Ram Prasad Sahni Vs Punita Devi and Ors on 22 Jun 2017

Posted on March 12, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Patna High Court held as follows,

Now, the question arises as to whether the applicant has been able to prove that her husband left behind the estate which she has inherited but is not in possession and whether the father-in-law is in possession of such estate? For better appreciation of this, the evidence led by the respective sides requires to be analyzed. The applicant-respondent no.1 has examined herself as AW 2. Though she has stated that she does not have any means to maintain herself and has also stated that the father-in-law has 6 kathas of agricultural land and pond and he is running a business of fishery and Makhana and also an orchard and from the aforesaid he is earning Rs.10,000/- per month, if it is compared to the statement made in her application, to some extent, it falsifies the same as she has categorically stated in paragraph no.13 of the application that her father-in-law‟s earning is about Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month. On the point of torture and being thrown out of the house, a question was asked in the cross-examination as to whether on such act done by the father-in-law with the help of his daughter and son-in-law, she filed any complaint case or first information report to which she denied. In the cross-examination, she further states that there is no land or any property in the name of her deceased-husband and she could not show any document or paper in support of her case that the father-in-law is possessing land or orchard and pond etc. She also denied that she could produce any document in support of her contention regarding the monthly income of the father-in-law. She has admitted that she is working as Angawari Sahika and is getting Rs.700/- per month. Now it is interesting to peruse the deposition of AW 1 who happens to be the father of the applicant – respondent no.1. He, in his examination-in-chief, has also stated the factum of marriage, the death of his son-in-law and also that she does not have any means to maintain herself and her children and also that she has been driven away forcibly after assault by the father-in-law. He has categorically stated that Ram Prasad Sahani, i.e., appellant-opposite party has 26 kathas of land and orchard and his earning is Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- from the aforesaid property. However, in the cross-examination, he has admitted that though his daughter was driven away but he and his daughter did not file any case and there was no property in the name of his deceased son-in-law and also admitted the fact that his Samdhi, i.e., father-in-law of his daughter, is pulling rickshaw for his livelihood. He has also stated that he does not have any document regarding any landed property of his Samdhi and at the same time, has also admitted that his daughter was working as Anganwari Sahiaka in his village and she is doing so for the last 15 years which demolishes his statement in examination-in-chief that she does not have any earning to maintain herself.
The appellant, who has been examined as OPW 1, has stated in his Chief that immediately after the death of his son, the daughter-in-law along with her children went to her Naihar. He does not have any landed property or pond etc. He is only having one thatched house and is having one minor daughter who is to be married but he does not have any means for her marriage and his income is Rs.50/- to Rs.60/- daily. Thus, he is unable to maintain his daughter-in-law, grandsons and granddaughter. In the cross-examination, he has stated that his son, though he was a student, used to do tuition to maintain him and his family. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the applicant as well as her father could not withstand the test of cross-examination and her case was demolished. They could not spell out the details of any landed property. Her father denied in the cross-examination that his son-in-law had any landed property. Thus, it has to be understood that her husband died without leaving any estate. He has also admitted that his Samdhi, i.e., father-in-law of his daughter earns his livelihood by pulling a rickshaw and does not have sufficient means to pay the maintenance amount. Thus, the case of the applicant-petitioner-respondent no.1 does not withstand the legal test under Section 19 or Section 22 of the Act as apparently there is no estate which she has inherited from her husband and even father-in-law is not having sufficient income to maintain her.
Though the materials were available as discussed above, the court below has also not recorded any finding as to whether the opposite party no.1 has sufficient means to maintain herself or not as it has come in the evidence led by the parties that she is working as Aganwari Sahaika for the last 15 years. It is also apparent from the order dated 04.02.2011, passed in the maintenance case that at the time of reconciliation, the father-in-law was ready to take her back but it was the applicant who refused to go with him though she has given a reason that there was threat upon her life but in view of the fact that the said action could not be proved by her, that would also be meaningless.
Unfortunately, the court below without recording any finding whether the husband has left any estate for the applicant or whether her father-in-law has sufficient income or not, has simply directed him without any rhyme and reason to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- for applicant no.1 and Rs.300/- per month towards maintenance of her children without holding as to whether the father-in-law is liable in law and in the facts and circumstances to pay such amount or not.

