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

Case diary, para book to 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.

Police commissioner’s SEX talk recording on whatsapp !!

சென்னை பெண் போலீசுடன் ‘செக்ஸ்’ உரையாடல்: போலீஸ் உதவி கமிஷனர் மீது விசாரணை- கமிஷனர் ஜார்ஜ் உத்தரவு

பதிவு செய்த நாள்: திங்கள் , மார்ச் 16,2015, 12:52 AM IST

செல்போனில் பெண் போலீசுடன் செக்ஸ் உரையாடலில் ஈடுபட்ட உதவி போலீஸ் கமிஷனர் மீது விசாரணை நடத்த கமிஷனர் ஜார்ஜ் உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளார். வட சென்னை கூடுதல் கமிஷனர் வி.ஏ.ரவிக்குமார் இது தொடர்பாக விசாரணை நடத்தி வருகிறார்.

செல்போன் செக்ஸ் உரையாடல்

தமிழக போலீசை தற்போது கதி கலங்க வைத்துள்ளது செல்போன் ‘வாட்ஸ்அப்பில்’ பரவி உள்ள அந்த ஆடியோ உரையாடல் தான். அந்த உரையாடலில் சென்னையில் பணியாற்றும் உதவி போலீஸ் கமிஷனர் ஒருவர், தனது கடமை-கண்ணியம்-கட்டுப்பாட்டை மறந்து, தனது தகுதியை விட்டு இறங்கி வந்து பெண் போலீஸ் ஒருவருடன் காதல் ரசம் சொட்டும் செக்ஸ் வசனங்களை பேசுகிறார்.

தனியாக வெளியில் சந்திப்போம், என்று செல்போனில் அழைப்பு விடுக்கிறார். செல்போனில் ஒண்ணு (முத்தம்) தரவா என்றும் கேட்கிறார். அந்த பெண் போலீஸ் அணிந்துள்ள ஆடையை கூட எப்படி அணிய வேண்டும் என்று ஆலோசனை சொல்கிறார்.

நேற்று சென்னை போலீஸ் வட்டாரம் முழுவதும் இந்த பேச்சு தான்…. உயர் அதிகாரிகள் முதல், போலீஸ்காரர்கள் வரை இந்த செல்போன் உரையாடலை ‘வாட்ஸ்அப்பில்’ பரவ விட்டு கேட்டுக்கொண்டிருந்தனர். பொதுமக்கள் மத்தியிலும் கூட இந்த பேச்சு பரபரப்பாக பேசப்பட்டது.

ஓய்வு வயதை நெருங்குபவர்..

உரையாடலுக்கு சொந்தக்காரரான உதவி கமிஷனர் 50 வயதை தாண்டி ஓய்வை நெருங்கிக்கொண்டிருப்பவர். 1987-ம் ஆண்டு சப்-இன்ஸ்பெக்டராக வேலைக்குச் சேர்ந்தவர். அவரது குடும்பம் கவுரவமான குடும்பம். மனைவி, ஒரு மகன், ஒரு மகள் உள்ளனர். மகன் பல் டாக்டருக்கு படித்துக்கொண்டிருக்கிறார். மகள் என்ஜினீயரிங் மாணவி.

செக்ஸ் தொல்லைக்கு ஆளான பெண் போலீசும் திருமணம் ஆகி 2 குழந்தைகளுக்கு தாய். உதவி கமிஷனருக்கும், அந்த பெண்போலீசுக்கும் 20 வயதை தாண்டி வித்தியாசம் இருக்கும் என்று சொல்லப்படுகிறது. அந்த பெண் போலீஸ் இதுவரை எந்த வித புகாரும் கொடுக்கவில்லை.

