Wife can file IA against MOA & refuse guardianship!!

Wife can file IA against MOA & refuse guardianship!!

 

Court to adopt liberal approach condoning delay, unless oblique motive shown. Husband is running around to get guardianship of kids after paying alimony Rs50 Lakhs!!

  • Husband pays Rs 50 Lakhs. On the basis of that, a decree of divorce was granted in HMOP No.687 of 2011
  • As per the memorandum of understanding dated 28.06.2011, the petitioner (wife) had agreed to give custody of the minor children to the respondent (husband / father of minor children)
  • Now Wife is refusing guardianship of kids, showing some other MOA, which husband says is forged.
  • Wife files IA against MOA and refusing guardianship
  • Wife continuously absenting herself from Family court where guardianship case is on (from Dec 2011 to May 2012) !
  • Husband gets ex – parte decree because of wife’s continued absence
  • Wife claims her own counsel cheated her and has filed a criminal case against her own counsel!
  • Wife files set aside, at the same family court, 20 days later after ex-parte decree, which is rejected by family court
  • But Hon. HC says 20 days delay is ok and so all set back to zero
  • So, Husband is running around to get guardianship of kids after paying alimony Rs50 Lakhs!!

*****************************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 Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr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

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

 

DATED:   11.12.2014

 

CORAM

 

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

 

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2669 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

 

Vijayalakshmi                     … Petitioner / Respondent

Vs

D.R.Mani                  … Respondent / Petitioner

Prayer:-        Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 26.08.2013 passed in I.A.No.1173 of 2012 in GWOP No.552 of 2011 on the file of the Family Court at Coimbatore.

For Petitioner     : M/s.S.Karthikai Balan

For Respondent      : M/s.A.Edwin Prabakar

http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.1173 of 2012 in GWOP No.552 of 2011 by the Family Court, Coimbatore.

  1. The petitioner is the respondent in GWOP No.552 of 2011 filed by the respondent seeking his appointment as natural guardian of the minor children. Due to absence of the petitioner, an exparte decree was passed in favour of the respondent on 10.05.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.1173 of 2012 for condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. The application was resisted by the respondent by filing a counter. The learned Family Court Judge dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the order, the present revision has been filed.
  1. Mr.S.Karthikai Balan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had entered into a Memorandum of understanding dated 26.08.2011 with the petitioner whereby the respondent had agreed to give the custody of the minor children to the petitioner but later by playing fraud on the court, he obtained an exparte decree in the original petition. It is further contended that the counsel for the petitioner before the family court also colluded with the respondent in passing the exparte decree in his favour and that the petitioner had lodged a complaint against her own counsel and the same was registered in Crime No.86 of 2011. It is further submitted that the delay in filing the petition has been properly explained by the petitioner, however the trial court adopting hyper technical approach, dismissed the application. http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  1. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was not only absent for the hearing on 10.05.2012, but for the previous hearings from December 2011 onwards, she was continuously absent and there is no explanation from her. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent had paid Rs.50 lakhs to the petitioner as permanent alimony and on that basis, a decree of divorce was also granted in HMOP No.687 of 2011 and as per the memorandum of understanding dated 28.06.2011, the petitioner had agreed to give custody of the minor children to the respondent but through the forged memorandum of understanding dated 26.08.2011, she claims custody of the minor children. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has now shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay and that even if the delay is condoned, no useful purpose would be served. The contention of the counsel for the respondent is that the order passed in GWOP No.552 of 2011 is interlocutory in nature and the petitioner, instead of seeking to set aside the order passed in GWOP No.552 of 2011, she can very well file a separate original petition seeking custody of the minor children.
  1. In reply to the above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application filed for setting aside the exparte decree is maintainable. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in CRP NPD Nos.3856 & 3857 of 2007 [B.Suresh Babu v. Nithya] and an unreported Division Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 15.02.2006 in Aruna Kumari v. Dr.Ambrish Kumar Sengar. This Court, in the above referred judgments held that interlocutory applications filed before the Family Court to set aside the compromise decree is maintainable. In the decision of Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court cited supra, question arose as to whether the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the exparte decree was maintainable and the Division Bench has answered in affirmative.
  1. It is seen from the records that the petitioner filed application in I.A.No.1173 of 2012 to condone the delay of 20 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte order stating that as per Memorandum of understanding dated 28.06.2011, the respondent agreed to withdraw GWOP No.552 of 2011 and she was under bonafide impression that the petition would be withdrawn. It is further alleged that the exparte order dated 10.05.2012 was not communicated by her counsel as he had colluded with the respondent herein. She has further alleged that there were life threats to her which delayed her in filing the application. Though the respondent had disputed the contentions of the petitioner, he has not produced any other material to show that the petitioner was deliberately negligent in filing the application and her inaction was with an oblique motive. In the light of the judgment referred supra, the contention of the respondent that the application itself is not maintainable cannot be countenanced. http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  1. 7. It is settled law that in considering the application for the delay of few days, the court has to adopt liberal approach unless the delay was deliberate and with an oblique motive. In the case on hand, the original petition was filed seeking appointment of guardian for the minor children Lavanya and Vishwa. The welfare of the minor children is a paramount consideration in deciding the application filed under Guardians and Wards Act. Keeping in mind the above facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
  1. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. The order passed in I.A.No.1173 of 2012 in GWOP No.552 of 2011 by Family Court, Coimbatore is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

