Home Blog Page 2

Filing of a false complaint by a spouse amount to matrimonial cruelty

By
lfadmin
-
0

Dismissing the plea of a woman seeking to set aside order of a family court which allowed divorce petition of her husband, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has said, “Cruelty coupled with the fact that the marriage has become dead and irretrievable, in such circumstances, no direction can be given to the husband to stay together.”

As per the case, the marriage of the appellant (woman or wife) was solemnised with the respondent (man or husband) in December, 2005. A criminal case was registered in Haryana against the man by his wife in 2009 for cruelty which was disposed of by court in December 2013. The man was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. After the acquittal, when the man went to bring his wife back, she refused to go with him. She was rude and her conduct was harsh and intolerable. He was subjected to mental torture and cruelty as the woman deserted him with an intention of not joining him. Hence, the man filed the divorce petition before the family court in Jind.

But the woman moved the high court appealing against the judgment and decree passed by the Jind family court, wherein a petition filed by her husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (divorce plea) was allowed.

The woman stated that her husband and his family members were greedy and taunted her as she belongs to a very poor family. After five days of her marriage, the husband and his family members beat her up for not bringing more dowry. Thereafter, her husband left home without giving any reason and was away for six months living in Panipat, leaving her all alone at the mercy of his parents. The woman stated that she did not leave her matrimonial home on her own free will, but was shown the door without any reasonable cause. Her in-laws subjected her to mental cruelty, it was contended by the appellant (wife).

Counsel for respondent (husband), Senior Advocate Sumeet Goel, placed on record judgment of July 2015 passed by the Jind district judge, whereby in an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the respondent (husband) was directed to make payment of Rs 3,000 per month and Rs 5,500 as one-time litigation expenses to the appellant (wife).

The bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Nidhi Gupta, after hearing the matter, held that during the pendency of the instant appeal, the parties were referred to mediation which failed. “In the present case, the couple does not have any child. The husband was acquitted of all the charges vide judgment dated December 7, 2013, in criminal case… Filing of false complaint by the spouse would amount to matrimonial cruelty, and divorce can be granted…on this ground.”

(Source: The Indian Express)

Nowadays it has become a fashion to comment on earlier decisions of the Collegium: SC

By
lfadmin
-
0
PM at the launches of the new initiatives under e-court project, Constitution Day celebrations in the Supreme Court, in New Delhi on November 26, 2022.

Nowadays it has become a “fashion” for the former judges to comment on earlier decisions of the Collegium on the appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and high courts, the Supreme Court has said adding that the apex court was the “most transparent institution”.

“We do not want to comment on anything said by former members [of the Supreme Court Collegium]… We don’t want to say or comment on them at all… Nowadays it has become a fashion to comment on earlier decisions when they were part of the Collegium,” Justice M.R. Shah, leading a Bench, said.

The Supreme Court on December 2, 2022 said it had become a “fashion” for its former judges to comment on earlier decisions of the Collegium when they were part of it while adding that the apex court was the “most transparent institution”.

“We do not want to comment on anything said by former members [of the Supreme Court Collegium]… We don’t want to say or comment on them at all… Nowadays it has become a fashion to comment on earlier decisions when they were part of the Collegium,” Justice M.R. Shah, leading a Bench, said.

The oral observation came during the hearing of an appeal filed by activist Anjali Bhardwaj, who had applied under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to the Supreme Court for a copy of the agenda, decision and resolution of a Collegium meeting held on December 12, 2018.

The Supreme Court Public Information Officer (PIO) had said the information was confidential and disclosure would amount to contempt of court. The First Appellate Authority and the Central Information Commission found that though “certain decisions” were taken on December 12, the “required consultation” did not take place and hence there was no resolution. In appeal, the Delhi High Court had concluded that the Collegium decision was probably “verbal” and did not “crystallise” into a written record to be termed ‘information’ under the RTI Act.

On Friday, advocate Prashant Bhushan, for Ms. Bhardwaj, referred to an article by Justice Madan B. Lokur, a former Supreme Court judge, affirming there was an agenda of the Collegium meeting held on December 12 and “certain decisions” had indeed been taken.