விசாரணை நடத்த உத்தரவு

இருந்தாலும் ‘வாட்ஸ்அப்பில்’ தனது செல்போன் நம்பரையும் கொடுத்து, தொல்லை கொடுத்த உதவி கமிஷனரின் செக்ஸ் லீலைகள் பற்றி அதிரடி விசாரணை நடத்திட கமிஷனர் ஜார்ஜ் உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளார். வடசென்னை கூடுதல் கமிஷனர் வி.ஏ.ரவிக்குமார், இந்த விசாரணையை நடத்துகிறார். சம்பந்தப்பட்ட உதவி கமிஷனர், பெண் போலீஸ், பெண் போலீசின் தோழிகள் உள்ளிட்டவர்களிடம் விசாரணை நடக்கிறது.

அவர் கொடுக்கும் அறிக்கை அடிப்படையில் உதவி போலீஸ் கமிஷனர் மீது இலாகா பூர்வ நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கப்படும் என்று சென்னை போலீஸ் உயர் அதிகாரிகள் வட்டாரத்தில் தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டது.

ஏற்கனவே சென்னை போலீசில், 2 உதவி கமிஷனர்கள் இதுபோல் செக்ஸ் லீலை குற்றச்சாட்டில் சிக்கினார்கள். வெறும் விசாரணையுடன் அவர்கள் தப்பி விட்டனர். ஒரு உதவி கமிஷனர் பெண் இன்ஸ்பெக்டரின் சட்டைப்பையில் இருந்து பேனாவை எடுப்பது போல தகாத செயலில் ஈடுபட்டார். இன்னொரு உதவி கமிஷனர் தன்னிடம் வேலை பார்த்த பெண் சப்-இன்ஸ்பெக்டரிடம் தப்பாக நடக்க முயன்றார். அந்த 2 சம்பவங்களிலும் பாதிக்கப்பட்டவர்களால் புகார் கொடுக்கப்பட்டது. எச்சரிக்கை மட்டும் அந்த உதவி போலீஸ் கமிஷனர்களுக்கு விடுக்கப்பட்டது என்பது குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது.

http://www.dailythanthi.com/…/Assistant-Commissioner-of…

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

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

Husband to get wife’s police complaint copy. VERY clear CIC decision

GIST : Wife files complaints against husband at Delhi CAW cell. Husband seek’s copy of complaint. Initially refused by police. CIC says “….Such documents can hardly be treated as personal information supplied by third party. The Commission therefore directs the Respondent CPIO to provide a copy of the complaint filed by his wife to the appellant, free of cost, within 7 days of receipt of this order….”

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

Central Information Commission

Room No. 305, 2 nd Floor, ‘B’ Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,

Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

Web: www.cic.gov.in

Tel No: 26167931

Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/000350

Name of Appellant : Sh. Ritesh Suri

(The Appellant was present)

Name of Respondent : Addl. Commissioner of Police,

Special Police Unit for Women and

Children, New Delhi.

Represented by:

Shri O.P. Arora, ACP and Shri S.S. Malhan, Inspector.

The matter was heard on : 17.8.2011

ORDER

Sh. Ritesh Suri, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 13.12.2010 requested the respondent CPIO for a copy of the complaint registered by his wife Smt. Lekha Chhabra against him in the Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi. The information requested was denied to the appellant by the CPIO u/s 8(1)(e) and also u/s 11 of the RTI Act on the grounds that complainant has not given her consent to give a copy of the complaint to the Appellant. Aggrieved with the reply the appellant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA, vide its order dated 19.1.2011 upheld the decision of the PIO.

The Commission in a number of its decisions has held that the person complained against has right to know the nature of complaint made against him, particularly when the respondent has taken action on the complaint filed with them. The Complainant too has filed the complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell with the expectation that they would take necessary action, as per law, on her complaint. Such documents can hardly be treated as personal information supplied by third party. The Commission therefore directs the Respondent CPIO to provide a copy of the complaint filed by his wife to the appellant, free of cost, within 7 days of receipt of this order.

With these directions the matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.

