Matrimonial disputes: India - Revision history

Jyoti: /* Procedures */

2022-03-12T14:13:30Z

‎Procedures

Jyoti: /* S. 498(A) IPC */

2022-01-28T13:52:35Z

‎S. 498(A) IPC

Jyoti: /* Procedures */

2021-10-12T06:04:05Z

‎Procedures

Jyoti: /* Husband must attend court wherever wife files case: CJI */

2019-04-11T20:23:21Z

‎Husband must attend court wherever wife files case: CJI

Pdewan: /* Husband must attend court wherever wife files case: CJI */

2019-04-10T18:27:46Z

‎Husband must attend court wherever wife files case: CJI

Jyoti: /* Procedures */

2017-10-10T16:17:23Z

‎Procedures

Pdewan: /* False complaints under S. 498(A) IPCe */

2017-10-10T10:24:41Z

‎False complaints under S. 498(A) IPCe

Pdewan: /* Transfer of cases at wives’ request */

2017-10-10T10:23:43Z

‎Transfer of cases at wives’ request

Pdewan: /* Transfer of cases at wives’ request */

2017-10-10T10:22:41Z

‎Transfer of cases at wives’ request

Pdewan at 21:49, 7 September 2017

2017-09-07T21:49:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:13, 12 March 2022
Line 106:		Line 106:
	The SC bench said: “We... hold that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving from the matrimonial home, ...also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences”. PTI		The SC bench said: “We... hold that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving from the matrimonial home, ...also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences”. PTI

		+
		+	=Property, residential=
		+	==Wife’s right of residence in shared household not permanent: HC==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=02_03_2022_004_003_cap_TOI Abhinav Garg, March 2, 2022: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	New Delhi: The right of residence of a wife in a shared household is not permanent if the property is owned by the in-laws who wish to evict her, Delhi High Court has said.
		+	Dismissing a plea against eviction by an estranged wife living with her in-laws, the court said, “Admittedly, the right of residence under the Domestic Violence Act is not an indefeasible right of residence in a shared household, especially, when the daughter-in-law is pitted against the aged father-inlaw and mother-in-law. ”
		+
		+	Justice Yogesh Khanna further noted that the in-laws in the current case were “senior citizens, aged about 74 and 69 years, and being in the evening of their life, are entitled to live peacefully and not to be haunted by the marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law”.
		+
		+	The high court, however, made it clear that until an alternative accommodation was provided to the wife by her husband, she won’t be evicted from the house as per the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
		+
		+	The woman’s plea said that as a legally wedded wife, she had been living with her two minor daughters in one room with an attached bathroom and a balcony in the suit property, owned by her father-in-law. She further claimed that the property was bought from joint family funds and from the sale proceeds of the ancestral property of the father-inlaw, and hence, it was a joint family property in which she also had a right to reside. However, the trial court had held that the property was a self-acquired one by the father-in-law and she was residing in it as his daughter-in-law, and once the in-laws didn’t wish to keep her, she had no right to stay there. The wife challenged the decree of possession passed against her.
		+
		+	The high court noted that the parties were residing in a flat, even while filing various complaints against each other, which revealed that their relations were not cordial. It wondered if in such circumstances, it would “be appropriate for them to stay together and fight every minute of their existence”, and upheld the trial court’s decision, while noting that the husband had never staked his claim to the property. “Where the residence is ashared household, it does notcreate any embargo upon theowner to claim eviction against hisdaughter-in-law. A strained frictional relationship between theparties would be relevant todecide whether the grounds ofeviction exist,” the judge said,adding, “since there exists a frictional relationship between theparties, then at the fag end oftheir lives, it would not be advisable for the old parents to stay withthe appellant. ”
		+
		+	[[Category:Crime\|D MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES: INDIA
		+	MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|D MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES: INDIA
		+	MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|D MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES: INDIA
		+	MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES: INDIA]]

	= Unnatural sex=		= Unnatural sex=

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:52, 28 January 2022
Line 27:		Line 27:

	Dismissing a woman's petition, who had appealed against a trial court's decision not to permit her lead evidence against the two brothers of her husband, the CJI said, “There is an increasing hardening of stand among husbands, whose parents had been arrested in false 498A cases, not to take back the wife. They say they are willing to give her all the property , they will take care of the children's education and marriage but will not take her back.“		Dismissing a woman's petition, who had appealed against a trial court's decision not to permit her lead evidence against the two brothers of her husband, the CJI said, “There is an increasing hardening of stand among husbands, whose parents had been arrested in false 498A cases, not to take back the wife. They say they are willing to give her all the property , they will take care of the children's education and marriage but will not take her back.“
		+
		+	==Girlfriend, mistress can’t be charged under cruelty law: HC==
		+	[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/aurangabad/aurangabad-girlfriend-mistress-cant-be-charged-under-cruelty-law-says-hc/articleshow/88515451.cms Mohammed Akhef, Dec 27, 2021: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	AURANGABAD: The term “relative” cannot be applied to a girlfriend or mistress when filing a case under Section 498A of the IPC that deals with cruelty towards a woman by her husband or kin, the Bombay high court’s Aurangabad bench has said while quashing an FIR against a woman constable accused of harassment by the wife of a male colleague.
		+
		+	According to the FIR registered by Dharur police in Maharashtra’s Beed district, the woman constable was in an allegedly illicit relationship with the complainant’s husband – also a cop — and the duo conspired along with the woman’s inlaws to insult and harass her. The complainant also claimed her husband and relatives tried to set her ablaze.
		+
		+	The bench of Justice V K Jadhav and Justice Sandipkumar C More noted that the attempt-to-murder charge (Section 307) had been made mainly against the complainant’s husband, mother-inlaw and other family members. “Insofar as the charge under Section 498A is concerned, the charge is not sustainable against the applicant (the woman constable),” the judges said.
		+
		+	Lawyers Ashwini Lomte and S J Salunke, representing the woman constable, had submitted that their client was not a member of the complainant’s family and, hence, the allegations levelled against her were with “certain oblique motive”. The lawyers also cited a 2009 Supreme Court judgment in which it was specified that any reference to a “relative of the husband” cannot include “the (man’s) girlfriend or concubine”.
		+
		+	[[Category:Crime\|D MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES: INDIA
		+	MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|D MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES: INDIA
		+	MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|D MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES: INDIA
		+	MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES: INDIA]]

	=Procedures=		=Procedures=

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:04, 12 October 2021
Line 86:		Line 86:

	The SC bench said: “We... hold that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving from the matrimonial home, ...also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences”. PTI		The SC bench said: “We... hold that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving from the matrimonial home, ...also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences”. PTI
		+
		+
		+	= Unnatural sex=
		+	==A heinous crime/ SC, 2021==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL/2021/09/28&entity=Ar01402&sk=E1662D81&mode=text Dhananjay Mahapatra, Sep 28, 2021: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	The Supreme Court said forcible unnatural sex with wife by husband is a heinous offence, especially as it had led her to die by suicide, and refused bail to the man who has been in custody for more than two years on charges of dowry harassment, domestic violence and rape.
		+
		+	An FIR was lodged in 2019 by the victim’s brother at Bhiwani Sadar police station in Haryana’s Bhiwani district, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 377 and 306 of the IPC.
		+
		+	A bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli refused bail to one Pradeep, who allegedly tortured his wife by forcibly committing unnatural sex with her after her family failed to meet his dowry demands.
		+
		+	The CJI-led bench said Sec 377 (rape) is a very serious offence and that the accused husband did not deserve leniency at the stage of probe. “We do not know what the police are doing. You started demanding dowry. When her family could not meet those demands, you started harassing her. You circulated her private pictures and videos on social media and tried to blackmail her. Above all, you allegedly had forcible unnatural sex with her leading to her suicide. You deserve no leniency as this is a heinous crime.”
		+
		+	When the petitioner’s counsel said that the man is a government servant and would lose his job if not granted bail, the bench said, “It is ok if such persons lose their jobs. You better stay in jail.”
		+
		+	[[Category:Crime\|D
		+	MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|D
		+	MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|D
		+	MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES: INDIA]]