11.12.2014

Index : Yes/No

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.

rgr

To The Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore.

rgr

Pre-delivery order in C.R.P.(NPD).No.2669 of 2014 11.12.2014

PDF File uploaded to http://1drv.ms/1D0mPty

IF paying DV maintenance, seek variation of S 125 maintenance

Husband paying maintenance under DV also ordered to pay maintenance under Sec 125 CrPc by Hon Family court. Hon. HC says, see revision of 125 maint under sec 127

* Husband ordered to pay Rs. 2000 under DV

* Later Husband ALSO ordered to pay rs. 2000 under Sec 125 CrPc by Hon family court

* Husband appeals DV order to High court

* The Hon. HC states "…..Since the order of maintenance passed in Domestic Violence case is earlier in time, in these circumstances applicant may raise this point before the Family Court by filing an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for variation or alteration of maintenance amount. ….."

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

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

Madhya Pradesh High Court

CRR-1524-2014

MOHD. SHAHID Vs SMT. REHANA BEE

17-03-2015

Shri Deepak Singh, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Raghvendra Kumar, counsel for the respondent.

Heard.

This revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 27.6.2014 passed by the XI Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No. 1023/2013 whereby the interim order dated 27.9.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in Case No. 854/2012, has been affirmed.

It is not in dispute that applicant is husband of respondent Rehana Bee. Respondent had filed an application under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the applicant and prays for grant of interim maintenance. Trial Court (Judicial Magistrate First Class), Bhopal, after hearing the parties passed the impugned order and directed the applicant to pay interim maintenance a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent. Being aggrieved thereby, applicant has filed the appeal before the Sessions Court which has been dismissed vide order dated 27.6.2014. Hence this revision. http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Courts below have committed illegality in passing the impugned orders. It is further submitted that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has already been decided by the Family Court, Bhopal wherein order for paying a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as maintenance has been passed by the Family Court on 7.2.2013.

It is further submitted that the respondent had suppressed the fact before the Family Court that the order for maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- has already been passed in her favour in the case of Domestic Violence, therefore prays for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Courts below.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has opposed the application.

I have perused the impugned order along with the first order dated 3.1.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal and the order dated 7.2.2013 passed by the Family Court, Bhopal.

It reveals on perusal of order dated 3.1.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class that this order passed earlier in time to the order passed by the Family Court on 7.2.2013. It is true that Court can take the note of order of maintenance passed in another proceeding.

Since the order of maintenance passed in Domestic Violence case is earlier in time, in these circumstances applicant may raise this point before the Family Court by filing an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for variation or alteration of maintenance amount. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere in the order passed by the Courts below under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

C.C. as per rules.

(G.S. SOLANKI) JUDGE

PDf file uploaded to http://1drv.ms/1ES6Fjz

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

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

Male benefits !! Saudi women express reluctance to marry men in blue-collar jobs

Arab News

Saudi women express reluctance to marry men in blue-collar jobs

6525869079951987.jpg

Some Saudi women look down at the idea of marrying a man practicing trades such as mechanic or electrician, but others believe that anyone earning money in an honorable work is good enough.