Sd/- (Sushma Singh)

Information Commissioner

17.08.2011

Authenticated true copy

(K.K. Sharma )

OSD & Dy. Registrar

Copy to:

1. Shri Ritest Suri,

C-3701, Ground Floor,

Sushant Lok Phase-1,

Gurgaon, Haryana.

2. The P.I.O.

Addl. Commissioner of Police,

Special Police Unit for Women and Children,

Nanakpura, New Delhi.

3. The First Appellate Authority,

Dy. Commissioner of Police,

Special Police Unit for Women and Children,

Nanakpura, New Delhi.

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

PDF file http://1drv.ms/1x4Yl00

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

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

Husband gets WIFE’s complaint copy thru RTI. CIC decision!

Husband gets WIFE’s complaint copy thru RTI. CIC decision!

Gist: Wife files multiple police complaints against the husband. She has also filed maintenance cases. Husband approaches police for copy of wife’s complaint to defend his maintenance case. Police refuses the same. Husband files RTI which is initially rejected under under the provisions of Sec 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act as disclosure of the same may endanger the life or physical safety of the appellant’s wife !!. CIC refuses to accept the police version and orders the police to give husband a copy of wife’s complaint.

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

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

ROOM NO. 329, SECOND FLOOR, C-WING

August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi-110066

Tel. No. 91-11-26717356

F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/000668-YA

Date of Hearing                                                : 06.08.2014

Date of Decision                                               : 06.08.2014

Appellant :                                                         Shri V. Ayyappan,

                                                                                Bangalore

Respondent                                                       : Shri T.Bairavaswamy,

                                                                                SP/PIO UT of Pondicherry,

                                                                                Puducherry

Information Commissioner                         : Shri Yashovardhan Azad

Relevant fact emerging from appeal:

RTI Application filed on                                 : 25.09.2012

PIO replied on                                                   : 24.10.2012

First Appeal filed on                                        : 02.11.2012

First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : 13.12.2012

Second Appeal received on                         : 13.02.2013

 

Information sought:

 

Appellant sought a copy of the complaint, filed against him by his wife in the Police station at Puducherry with the copy of enquiry report and copies of the statements given by the appellant and Smt. S.P. Nivedha.

Relevant facts emerging during hearing:

Both the parties are present. Appellant filed an RTI application on 25.09.2012 seeking copy of the complaint, filed against him by his wife in the Police station at Puducherry with the copy of enquiry report and copies of the statements given by the appellant and Smt. S.P. Nivedha. PIO on 24.10.2012 refused to give information stating therein that the information could not be provided under the provisions of Sec 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act as disclosure of the same may endanger the life or physical safety of the appellant’s wife who resides in Puducherry. The First Appellate Authority vide his order dated 13.12.2012 directed the PIO to furnish a copy of the statement given by the appellant, if recorded, unless the statement was required for any criminal case. Appellant stated that he wanted copies of statement by his wife and the enquiry report in connection with the maintenance case going on in a civil court. He also stated that his wife had filed another complaint against him in Dindigul (Tamil Nadu), copy of which was made available to him through his RTI application.

Respondent stated that on 11.07.2012 a complaint was lodged by the appellant’s wife against the appellant and his parents regarding dowry harassment, safety and security. The appellant was called for inquiry during which both the parties agreed on 28.07.2012 through signed statements, to settle the issue by approaching the family court. Subsequently, the appellant asked for copy of wife’s complaint and the inquiry report which was denied to him by invoking exemption under section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

It is clear from perusal of records and the statements by the appellant and the respondent during the hearing that the appellant and his wife are engaged in a bitter marital dispute and maintenance case in this regard is ongoing in a civil court. Appellant’s wife filed complaints against the appellant in not one but two police stations. The Puducherry police has refused to give the copy of a complaint by the appellants wife and inquiry report, on grounds of physical safety, by invoking exemption under section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act. The respondent was not able to clarify as to how the physical danger to the wife’s safety is enhanced by the appellant knowing the contents of her complaint, since the substance of her charges is already known through the contents of the complaint filed in another police station made available to him through another RTI Application. Since the inquiry by Puducherry Police is over and the Complainant is signatory to the letter by the both parties for approaching the family court, due to which inquiry was closed- clearly strengthens his claim to get a copy of the documents. The inquiry is also not required in other cases.