Mr. Bhushan further pointed to excerpts in the autobiography of former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi about the December 12 meeting. Justice Gogoi had headed the Collegium at the time and Justice Lokur was part of that Collegium. The meeting was held to consider names for appointment to the Supreme Court and transfers of Chief Justices of High Courts. Justice Lokur had retired when the court went into winter recess soon after the December 12 meeting.

A newly-constituted Collegium, with Justice (now retired) Arun Mishra joining in, had met on January 10, 2019. A resolution published of the January 10 meeting had recorded that decisions were taken in the previous meeting, but intervening winter holidays and the reconstitution of the Collegium had interrupted consultations. The January 10, 2019 Collegium resolution had recommended Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna as Supreme Court judges.

A public debate in the media had ensued at the time on why the Collegium had “dropped” its December 12, 2018 proposal to recommend Delhi High Court Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog  (both are now retired) and, within days, pick then Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Maheshwari and Justice Khanna, a Delhi High Court judge. Both Justices Maheshwari and Khanna are now serving apex court judges. Justice Khanna is in line to be the next Chief Justice of India according to the seniority norm.

‘General impression’

Mr. Bhushan said a “general impression” may arise that the Supreme Court, which had once upheld the right to information as a fundamental right in several of its judgments, was now “backtracking”.

“Transparency requires that whatever decision, if it is in writing, be disclosed to citizens. If the decision is not in writing, let the PIO say so,” he argued. Mr. Bhushan asked if the decision had not been converted to writing, why did the January 2019 resolution say that “a decision was taken”.

“The Supreme Court is not backtracking at all. We are the most transparent institution… An oral decision may have been taken [in the December 12, 2018 Collegium meeting]. You are not entitled to the oral decisions… The decision may not have been converted to writing… So many things could have been discussed in the Collegium meeting,” Justice Shah, who is a member of the current Collegium headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, responded.

The court reserved the appeal for judgment. The past weeks had seen Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju launch a vocal and very public criticism of the “opacity” in the functioning of the Collegium.

(Source: The Hindu)

The world has changed, the CBI must also change, says Supreme Court

By
lfadmin
-
0

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) must keep up with changing world, the Supreme Court has said underlying the need for reforms in the top investigation agency of India.

“The world has changed, the CBI must also change,” the Supreme Court said on 5th December as it heard a plea seeking guidelines for safeguarding academic work that is stored in digital devices seized by investigative agencies.

The remark by Justice S K Kaul came after the other judge on the bench, Justice A S Oka, said he had seen the CBI manual and that “it requires a lot of updation”.

In its affidavit filed in response to the plea, the Centre has said the issue can be addressed by adherence to the CBI Manual, 2020, which it said contains a detailed SOP besides safeguards regarding the seizure of electronic evidence.

The CBI manual “has various provisions dealing with the present subject matter and would substantially allay the apprehensions of the petitioner while balancing the competing legitimate state interest within the confines of Indian Constitutional and statutory framework”, the Centre added. The court fixed the matter for hearing next on February 7.

Purpose of charity should not be religious conversion: Supreme Court

By
lfadmin
-
0

Charity or good work is welcome but if it is intended for religious conversion then it is a serious issue, the Supreme Court of India has said, taking a tough stand on forced religious conversion.

Hearing a plea filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay on 5 December 2022, a bench of Justices M R Shah and C T Ravikumar noted that forced conversion is against the Constitution.

“The purpose of charity should not be conversion; every charity or good work is welcome, but what is required to be considered is the intention,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking direction to the Centre and states to take stringent steps to control fraudulent religious conversion by “intimidation, threatening, deceivingly luring through gifts and monetary benefits”.

The Centre told the court it is collecting information from states on religious conversion through such means.

Appearing before the bench, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought time to furnish detailed information on the issue.

“We are gathering information from the states. Give us a week’s time,” Mehta said. He said statutory the regime will determine whether a person is converting due to some change in belief.

The top court acknowledged forced religious conversion is a very serious matter.

“Do not take it as adversarial. It is a very serious issue. Ultimately it is against our Constitution. When everyone stays in India, they have to act per the culture of India,” the bench observed.

The apex court will now take up the matter on December 12.

Forced religious conversion may pose a danger to national security and impinge on religious freedom of citizens, the top court had said recently, and asked the Centre to step in and make sincere efforts to tackle the “very serious” issue.

12Page 2 of 2