Citations:

Other sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114233990/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e96f0b24653d05364588a37

Index of judgments under HAMA 1956 are here.

Post Views: 620

Sunita and Anr Vs Pyare Lal and Ors on 08 Nov 2010

Posted on March 12, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows,

In view of above admitted and proved facts, the appellants have no right to claim maintenance from respondents no. 1 and 2 or right of residence in the disputed house. Under Section 18 of the Act, a Hindu wife can claim maintenance from her husband. However, under this provision, appellant no. 1 cannot claim maintenance from respondents no. 1 and 2, who are parents-in-law of appellant no. 1.
Under Section 19 of the Act, a Hindu wife can claim maintenance from her father-in-law after the death of her husband, provided and to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself and this right shall not be enforceable if father-in-law has no means to do so from coparcenary property. In the instant case, respondent no. 1 – father-in-law is not possessed of any coparcenary property so as to provide maintenance to appellant no. 1. Consequently, under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act, appellant no. 1 is not entitled to claim any maintenance from respondents no. 1 and 2.
As regards appellant no. 2, under Section 20 of the Act, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance from respondents no. 1 and 2, who are her grandparents because under this provision, a Hindu is bound to maintain his or her children or aged or infirm parents. Even under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act, appellant no. 2 is not entitled to claim maintenance from respondents no. 1 and 2 because respondents no. 1 and 2 have not inherited any estate from their deceased son Anil Kumar. Even otherwise, respondents no. 1 and 2 have no source of income except meager pension of respondent no. 1, who is retired at present. On the other hand, appellants have sufficient means to maintain themselves as appellant no. 1 has got job as Clerk in Municipal Corporation, Delhi and is also receiving family pension of her deceased husband. Appellant no. 1 has also been given a house by her own father. Appellant no. 1 can also seek maintenance from her own father.

Sunita and Anr Vs Pyare Lal and Ors on 08 Nov 2010

Citations:

Other sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186634126/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b493d3607dba348f008648

https://vlex.in/vid/sunita-and-another-vs-572334286

Index of judgments under HAMA 1956 are here.

Post Views: 683

Satpal Vs Suman and Ors on 31 May 2019

Posted on March 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, relying on Vimalben, held as follows,

In the case of Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel (Supra), the Supreme Court has held that “maintenance of a married wife, during subsistence of marriage, is on the husband. It is a personal obligation. The obligation tomaintain a daughter-in-law arises only when the husband has died. Such an objection can also be met from the properties of which the husband is a co-sharer and not otherwise. For invoking the said provision, the husband has a share in the property. The property in the name of the mother-in-law canneither be a subject matter of attachment nor during the life time of the husband, his personal liability to maintain his wife can be directed to beenforced against such property”. While referring to Section 4 of the Act, the Supreme Court has further held that “Section 4 provides for a non obstanteclause. In terms of the said provision itself any obligation on the part of in-laws in terms of any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any customor usage as part of law before the commencement of the Act, are no longer valid. In view of the non obstante clause contained in Section 4, theprovisions of the Act alone are applicable. Sections 18 and 19 prescribe the statutory liabilities in regard to maintenance of wife by her husband andonly on his death upon the father-in-law, Mother-in-law, thus, cannot be fastened with any legal liability to maintain her daughter-in-law from herown property or otherwise”.

But subsequently in same page,

Insofar as awarding maintenance under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act is concerned, this Court while delivering a judgment in the case of “Nachhattar Singh Vs. Satinder Kaur and others” 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 826 has held that the father-in-law is liable to maintain grandchildren if they are unable to maintain themselves and the income of their mother/father is inadequate for their maintenance.
Thus in view thereof, we are of the considered opinion that both the minor children, who are the grandchildren of the appellant-Satpal, have rightly been awarded the amount of maintenance.

Satpal Vs Suman and Ors on 31 May 2019

Index of judgments under HAMA 1956 are here.

