Centre to streamline issues related to maintenance

Centre has constituted a district-level committee to address and streamline the issues related to maintenance as large number of women are facing difficulties in getting maintenance despite the fact that the court has ruled in their favour.   

To resolve the procedural difficulties in accessing money awarded to women by court in cases of divorce or domestic violence, the central ministry of Child Development, Home Affairs and Law and Justice are involved in heavy deliberations on how to effectively deal such complaints from women.

The proposed committee will be headed by a district judge with the superintendent of police and representatives from civil society group as its members. This proposal if implemented will bring huge relief to women specifically to those who belong to lower strata of society since they don’t have funds to pursue legal battles.

This move of the centre is a step forward in strengthening the rights of women after the recent judgement of Supreme Court which declared the practice of triple talaq as unconstitutional.

Post the verdict from Supreme Court, the government has clarified that henceforth any case of instant triple talaq will be treated as a case of domestic violence.

The minister of women and child development has written a letter to Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad telling him that the ministry has been receiving a plethora of complaints relating to maintenance. The ministry has urged to expedite the working of the committee so that such matters can be addressed at the earliest.    

Maneka Gandhi said, “The objective is to monitor the timely disbursal of the maintenance awarded by the court. The committee will also supervise the speedy execution of warrants in case one is being issued by the court towards the grant of maintenance.

The law ministry is also deliberating on approaching Chief Justice of India and requesting him to issue an advisory to all chief justices of the High court to ensure that the subordinate courts should simplify the procedure and “ensure timely execution of proceedings with regard to grant of maintenance of women.  

Article by the Mr.K.P.Satish Kumar M.L. Top Divorce Advocate in Chennai

For Free legal advice call Daniel & Daniel @ 9840802218

Supreme Court says not speaking to bride does not amount to cruelty

The Supreme Court in a recent appeal of Section 498A observed that if the in-laws and husband do not speak to the bride it does not amount to cruelty.
A lady filed a complaint under Section 498A to the police, that after her marriage she stayed with her husband and in-laws for 20 days, during which she was left completely alone and no one talked to her.

She stated that her husband was "not even willing to talk freely to her despite her sincere efforts". She accused the husband of avoiding her and refusing to consummate the marriage.

The SC had earlier in a case ruled that refusal to cohabit could be a ground for seeking divorce. After the husband left for Australia where he worked, no one in his family talked to the woman, forcing her to leave the matrimonial house for her parent’s place.

She claimed that her parents had spent Rs 15 lakh on the marriage and Rs 20 lakh on gold ornaments. The Hyderabad police filed a charge-sheet and the case is pending before the metropolitan magistrate.

The Hyderabad high court rejected a petition by the husband and his parents seeking quashing of the case. They appealed to the Supreme Court. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Mohan M Shantanagoudar initiated the wife's complaint and said her story did not reveal any offence under Section 498A ( cruelty at matrimonial home to drive the woman to commit suicide, cause injury to her or harassment for dowry) or Section 406 (breach of trust) of Indian Penal Code as there was no demand for dowry. The bench quashed the case terming the complaint to be devoid of any charge under Section 498A or Section 406 because cruelty means any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand, and the women in the present case was not subjected to any such cruelty.

Article by K.P.Satish Kumar M.L.  Top Divorce Advocate in Chennai

For free queries call Daniel & Daniel @ 9840802218

Triple Talaq banned by Supreme Court for 6 months until Parliament makes law

In a landmark verdict, the apex court bans the practice of Triple Talaq which allows Muslim men to leave their wives immediately by uttering “talaq” thrice. The practice of triple talaq has been declared unconstitutional by 3:2 majority.

The Supreme Court has banned the practice of triple talaq for six months until parliament introduces new legislation to regulate the practice.

The five-judge bench called “triple talaq” bad in law and said, “We hope the Legislature will consider and take into account Muslim Personal Law while making legislation. All parties must keep their politics away and decide this.”

As per the Constitution, the practice of triple talaq is legal for Muslim. Several Muslim women have been divorced, including on Skype and Whatsapp and have challenged this 1400-year-old practice.

This landmark ruling was delivered by five judges of different faiths, Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice S Abdul Nazeer. The bench heard the case over five days from May 12 to May 18 and reserved judgment on questions like whether triple talaq is fundamental to Islam and whether it is an enforceable fundamental right.

The Muslim personal law board issued an advisory that Muslim women should be given the choice to opt out of instant triple talaq before their Nikah or wedding.

The government had backed the petitioners, declaring triple talaq unconstitutional, and derogatory and discriminatory for women.

Article by Mr.K.P.Satish Kumar M.L. Leading Divorce lawyer for Muslims 

for Legal queries call Daniel & Daniel @ 9840802218

"Not having a toilet at home amounts to cruelty"- Family courts grant divorce

In a landmark ruling, a family court of Rajasthan Bhilwara granted divorce on the grounds that absence of toilet at home amounts to cruelty.

In the present matter, a woman filed a plea for divorce as there was no toilet in the house. The woman has filed a divorce petition on October 20, 2015, in family court of Rajasthan, Bhilwara.

The woman said in her petition that she was married in 2011 and since then, even after repeated assurances, her husband has failed to build a toilet and has been forcing to defecate in open.