A photographer, Mansurah, claims that while she does not object to the idea of marrying a man practicing some trade aside of his primary job, she states she wouldn’t want her husband’s main profession to be that of a blue-collar one. The reason is mainly financial, she states, since she fears that such men would not be able to provide her with a comfortable lifestyle. She also wants her groom to be a university graduate like her.

Medical student Nadiah Jowhar has no objection in making a man with a blue-collar job her life’s partner provided he is making a decent earning. However, she added he hopes his projects may grow as time passes on and he will be able to provide for the family.

Photographer Abeer Bajanduh said some women are not keen on marrying men who work on certain trades because of material considerations and because of the poor social status associated with such jobs.

Painter Taghrid Wazna is not willing to marry an electrician or plumber because these days material needs are expensive.

“I would consider marrying a interior decorator or dress designer because he will be working for a company unlike an electrician or trader who will be on his own,” she said.

According to Wazna it is not the trade that matters but the money a man earns. Ghadah Shatibi, who works in Public Relations, said she did not mind marrying a mechanical engineer if he can set up a home for her and raise a family.

Wafa Mokhtar concurred with her, arguing that any man with an honest job and a decent income is good enough for a husband. She preferred a man with a freelance job, rather than an office employee because she believes that such a man can reach the top if he likes his job.

She added that one of her friends refused to marry a man working in a restaurant with a good pay and who had a promising future in his job, out of fear of what others would say.

source :Arab news online

source : http://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/ news / 722 21

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

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

Court permits man to cross examine wife’s employer

Regarding false evidence by the wife husband may apply for perjury : HC

Man does sting on wife to establish her income

TNN | Mar 17, 2015, 06.29 AM IST

Man does sting on wife to establish her income

The husband had conducted a sting operation to establish that his wife was working and earning a good sum.

AHMEDABAD: Gujarat high court asked a family court in Surat to permit a man to pose certain question to a witness, who has allegedly employed his wife. This happened after the employer refused to identify the employee as the man’s wife in a video clip showing the woman working at the employer’s firm.

The husband had conducted a sting operation to establish that his wife was working and earning a good sum.

Rajesh and Meena Patel are in a legal battle, and the court in Surat asked Rajesh to pay Meena Rs 25,000 as maintenance every month. Rajesh objected to this and claimed that his wife was working at an engineering firm with a salary of Rs 17,000.

To prove his wife’s employment, Rajesh called the firm’s owner as a witness, who said that Meena was not working in his firm. Rajesh produced a video recording in the courtroom, showing a woman working in this office. However, the employer refused to identify the woman. On this, the husband asked for account books to confirm if his firm paid a salary to Meena.

The court didn’t allow the call for account books to verify the employment and to verify that the witness had lied by not identifying the woman in the video recording. Hence, Rajesh moved the HC and argued that it is the only evidence, and he should be allowed to call for account books to verify his wife’s job as revealed in the video.

On the other hand, the wife raised a question on the veracity of the video and alleged that the video was morphed. On this, the HC said that the wife can apply to family court to get the recording examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory.

"If morphing is found, the husband will be in trouble, but the mere allegation is not sufficient. There are several other allegations regarding false evidence and information on record by the wife also, for that the husband may apply for perjury," the HC said.

source TOI

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Man-does-sting-on-wife-to-establish-her-income/articleshow/46591051.cms?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=TOI

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

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

498A against Atulya Mafatlal’s sister Gyathri dropped !!

Sheetal Mafatlal has made no specific allegation against sister-in-law: court

Holding there is no specific allegation, apart from provocation, against Atulya Mafatlal’s sister Gayatri Jhaveri, the sessions court on Wednesday accepted her revision petition seeking the quashing of proceedings against her in the dowry harassment case filed by Atulya’s wife Sheetal.

In August 2011, Sheetal lodged a complaint alleging cruelty by her in-laws under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. She claimed Atulya, his mother Madhuri and his brother Ajay abused her mentally and physically, while Atulya’s sisters — Kunti and Gayatri — instigated them. In her complaint, Sheetal claimed Ajay and Madhuri beat her, insulted her and treated her like a help, mostly when Atulya was in London.