Post Views: 661

Laxmi and Anr Vs Shyam Pratap and Anr on 28 Apr 2022

Posted on March 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Paras 11-13,

11. The daughter-in-law can claim maintenance from her father-in-law provided he has inherited some estate of her husband. The appellant has failed to disclose any estate of her husband having devolved upon the respondents. Not only this, the respondent No.1 father-in-law has already expired. Now only respondent No.2 mother-in-law survives and the appellants cannot as a matter of right, claim any maintenance from her.
12. Section 22 of the Act provides for maintenance of dependents of the deceased by the heirs of the deceased, but this is subject to the condition that they having inherited the estate from the deceased.
13. As already noted above, no estate has been inherited either by the mother or the sister of the deceased husband of the appellant No.1 from which any maintenance can be claimed by the appellants. There is no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Family Judge. The appeal is hereby dismissed.

Laxmi and Anr Vs Shyam Pratap and Anr on 28 Apr 2022

Index of judgments under HAMA 1956 are here.

Post Views: 730

Suresh Tiwari and Anr Vs Madhu Tiwari on 31 Jul 2023

Posted on March 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Delhi High Court, relying on Vimalben and Laxmi decisions, held as follows,

From Paras 4-6,

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, while not disputing the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the respondent has now become aware of certain coparcenary properties in the possession of the petitioners. He submits that, in fact, there are certain properties of the late husband of the respondent which are now being held by the petitioners. He submits that he shall be moving an appropriate application before the learned Family Court to bring on record the above facts.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners disputes the assertions of the learned counsel for the respondent that there are any coparcenary properties held by the petitioner no.1 or that there are any properties of the late husband of the respondent being held by the petitioners.
6. Be that as it may, the Impugned Order, which grants interim maintenance to the respondent, cannot be sustained.

From Paras 8-9,

8. This Court in Laxmi & Anr. (supra) has reiterated that a daughter-in-law can claim maintenance from her father-in-law, provided that the father-in-law has inherited some estate of her husband. In absence of any such disclosure, the daughter-in-law cannot maintain such claim against the father-in-law; in any case, claim cannot be maintained against the mother-in-law.
9. In Satpal (supra), the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court also reiterated that for invoking the provision of Section 19 of the Act, the widowed daughter-in-law has to show that the father-in-law has coparcenary property in his possession. Such claim will not lie against the salary of the father-in-law or against his self-acquired property.

Finally, from Paras 10-11,

10. In the present case, as the petition filed by the respondent stands today, there is no averment of the petitioner no.1 holding any coparcenary property against which the respondent can maintain her claim under Section 19 of the Act. The Impugned Order also does not give any such finding. The Impugned Order, therefore, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.
11. As far as the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent has now become aware of coparcenary property in the possession of the petitioner no.1 and/or that the petitioners are holding properties belonging to the late husband of the respondent, in absence of such averments before the learned Family Court, they cannot be taken cognizance of at this stage by this Court. The respondent shall be free to move an appropriate application in this regard before the learned Family Court, and the same shall be considered by the learned Family Court remaining uninfluenced by any observations made in the present order.

Suresh Tiwari and Anr Vs Madhu Tiwari on 31 Jul 2023

Index of judgments under HAMA 1956 are here.

Post Views: 618

Maintenance Judgments under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956

Posted on March 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court:

Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel Vs Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel And others on 14 March, 2008 [In Para 24, held that mother-in-law cannot be fastened with any liability of maintenance towards widowed daughter-in-law]

Delhi High Court:

Laxmi and Anr Vs Shyam Pratap and Anr on 28 Apr 2022 [failed to disclose any estate of her husband having devolved upon the respondents; Father-in-law expired and the appellants cannot as a matter of right, claim any maintenance from mother-in-law]
Suresh Tiwari and Anr Vs Madhu Tiwari on 31 Jul 2023 [No averment of the father-in-law holding any coparcenary property against which the daughter-in-law can maintain her claim under Section 19 of the Act and furthermore Impugned Order also does not give any such finding]

Patna High Court:

Ram Prasad Sahni Vs Punita Devi and Ors on 22 Jun 2017 [Trail Court failed to adjudicate whether the husband has left any estate for the applicant or whether her father-in-law has sufficient income or not]