Justice Rajendra Kumar Sharma observed, “has it ever pained us that our mothers and sisters have to defecate in the open? Women in villages have to wait for dark to venture out in order to relieve and as a result, has to bear physical pain. It is an irony that people who spend a lot of money alcohol, tobacco, and mobile phones don’t have toilets in their homes.”

While adjudicating the matter, the court also observed that defecating in open is “disgraceful” for society and a “torture” to women thus having a toilet is necessary at home.

If there is no toilet at home, it amounts to cruelty and it is a valid ground for divorce.

Article by K,P.Satish Kumar M.L. leading family court lawyer in Chennai

for queries contact 9840802218

Claim under domestic violence cannot be rejected because it arouse out of second marriage

The wife can claim for maintenance cannot be denied under Domestic Violence Act merely because she is married before.

In the instant matter Justice Ashutosh Kumar held that, “The incidences of domestic violence are enumerated in Section 3 of the Act which defines domestic violence and it includes physical, verbal, emotional and economic abuse. From the evidence on record,  there is no dispute about the petitioner having being subjected to domestic violence. It would then make no difference, so far as maintenance is concerned, if the petitioner was married to someone else and the same fact was not brought on the record.

The lower court in the instant matter allowed maintenance only to her minor daughter and denied maintenance to her. The court rejected her claim only on the ground that it was her second marriage.

While quashing the judgment of the lower court, High Court refused to accept the reasoning of the lower court and held that the fact of the petitioner being in shared household with the respondent was an established fact.

In the present case, the court also held that while adjudicating a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the court cannot decide on the validity of the marriage between the parties.

Justice Singh observed, “The case of the petitioner is that she was betrothed to one Noor Mohd while she was only 14 years of age and the marriage between her and Noor Mohd was never consummated as there were no rukh Sati. Assuming but not admitting this fact to be incorrect, what cannot be doubted is that the petitioner has lived with the respondent and was subjected to domestic violence. The appellant court seems to have misdirected himself in taking it upon himself to decide whether a valid marriage existed between the petitioner and the respondent."

The Delhi High Court allowed the wife’s petition and directed payment of maintenance of Rs, 12,500  per month, collectively to the daughter and the wife.

Article by Mr.K.P.Satish Kumar M.L. Top domestic violence lawyer in Chennai

for queries call Daniel & Daniel @ 9840802218

.

Living with another woman and not maintaining wife amounts to Domestic Violence

The omission of the husband is neglecting to maintain the wife and living with another woman amounts to “economic” and “emotional” abuse and wife is entitled to protection under Domestic Violence Act.

In the present matter, the wife has filed a petition for maintenance after three decades. Considering this the husband contended that his wife had no grievance from past 30 years about his second marriage and hence her claim is barred by limitation.

The court observed, the question of limitation raised by the husband cannot be accepted mechanically only on the point that the petition for maintenance was filed after three decades.

Justice Rathnakala said, “the obligation of the husband continues throughout the marriage and the husband cannot get away with the excuse that for many years the wife did not make any request for maintenance.”

The court explained that “Domestic violence” as defined under Section 3 of the Act among others take into fold “economic abuse” as well. The omission of the husband to maintain the wife during the matrimonial life comes within the ambit of Section 3 of the Act. The very fact that he has led life with another woman and begot children from her amounts to “emotional abuse” as contemplated under the Act.

This affects the physical and the mental well being of the aggrieved person and this can be termed as domestic violence under the Act.

In this case, the court held that the husband is guilty of domestic violence and the wife is entitled to protection under Domestic Violence Act. The limitation cannot be a ground for the husband to escape limitation.

Author Mr.K.P.Satish Kumar M.L. is the leading Domestic violence Advocate in Chennai

for Free legal queries call Daniel & Daniel @ 9840802218

Divorce decree by Singapore court does not negate Domestic Violence Case

The couple has taken divorce by a Singapore sharia court on a plea filed by the husband, the domestic violence case filed by the wife in India was still maintainable.

The husband who was based in Singapore was directed to pay INR 2.40 lakhs monthly maintenance to his minor son and divorced wife.

In the opinion of the court, the husband cannot shy away from his obligations to maintain his estranged wife and their minor children, if she was not in a position to maintain herself and the children when the husband was “gainfully employed”. Deciding in the favour of the children, the court observed, “No order in relation to the maintenance of the minor children has been passed by the Singapore court and it is the obligation of the husband to maintain them as a complainant is currently unemployed.”

The wife has filed a complaint through her counsel Prabhjit Jauhar alleging that she was subjected to domestic violence while she was residing with her husband. She alleged that she was forced to leave Singapore on August 28, 2013 after which she filed the present case on May 27, 2014.

Jauhar argued that court cannot escape “punishment” for domestic violence meted out to the wife just because divorce is granted. Hence, the wife and the children were entitled to compensation under Domestic Violence Act.

The husband claimed that the petition filed by the wife in an Indian court is infructuous and the Singaporean courts were competent to adjudicate the dispute.  

Metropolitan Magistrate Preeti Parewa refused to grant any interim maintenance sought by the wife noting that the alimony granted by the Singapore Court was sufficient to maintain her case.

The Court held that even when the divorce is granted, claim under domestic violence act is maintainable.

Article by Mr.K.P.Satish Kumar M.L. leading Domestic violence lawyer in Chennai

For free legal queries call Daniel & Daniel @ 9840802218