The complaint alleged the duo had asked the help not to give her food and she was not allowed to sleep in their house.

Sheetal also alleged Ajay and Madhuri sold her valuable paintings and two Chinese pots to a scrap dealer and Atulya sold her jewellery to his former wife.

The police had filed a closure report at the Girgaum court in August last year, indicating no offence was committed. Sheetal filed a protest petition, after which the court allowed the proceedings against Gayatri and Ajay. Gayatri then moved the sessions court.

Girish Kulkarni, Gayatri’s advocate, said, “All allegations mentioned in the complaints are against Ajay and Madhuri, and Gayatri’s role in it is not spelt out.”

“There are statements of witnesses who have seen the incidents and have said that Gayatri and Kunti used to instigate Ajay and Madhuri,” Sheetal’s advocate Santosh Chari said.

The court observed that all statements and evidence are against Ajay, Atulya and Madhuri, and not against Gayatri.

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

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

498a on elders as they were planing suicide THEMSELVES !!

The woman complained that her in-laws threatened to commit suicide and put the blame on her !!!

"…..Based on the complaint, offences have been registered under sections 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, she said……"

full report on enclosed screen shot !!

Case diary, dury roaster, para book be given by police TN St. (RTI) Info commn. decision

Gist : Petitioner seeks Records of custodial inquiry, duty roaster of police, general diary copies and para book, and permission to inspect the general diary copies, para book etc. This was promptly rejected under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act on 16-9-2009!! Petitioner goes on appeal to TN Information commission who instruct police to provide copies of the same

http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Copy of order given below

TAMIL NADU INFORMATION COMMISSION

Kamadhenu Co-operative Super Market Building First Floor,

New No.378, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600018. Phone: 2431 2841

Case No. 27471-C/Enquiry/2009

Date of Enquiry: 10th March 2010 at CHENNAI

Present: Thiru S. RAMAKRISHNAN, I.A.S.,(Retd.),

State Chief Information Commissioner.

Thiru G. RAMAKRISHNAN, I.A.S.,(Retd.),

State Information Commissioner.

Petitioner: Thiru V. Pandiyan, 2-A/4, Valamjee Mansion,

Opp. District Court, KK Nagar, Madurai – 20.

Public Authority: The Public Information Officer / Additional

Superintendent of Police (Crime), Dindigul.

******

Both the parties were present.

The petitioner asked for the following four items of information vide his RTI petition dated 3-9-2009:

1) Records pertaining to custodial enquiry of persons in Vadamadurai All Women Police Station from 5-10-2008 to 5-11-2008;

2) Duty roster of police personnel during the above period;

3) General Diary copies and para book for the period of October 2008;

4) Permission to inspect the para book, General Diary and Case Diary of this period.

This was promptly rejected under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act on 16-9-2009. The petitioner eschewed first appeal and came straight to the Commission on 28-10-2009 resulting in today’s (10-3-2010) enquiry.

http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

At the enquiry, the only case pending investigation cited by the public authority is the enquiry by the State Human Rights Commission which, in the absence of a bar from that Commission, will not inhibit supply of information. The public authority’s fear that revelation of this information will be detrimental to the case before the Human Rights Commission, etc., is no ground under Right to Information Act as the Commission has repeatedly held, even if transparency results in the loss of the case of the public authority, in an appropriate legal forum, that is an outcome in favour of justice and as such cannot be accepted as a reason to deny information.

Hence the Commission finds no ground here to uphold the rejection under Section 8(1)(h), and direct that information be supplied within ten days of this order and the petitioner’s acknowledgment filed before the Commission.

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

Orders approved on 17th March 2010

Under orders of the Commission

(S. MOHANA DHAS)

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Case No.27471-C/Enquiry/2009

The Public Information Officer / Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime),

District Police Office, Dindigul.

Case No.27471-C/Enquiry/2009

Thiru V. Pandiyan,

2-A/4, Valamjee Mansion,

Opp. District Court,

KK Nagar, Madurai – 625 020.

PDF File UPLOADED TO : http://1drv.ms/1FreHS6

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

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