The appellant has stated that he needs the documents for his defence/strengthening his case in the maintenance suit filed in the civil court. Besides, the appellant has not asked for any personal details of his wife but only the contents of documents relating to the charges against him.

In view of above, the Commission does not accept the grounds taken by the respondents for denial of information under Section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act. The Commission directs the respondents to provide the information sought in the RTI application to appellant, within two weeks of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

(Yashovardhan Azad)

Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.

 

(Tarun Kumar)

Joint Secretary & Additional Registrar

 

PDF File : http://1drv.ms/1EeNDBd

 

Delhi HC says “..can’t muzzle dissent..” This should help activists like us

Delhi HC quashes lookout circular issued against Greenpeace activist Priya Pillai

Thursday, 12 March 2015 – 11:57am IST | Agency: dna webdesk

Delhi High Court has quashed lookout circular issued against Greenpeace activist Priya Pillai. The court said, "You cannot muzzle dissent in a democracy… Citizens can have different opinion of development policies," and also directed the government to expunge the ‘offloaded’ entry in her passport.

Delhi High Court has quashed lookout circular issued against Greenpeace activist Priya Pillai. The court said, "You cannot muzzle dissent in a democracy… Citizens can have different opinion of development policies," and also directed the government to expunge the ‘offloaded’ entry in her passport.

Pillai was stopped from flying to London on January 11 on the basis of a look-out-circular (LOC) issued by the Intelligence Bureau (IB). The government said "she had plans to testify on the alleged violations of forest rights of indigenous tribal people in the Mahan coal block area" of Madhya Pradesh before a British parliamentary committee. However, the government has now said it had no objection to Pillai expressing her opinion on the issue in India and it would permit her to travel abroad if she gave an undertaking to not express such opinions abroad.

Appearing before the Delhi High Court on Thursday, Pillai said that it was her fundamental right to voice her thoughts. "My basic contention was that I will not give an undertaking to the government, I refuse to be gagged because it is my fundamental right – the freedom to express my opinion freely in this country and to travel outside this country and to associate with any organisation which is registered in this country and is working under the laws laid down by the constitution," she had said.

Source : DnaIndia.com
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-delhi-hc-quashes-lookout-circular-issued-against-greenpeace-activist-priya-pillai-2068144

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

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

The law does not help indolent & idles … Everyone has to earn!

"..well qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for the purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged, if the society wants to progress….."

“..The law does not help indolents as well idles so also does not want an army of self made lazy idles. Everyone has to earn for the purpose of maintenance of himself or herself, atleast, has to make sincere efforts in that direction. If this criteria is not applied, if this attitude is not adopted, there would be a tendency growing amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk out the adversary…”

"….She is well qualified woman once upon time abviously serving as lecturer in Education College. How she can be equated with a gullible woman of village ? Needless to point out that a woman who is educated herself with Master’s degree in Science, Masters Degree in Education,. would not feel herself alone in travelling from Pusad to Indore, when atleast a bus service is available as mode of transport. The sumbission made on behalf of Mamta, the wife, is not palatable and digestable. This smells of oblique intention of putting extra financial burden on the husband. Such attempts are to be discouraged….."

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

Smt. Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal on 24 March, 2000

Equivalent citations: II (2000) DMC 170

Author: J Chitre

Bench: J Chitre

ORDER J.G. Chitre, J.