Punjab and Haryana High Court:

Sunita and Anr Vs Pyare Lal and Ors on 08 Nov 2010 [Under Section 18 of the Act, a Hindu wife can claim maintenance from her husband but not from her in-laws. Under Section 19 of the Act, a Hindu wife can claim maintenance from her father-in-law after the death of her husband, provided and to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself and this right shall not be enforceable if father-in-law has no means to do so from coparcenary property. Under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act, grandchild is not entitled to claim maintenance from grandparents because they have not inherited any estate from their deceased son]
Satpal Vs Suman and Ors on 31 May 2019 [Mother-in-law cannot be made liable to maintenance to windowed daughter-in-law; grandchildren are entitled for maintenance]

Index of all Maintenance judgments is here.

Post Views: 1,117

Pulipati Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and Ors on 14 Feb 2024

Posted on March 5, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Telangana High Court imposed ‘exemplary costs on petitioner as well as learned counsel, to be quantified at Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lacs only) so as to prohibit them, in future, from filing cases which result in taxing the judicial time.’

From Paras 4-7,

4. Concealing / suppression of material facts would amount to abuse of process of law, playing fraud with Court as well as opposite party. The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that petitioner approaching the writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state the facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he / she withholds some vital / relevant material, in order to gain advantage over the other side, then he / she would be guilty of playing fraud which cannot be countenanced. The parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigation either past or present concerning any part of the subject matter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the lis, no legal proceedings or court litigation were or are pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law.
5. Alas, our judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation, hence, ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims. Litigation like the present one is contributing fuel to fire in mounting pendency, disabling the Courts to discharge the prime duty of justice dissemination. One needs to keep in mind that there is an innocent sufferer on the other side of every irresponsible and senseless claim.
6. This Court expresses its dissatisfaction on the unbecoming conduct of a legal practitioner such as the counsel for petitioner in this case for wasting judicial time by filing cases suppressing the facts. It is a well-known fact that there is huge pendency of cases and pressure on Judges in disposing of such cases is enormous. Genuine litigation is not getting the attention of this Court by this type of frivolous litigation. Earlier, on couple of occasions, this Court cautioned learned counsel to refrain from filing such type of cases which benefit no citizen. Learned counsel filed Writ Petition No. 37851 of 2022 wherein, for suppression of material events, this Court imposed Rs.1,00,000/- to petitioner. Thereafter, in Writ Petition No. 2666 of 2004, for the very same reason, this Court imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000/-, however, at the request of his junior colleagues, the said order was recalled. On the next occasion, on the same ground, when this Court warned the learned counsel, he sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petition. Keeping in view the financial status of the litigant, this Court has shown lenience and disposed of the Writ Petition. Still, learned counsel has been exhibiting the same attitude which forces this Court to impose exemplary costs on petitioner as well as learned counsel, to be quantified at Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lacs only) so as to prohibit them, in future, from filing cases which result in taxing the judicial time.
7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lacs only) to be deposited with Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today. In default, needless to say, Registry shall list the Writ Petition before the Court.

Pulipati Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and Ors on 14 Feb 2024

Index of Perjury Judgements is here.

Post Views: 582

Kanwal Kishore Girdhar Vs Seema Girdhar on 28 Feb 2024

Posted on March 2, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court, held that ‘Mother igniting animosity in children towards father is cruelty, valid ground for divorce’.