	=See also=		=See also=

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 Husband must follow wherever wife files case, says CJI Dattu ust six months after giving hope to estranged husbands that J they need not always be at the receiving end, the Supreme Court said wherever a wife files a case of cruelty in the matrimonial home against her husband, he has to go there and face proceedings. Counsel for an estranged husband facing cases under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code instituted by his wife in Goa told a bench of Chief Justice H L Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy that the alleged incidents of harassment in the matrimonial home happened in UP, the woman's father was a resident of Haryana, yet she chose to file the case in Goa to harass him. When he sought transfer of the case to a mutually convenient place, the bench rejected the argument saying a husband has to travel to the place where the case was instituted by the estranged wife. The CJI said, “In Indian society, we believe that wherever the wife goes, the husband has to faithfully follow her there.“
 =See also=
 [[Divorce: India ]]
 [[Matrimonial disputes: India]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:27, 10 April 2019
Line 76:		Line 76:

	Husband must follow wherever wife files case, says CJI Dattu ust six months after giving hope to estranged husbands that J they need not always be at the receiving end, the Supreme Court said wherever a wife files a case of cruelty in the matrimonial home against her husband, he has to go there and face proceedings. Counsel for an estranged husband facing cases under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code instituted by his wife in Goa told a bench of Chief Justice H L Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy that the alleged incidents of harassment in the matrimonial home happened in UP, the woman's father was a resident of Haryana, yet she chose to file the case in Goa to harass him. When he sought transfer of the case to a mutually convenient place, the bench rejected the argument saying a husband has to travel to the place where the case was instituted by the estranged wife. The CJI said, “In Indian society, we believe that wherever the wife goes, the husband has to faithfully follow her there.“		Husband must follow wherever wife files case, says CJI Dattu ust six months after giving hope to estranged husbands that J they need not always be at the receiving end, the Supreme Court said wherever a wife files a case of cruelty in the matrimonial home against her husband, he has to go there and face proceedings. Counsel for an estranged husband facing cases under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code instituted by his wife in Goa told a bench of Chief Justice H L Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy that the alleged incidents of harassment in the matrimonial home happened in UP, the woman's father was a resident of Haryana, yet she chose to file the case in Goa to harass him. When he sought transfer of the case to a mutually convenient place, the bench rejected the argument saying a husband has to travel to the place where the case was instituted by the estranged wife. The CJI said, “In Indian society, we believe that wherever the wife goes, the husband has to faithfully follow her there.“
		+	=See also=
		+	[[Divorce: India ]]
		+
		+	[[Matrimonial disputes: India]]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 =Procedures=
 ==Transfer of cases at wives’ request==
 [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=Why-should-hubbies-suffer-every-time-SC-09012015009036 ''The Times of India''], Jan 09 2015

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:24, 10 October 2017
Line 13:		Line 13:


−	=~~False complaints under~~ S. 498(A) ~~IPCe~~=	+	=S. 498(A) IPC=
		+	==False complaints==

	[http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=False-cruelty-cases-ruining-marriages-says-apex-court-09122014012022''The Times of India'']		[http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=False-cruelty-cases-ruining-marriages-says-apex-court-09122014012022''The Times of India'']

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 The CJI added, “They take a plea before the court that they may have committed a mistake but for that punishing their old parents on a false complaint was not condonable. The false complaints under Section 498A are ruining marriages. “The court had some advice for women who file complaints under Section 498A. “When you file complaints under Section 498A, be circumspect and truthful. You unnecessarily involve old people in your complaint, you end up ruining the marriage,“ it said.
-=Husband must attend court wherever wife files case: CJI=
+==Husband must attend court wherever wife files case: CJI==
 [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=Is-aloo-bonda-processed-food-Top-court-says-01092015012033 ''The Times of India''], Sep 01 2015

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 [[Category:India |D ]]
 [[Category:Crime |D ]]
-[[Category:Law, Constitution, Judiciary |D ]]
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary |D ]]