1. The petitioner Mamta Jaiswal has acquired qualification as MSc. M.C. M.Ed, and was working in Gulamnabi Azad. College of Education, Pusad, Distt. Yeotmal (MHS). The husband Rajesh Jaiswal is sub-engineer serving in Pimampur factory. The order which is under challenge by itself shows that Mamta Jaiswal, the wife was earning Rs. 4,000/- as salary when she was in service in the year 1994. The husband Rajesh Jaiswal is getting salary of Rs. 5,852/-. The Matrimonial Court awarded alimony of Rs. 800/- to Mamta Jaiswal per month as pendente lite alimony, Rs. 400/- per month has been awarded to their daughter Ku, Diksha Jaiswal. Expenses necessary for litigation has been awarded to the tune of Rs. 1,500/-. The Matrimonial Court has directed Rajesh Jaiswal to pay travelling expenses to Mamta Jaiswal whenever sheattends Court for hearing of them matrimorial petition pending between them. Matrimonial petition has been filed by husband Rajesh Jaiswal for getting divorce from Mamta Jaiswal on the ground of cruelty. This revision petition arises on account of rejection of the prayer made by Mamta Jaiswal when she prayed that she be awarded the travelling expenses of one adult attendant who is to come with her for attending Matrimonial Court.

2. Mr. S.K. Nigam, pointed out that the petition is mixed natured because if at all it is touching provisions of Section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience) then that has to be filed within a month. Mr. Mev clarified that it is a revision petition mainly meant for challenging pendente lite alimony payable by the husband in view of Section 24 of the Act. He pointed out the calculations of days in obtaining the certified copies of the impugned order. In view of that, it is hereby declared that this revision petition is within limitation, entertainable, keeping in view the spirit of the Act and Section 24 of it. http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

3. A wife is entitled to get pendente lite alimony from the husband in view of provisions of Section 24 of the Act if she happens to be a person who has no independent income sufficient for her to support and to make necessary expenses of the proceedings. The present petitioner, the wife, Mamta Jaiswal has made a . prayer that she should be paid travelling expenses of one adult member of her family who would be coming to Matrimonial Court at Indore as her attendant. Therefore, the question arises firstly, whether a woman having such qualifications and once upon a time sufficient income is entitled to claim pendente lite alimony from her husband in a matrimonial petition which has been filed against her for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Secondly, whether such a woman is entitled to get the expenses reimbursed from her husband if she brings one adult attendant alongwith her for attending the Matrimonial Court from the place where she resides or a distant place.

4. In the present case there has been debate between the spouses about their respective income. The husband Rajesh has averred that Mamta is still serving and earning a salary which is sufficient enough to allow her to support herself. Wife Mamta is contending that she is not in service presently. Wife Mamta is contending that Rajesh, the husband is having salary of Rs. 5,852/- per month. Husband Rajesh is contending that Rs. 2,067/- out his salary, are deducted towards instalment of repayment of house loan. He has contended that Rs. 1,000/- are spent in his to and fro transport from Indore to Pithampur. He has also detailed by contending that Rs. 200/- are being spent for the medicines for his ailing father. And, lastly, he has contended that by taking into consideration these deductions as meagre amount remains available for his expenditure.

5. It has been submitted that Mamta Jaiswal was getting Rs. 2,000/- as salary in the year 1994 and she has been removed from the job of lecturer. No further details are available at this stage. Thus, the point is in a arena of counter allegations of these fighting spouses who are eager to peck each other.

