654 & 11655 of 2017

  1. P.Karunambikai
  2. Palanisamy
  3. Senthil Kumar …Petitioners

S.Shobana …Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in D.V.Act No.16 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Sulur and quash the same as illegal.

    For Petitioners     :   Mr.S.Namo Narayanan

        For Respondent  :   Mr.P.Govindarajan
                    Additional Public Prosecutor.

This petition is filed seeking to call for the records in D.V.A No.16 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Sulur and quash the same as illegal.

  1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.
  2. The petitioners herein are the Father-in-law, Mother-in-law and Brother-in-law of the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that soon after the respondent had got married, she had moved away to Abu Dhabi, where she set up her matrimonial home and was living with her husband. The petitioners herein had no point of time to live in the respondent’s matrimonial home.

  3. It is represented that the present proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act has been initiated as against the husband as well as the petitioners, who are the respondent’s in-laws. Even from the averments made in the said complaint, it is seen that the petitioners herein had never share residence with the respondent and her husband. Therefore the petitioners did not have the domestic relationship with the respondent herein as defined under Section 2F of the Domestic Violence Act. While that being so, it would inappropriate to permit the proceedings as against the in-laws to continue.

  4. It is further seen from the comprehensive reading of the complaint, the main grievance of the respondent is as against her husband. If that being the case, the conduct of the respondent herein in implicating her in-laws would only be termed as an attempt to wreck vengeance against her family members. I do not find any reason, as to why the petitioners should undergo the trial in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.

  5. In the result, the Criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in D.V.A. No.16 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sulur, in so far as these petitions are concerned is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

12.10.2017 Index:Yes/No rts/msvm To The Presiding Officer, The Judicial Magistrate, Sulur M.S.RAMESH.J, rts Crl.O.P.No.19213 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos. 11654 & 11655 of 2017 12.10.2017

#NO #INTERIM-MAINTENANCE for #earning wife !! #Graduate wife

#NO #INTERIM-MAINTENANCE for #earning wife !! #Graduate wife stopped depositing cash in a/c after 2016 still #earning #capacity assessed at Rs 20000 pm, hence NO maintenance . #DELHI #DISTRICT COURT


Manish vs . Gurleen Kaur on 24 October, 2017

Delhi District Court

Manish vs . Gurleen Kaur on 24 October, 2017



Criminal Appeal No. 172/17

CC No. 518571/2016

PS Paharganj

Manish Vs. Gurleen Kaur


S/o Sh. Harish Chander

R/o C­12, 2nd Floor, DSQ

Motia Khan, Pahar Ganj

New Delhi­110055. …….Appellant


Smt. Gurleen Kaur

D/o Shri Tejinder Singh

W/o Sh.Manish

R/o 12, ARP Quarters ,

Motia Khan, Double Storey,

Pahar Ganj,

New Delhi­110055 ……Respondent

Date of Institution : 17.08.2017

Date of conclusion of argument : 10.10.2017

Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 24.10.2017


  1. Present criminal appeal has been filed by the husband/appellant against the impugned order dated 14.07.2017 passed by learned Mahila Court in complaint case No.518571/16 titled as Gurleen Kaur Vs. Manish filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred as The Act) whereby the Learned Mahila Court partially allowed the application of respondent/wife moved U/s 23 of The Act and granted interim maintenance to the respondent/wife @ Rs.2,000/­ per month from the date of filing of complaint till the final disposal of CC No.518571/2016 by assessing monthly income of appellant/husband @ Rs.18,690/­ per month.
  2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that respondent/wife filed an application U/s 23 of The Act seeking interim maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/­ per month during the pendency of complaint case filed U/s 12 of The Act against appellant/husband. In the said application and the affidavit of income, assets and expenditure, she claimed that appellant/husband is a man of means and that he is employed with Sugal and Damini Pvt. Ltd, earning Rs.30,000/­ per month. She also claimed that like her husband, she was also a graduate and that she was working as an agent. She also claimed that for her day to day expenditure, she was completely dependent upon her parents.

  3. In reply to the application, it was alleged by the appellant/husband that the complainant/wife was working as insurance agent with United India Insurance Co. She was also working as an agent in a finance company namely Malakar Fincorp. Pvt. Ltd., Jhandewalan, New Delhi from which she was earning a handsome income. In his affidavit of income, assets and expenditure, appellant/husband claimed that he was earning a net income of Rs.18,690/­ per month and not Rs.30,000/­ as alleged by the complainant/wife. He also claimed that he was living in a rented accommodation and paying a monthly rent of Rs.8,500/­. Since, the complainant/wife was earning handsomely, she was not entitled to any maintenance as per the celebrated judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court.