From Paras 32-33,

32. It is unfortunate that despite the respondent being educated, she was unable to manage her sentiments and emotions, when it came to her husband. She has made adulterous allegations against the appellant and according to her, she had even taken the phone number and the photographs of the lady. However, significantly nothing has found its way to the present proceedings and no cogent evidence of the same has surfaced. Making such unwarranted allegations of adultery without any corroboration, is an act of mental cruelty as held in the case of Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334 and A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22. Similar observations were also made in the case of Jayanti vs Rakesh Mediratta, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5760.
33. The differences between two adults may arise due to myriad reasons, some may be temperamental or factual, but the irrationality of the conduct ofthe respondent is brought forth by her conduct of involving in eight years old child, in their disputes. The petitioner and the respondent may not have been able to generate mutual affection, respect and understanding due to their differences, but it does not justify the act of the respondent in embroiling their minor daughter in their fights. Taking a small daughteralong with her with a specific design to the house of the appellant and then to make allegations of adultery and call the Police, is an act of ruining thepsyche of a child and turning her against her father. A person may be a badhusband but that does not lead to the necessary conclusion of he being a badfather. The act of the respondent in trying to turn the children against their father and even making her write a complaint against her father, is a clear case of parental alienation, which in itself is an act of grave mental cruelty.

From Para 36,

36. This is a clear case of parental alienation where the respondent has not even spared her children and has involved them in her differences, with the appellant. Such conduct of making unsubstantiated allegations of adultery coupled with involving their child in the inter se disputes between the parties, can be termed as nothing but an extreme act of cruelty.

Kanwal Kishore Girdhar Vs Seema Girdhar on 28 Feb 2024

Index of Divorce judgments is here.

Post Views: 5,479

What are Principles of Natural Justice?

Posted on February 25, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

Few of the Principles of Natural Justice (Rules of Fair Hearing)…

Nemo debet esse judex in propia causa (rule against Bias)
- No one should be made a judge in his own cause, and the rule against bias.
Audi alteram partem (rule of Hearing)
- To hear the other party, or no one should be condemned unheard
Speaking Order (Reasoned Decision)
- A party has the right to know all the causes of the decision

Post Views: 569

Anupati Rajesh Vs Peruboina Anusha Sai on 05 Feb 2024

Posted on February 19, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A perverse order passed by the AP High Court, totally bypassing the intent of the Apex Court is prescribing the guidelines in Rajnesh Vs Neha decision here.

From Paras 6-7,

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the court below erred in allowing the petition even without filing the statement of assets and liabilities and further that the respondent herself deserted the petitioner and yet, sought maintenance, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim any interim maintenance. It is also submitted by him that without there being any evidence of income of the petitioner, the Court below granted interim maintenance of exorbitant amount, which is unsustainable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and others1, wherein at paragraph No.99, it was held as follows:
“99. The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court/District Court/Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the country.”
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has not raised any objection before the trial Court about the statement to be filed nor did he file any such statement. He further submitted that the petitioner herein did not dispute his income in the counter filed by him and further, after considering the facts and allegations submitted on both sides, the impugned order was passed by the Court below, and therefore, the same does not require any interference.

From Paras 9-11,

9. The petitioner herein has not raised any objection that the interim order cannot be granted in view of non-filing of such a statement by the respondent herein. As such, the trial Court had no opportunity to decide on that aspect. Hence, the petitioner cannot contend that the impugned order is illegal on that ground.
10. As rightly contended, the petitioner herein in his counter did not specifically deny his earnings and he merely stated that the respondent/wife did not file any proof in support of the income stated in the petition. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly taken the earning capacity of the revision petitioner into consideration while fixing the quantum of maintenance.
11. Insofar as the question of desertion by the respondent herein is concerned, it is a matter of enquiry after full-fledged trial and prima facie there is no material on record to support the contention of the petitioner herein that the respondent herself deserted the petitioner as contended.

Anupati Rajesh Vs Peruboina Anusha Sai on 05 Feb 2024

Index of all maintenance cases is here.

Post Views: 749

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Ram Prasad Sahni Vs Punita Devi and Ors on 22 Jun 2017

Sunita and Anr Vs Pyare Lal and Ors on 08 Nov 2010

Satpal Vs Suman and Ors on 31 May 2019

Laxmi and Anr Vs Shyam Pratap and Anr on 28 Apr 2022

Suresh Tiwari and Anr Vs Madhu Tiwari on 31 Jul 2023

Maintenance Judgments under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956

Pulipati Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and Ors on 14 Feb 2024

Kanwal Kishore Girdhar Vs Seema Girdhar on 28 Feb 2024

What are Principles of Natural Justice?

Anupati Rajesh Vs Peruboina Anusha Sai on 05 Feb 2024