6. In view of this, the question arises, as to in what way Section 24 of the Act has to be interpreted: Whether a spouse who has capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should be permitted to saddle other spouse with his or her expenditure ? Whether such spouse should be permitted to get pendente lite alimony at higher rate from other spouse in such condition ? According to me, Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing a monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself Or herself inspite of sincere efforts made by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendente lite alimony. The law does not expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversory by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose. In the present case Mamta Jaiswal is a well qualified woman possessing qualification like M.Sc. M.C. M.Ed. Till 1994 she was serving in Gulamnabi Azad Education College. It impliedly means that she was possessing sufficient experience. How such a lady can remain without service ? It really puts a bug question which is to be answered by Mamta Jaiswal with sufficient congent and believable evidence by proving that in spite of sufficient efforts made by her, she was not able to get service and, therefore, she is unable to support herself. A lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on the husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of such matrimonial petition. Section 24 is not meant for creating an army of such idle persons who would be sitting idle waiting for a ‘dole’ to be awarded by her husband who has got a grievance against her and who has gone to the Court for seeking a relief against her. The case may be vice verssa also. If a husband well qualified, sufficient enough to earn, site idle and puts his burden on the wife and waits for a ‘dole’ to be awarded by remaining entangled in litigation. That is also not permissible. The law does not help indolents as well idles so also does not want an army of self made lazy idles. Everyone has to earn for the purpose of maintenance of himself or herself, atleast, has to make sincere efforts in that direction. If this criteria is not applied, if this attitude is not adopted, there would be a tendency growing amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk out the adversory who happens to be a spouse, once dear but far away after an emerging of litigation. If such army is permitted to remain in existence, there would be no sincere efforts of amicable settlements because the lazy spouse would be very happy to fight and frustrate the efforts of amicable settlement because he would be reaping the money in the nature of pendente lite alimony, and would prefer to be happy in remaining idle and not bothering himself or herself for any activity to support and maintain himself or herself That cannot be treated to be aim, goal of Section 24. It is indirectly against healthyness of the society. It has enacted for needy persons who in spite of sincere efforts and sufficient effort are unable to support and maintain themselves and are required to fight out the litigation jeopardising their hard earned income by toiling working hours.

7. In the present case, wife Mamta Jaiswal, has been awarded Rs. 800/- per month as pendente lite alimony and has been awarded the relief of being reimbursed from husband whenever she makes a trip to Indore from Pusad, Distt. Yeotmal for attending Matrimonial Court for date of hearing. She is well qualified woman once upon time abviously serving as lecturer in Education College. How she can be equated with a gullible woman of village ? Needless to point out that a woman who is educated herself with Master’s degree in Science, Masters Degree in Education,. would not feel herself alone in travelling from Pusad to Indore, when atleast a bus service is available as mode of transport. The sumbission made on behalf of Mamta, the wife, is not palatable and digestable. This smells of oblique intention of putting extra financial burden on the husband. Such attempts are to be discouraged. http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

8. In fact, well qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for the purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged, if the society wants to progress. The spouses who are quarelling and coming to the Court 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 facilities by way of pendente lite alimony and extra expenditure has to be discouraged. Even then, if the spouses do not think of amicable settlement, the Matrimonial Courts should dispose of the matrimonial petitiorisas early as possible. The Matrimonial Courts have to keep it in mind that the quarells between the spouses create dangerous impact on minds of their offsprings of such wedlocks. The offsprings do not understand as to where they should see ? towards father or towards mother ? By seeing them both fighting, making allegations against each other, they get bewildered. Such bewilderedness and loss of affection of parents is likely to create a trauma on their minds and brains. This frustration amongst children of tender ages is likely to create complications which would ruin their future. They cannot be exposed to such danger on account of such fighting parents.

9. In the present case the husband has not challenged the order. Therefore, no variation or modification in it is necessary though this revision petition stands dismissed. The Matrimonial Court is hereby directed to decide the matrimonial petition which is pending amongst these two spouses as early as possible. The Matrimonial Court is directed to submit monthwise report about the progress of the said matrimonial petition to this Court so as to secure a continuous, unobstructed progress of matrimonial petition. No order as to costs. The amount of pendente lite alimony payable to Mamta Jaiswal by husband Rajesh Jaiswal should be deposited by him within a month by counting the date from the date of order. The failure on this aspect would result in dismissal of his matrimonial petition. He should continue payment of Rs. 400/- per month to his daughter Ku. Diksha Jaiswal right from the date of presentation of application of her maintenance i.e. 14.5.1998. That has to be also deposited within a month. He may take out sufficient money for that from his savings or take a loan from some good concern or loan granting agencies. Failure in this aspect also would result in dismissal of his petition. C.C.

PDF file http://1drv.ms/1BjztQy

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

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