  4. I have heard the arguments addressed by learned counsels for both the parties and have perused the trial court record along with documents with utmost care.

  5. In the case in hand, neither factum of marriage nor the fact that the parties do not have any child born out of this wedlock, is denied. It is also not denied that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 11.02.2015 and that the parties are living separately since 23.09.2017. The impugned order awarding interim maintenance @ Rs.2,000/­ per month to the respondent/wife from the date of filing of complaint till the final disposal of CC No.518571/2016, has been challenged on the ground that Learned Trial Court did not consider income of respondent/wife despite the fact that she is working as insurance Agent and also doing private job in Malakar Fincorp Pvt. Ltd. Jhandewalan, Delhi having monthly income of Rs.25,000/­ per month. It is very vehemently argued by learned counsel for appellant/husband that out of the monthly salary of Rs. Rs.18,690/­, following amounts are deducted every month:­ SN Description of deduction/expenses Amount

  6. Monthly Rent of property 8500/­ per month

  7. Household expenses 5800/­ per month

  8. Transport 1000/­ per month Hence, after deduction, he is only left with net disposable income of Rs.3,390/­ per month, out of which he has to bear requisite/misc. expenses incurred in day to day life.

  9. Per contra, it is urged by learned Counsel for complainant/wife that during her stay with appellant/husband, the wife was not earning any income whatsoever. Even otherwise, the income she was earning was not regular, whereas the income of the husband/appellant was consistent and regular. It was also argued that the claim of the husband/appellant that he was staying at rented accommodation was false. Ever since they separated, the husband was residing at the matrimonial home with his parents.

  10. During the course of arguments, it was very candidly admitted by the appellant/husband that he was no longer residing at rented accommodation and that he was residing with his parents at the matrimonial home. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the complainant/wife failed to bring on record any document to show that the appellant/husband was earning Rs.30,000/­ per month. Rather, the husband/appellant placed on record his pay slip for the month of July 2016, wherein it is reflected that his net salary was Rs.18,690/­ per month.

  11. In ANNURITA VOHRA VS. SANDEEP VOHRA reported as 2004 (3) AD 252 which is also relied upon by the Learned Trial Court, it has been observed as follows: “A satisfactory approach would be to divide the Family Resource Cake in two portions to the Husband since he has to incur extra expenses in the course of making his earning, and one share each to other members.”

  12. Admittedly, the appellant/husband has no dependents other than his estranged wife. Assuming the fact that complainant/wife is not earning and if the family income is Rs.18,700/­, the same has to be divided in three portions of Rs.6,200/­ each (approx.). Assigning two portions of the income to the husband/appellant, if the wife is not working, she would have been entitled to Rs.6,200/­ per month. However, in the instant case, the perusal of the bank statements of the complainant/wife issued by State Bank of India, Paharganj Branch for the period from Nov. 2015 to March 2016 reveals that she on an average was earning almost Rs.20,000/­ per month. The bank statement also reflects that for some reason, she stopped depositing any amount in the said bank account. The income earned by the complainant/wife during this period of Nov. 2015 to March 2016 thus, fortifies the fact that she is capable of earning at least Rs.20,000/­ per month. In judgments titled as DAMANREET KAUR VS. INDERMEET JUNEJA & ANR. decided on 14.05.2012 in CRL.REV. NO.344/2011 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (relied upon by appellant/husband), the Hon’ble High Court upheld the reasoning of the learned ASJ and observed that “Learned ASJ has rightly declined the interim monetary relief to the petitioner by holding that she was well educated lady, earning Rs.50,000/­ p.m. and had chosen not to work of her own will though had capacity to work and find a suitable job for herself”. Similarly, in MAMTA JAISWAL VS. RAJESH JAISWAL reported in 2000(3) MPLJ 100, it was held that In fact well qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for the purpose of livelihood, have to be discouraged, if the society wants progress. The spouses who are quarreling and coming to the courts in respect of matrimonial disputes, have to be guided for the purpose of amicable settlement as early as possible, and, therefore, grant of luxurious, excessive facility by way of pendente lite alimony and extra expenditure has to be discouraged.”

10.Admittedly, both the complainant and appellant are only graduates and complainant is now pursuing Masters. Therefore, taking into account the earning capacity of the complainant/wife which is at least Rs.15­20,000/­ per month, the impugned order dated 14.07.2017 is set aside. Appeal is accordingly allowed. TCR be sent back along with copy of this judgment.

Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.

Announced and signed in the open Court on 24.10.2017


Special Judge/PC Act/ACB,

Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi