Man asked to pay Rs 45,000 maintenance to 2nd wife and minor son

A Delhi court has asked a man to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 45,000 to his second wife in a domestic violence case, noting he did not have to maintain his first wife as she was employed.

The court also noted that the man had reconciled with his first wife.

Additional Sessions Judge Vrinda Kumari upheld the lower court’s order asking the man, a Rajasthan resident, to pay the maintenance to his estranged second wife and their minor son.

“The amount of maintenance of appellant aggrieved (second wife) and her minor son must be decided accordingly… The court is unable to find any fault with awarding maintenance amount of Rs 20,000 to woman and Rs 25,000 to minor son,” the judge said.

The court, while rejecting the man’s claim that the maintenance amount was high as he had to maintain his first wife and son, said “the wife and son from the first wedlock were employed and were not dependent on him”.

The court, however, refused to allow the woman’s plea to enhance the maintenance, saying she failed to lead any evidence regarding his income.

According to the complaint filed by the woman, the man married her after allegedly concealing his first wedlock.

It also alleged that he, along with his mother, had taken more than Rs 50 lakh from her to start a business.

The complaint further alleged that they separated after she found out about his first marriage.

Besides maintenance, the woman had sought prohibitory orders to restrict the man and his mother to save herself from domestic violence.

The trial court had granted a maintenance of Rs 45,000 to the woman and the child. She, however, approached the court for enhancement.

Opposing her contentions, the husband claimed that the magisterial court order was passed ex-parte.

This claim was rejected by the court which noted that he failed to apprise about his address despite being repeatedly asked to do so.

Court comes to rescue of old woman, asks son to vacate house

Court comes to rescue of old woman, asks son to vacate house
Court comes to rescue of old woman, asks son to vacate house

Coming to the aid of a 74-year- old widow, who was harassed by her son and daughter-in-law, a Delhi court has asked the couple to vacate her house, saying there is rampant abuse and misuse of the domestic violence and dowry laws to “silence and arm-twist the aging parents”.

“Life is not a ladder but a wheel which takes a full circle…. The courts of law cannot permit the elderly to be abandoned financially as well as emotionally at an age when they need their own most,” Additional District Judge Kamini Lau said in her judgement, adding the judiciary would step in to stop “inappropriate and illegal conduct” of children against aged parents.

“We forget that if we do not care for our parents at the age they require us, our kids would not care for us,” the judge said.

The court held that Shanti Devi, an elderly woman residing in Central Delhi, was entitled to possession of two properties and directed her son and daughter-in-law to vacate the house and peacefully hand it over to her.

It also directed the couple to pay damages of Rs 5,000 per month to Devi from the time of filing of suit in October 2015, till the date of handing over the property to her.

The court observed that Devi was a frail woman who was made to rush to the court in the twilight years of her life due to the harassment meted out to her by her son and daughter-in-law.

“This senior citizen has been facing trauma, harassment and humiliation in the hands of her own son and his wife. She has made numerous complaints to the police and reported the their harassment,” the judge noted, adding that the couple was doing it to usurp the property.

“This is not the story of Shanti Devi alone but thousands of senior citizens which we hear almost every day,” it said.

The court declared null and void the sale agreement of the property, Will and power of attorney as produced by Devi’s son Ramakant and his wife Poonam and restrained them from selling the house to anyone.

“Respecting our parents and elders and caring for them is an integral part of our rich Indian culture and tradition. Of late, there is a rampant abuse and misuse of the domestic violence and dowry laws only to silence and arm-twist the aging parents.

“Life is not a ladder but a wheel and takes a full circle. As the wheels of time turns, men wear many names and faces and no one wants to realize the great pattern the wheel weaves,” the court observed.

( Source – PTI )

Man told to pay Rs 16K to daughter, not to dispossess wife

Man told to pay Rs 16K to daughter, not to dispossess wife
Man told to pay Rs 16K to daughter, not to dispossess wife

A man has been directed by a city court not to dispossess his estranged wife or commit domestic violence against her and pay Rs 16,000 per month as interim maintenance to their minor daughter.

Additional Sessions Judge Praveen Kumar dismissed the man’s appeal against a trial court’s order askim him to pay maintenance to his daughter, saying the amount was “just and fair”.

“The trial court has rightly assessed the income of the appellant (man) in the impugned order. No maintenance was granted to the respondent (woman) as she is gainfully employed. The interim maintenance granted to the child is just and fair in the facts and circumstances of this case.

“The trial court has rightly restrained the man not to dispossess her (woman) and commit any act of domestic violence against her till the disposal of the case,” the court said.

It also said some of the reliefs sought by the man in his appeal were “frivolous” and cannot be granted by the court.

“This court is only concerned with the legality of the order passed by the trial court and nothing else,” it said, adding that there was no infirmity in the magisterial court’s order and there was no merit in the appeal.

The man and the woman had married in September 1998 and a daughter was born to them.

The woman alleged in her complaint that she was mentally and physically harassed and cruelly treated by her husband and had sought maintenance for herself and the child.

The man, however, denied the allegations of harassment and cruelty. He said he was well educated and was earlier working in solar energy engineering but had lost his job. He claimed he was surviving on honorarium whenever he was invited for temporary assignments on rural electrification projects.

( Source – PTI )

‘1.05 L maintenance to wife right in view of inflation’

'1.05 L maintenance to wife right in view of inflation'
‘1.05 L maintenance to wife right in view of inflation’

A court here has dismissed a man’s plea against an order directing him to pay Rs 1.05 lakh per month as maintenance to his estranged wife and two children in a domestic violence case, observing that it was appropriate in view of the rising prices in metropolitan cities like Delhi.

“It may be mentioned that there is a rapid price hike in metropolitan cities like Delhi. Keeping in view the income of the husband as well as the rising prices in metropolitan cities like Delhi, I am of the considered view that it is an appropriate amount awarded for the maintenance of wife as well as her two children,” Special Judge Ramesh Kumar said.

The judge also observed that it is the duty of every able bodied husband to maintain his wife and children.

“It may be mentioned that the respondent, being legally wedded wife of the appellant, is liable to be maintained by him. It is the duty of every able bodied husband to maintain his wife and children. In the present matter, the appellant cannot escape from the said liability.

“Keeping in view the source of income of the appellant and in view of the standard of living of the parties, I am of the considered view that grant of interim maintenance at Rs 35,000 per month each to the aggrieved as well as to the two minor children was fully justified,” the judge said.

A magisterial court had on March 23, 2016 directed the man to pay interim maintenance of Rs 35,000 each to his wife and two children in the complaint under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act.

In his appeal, the man contended that his wife, whom he got married to in 1999, was a self-centred woman who used to emotionally blackmail him and his family members and left the matrimonial house 10 years after their wedding.

He had also claimed that the magisterial court’s order was “bad in law” as while noting his income to be Rs 1.5 lakh it did not consider his expenses.

He contended that as a Director in a company he had 33 per cent share holding and cannot be overburdened under the garb of maintenance.

(Source : PTI)

Somnath Bharti’s wife refuses mediation in SC

Somnath Bharti's wife refuses mediation in SC
Somnath Bharti’s wife refuses mediation in SC

The estranged wife of former Delhi Law Minister Somnath Bharti today told the Supreme Court that she was not ready to undergo mediation to settle the domestic violence and attempt to murder case lodged by her against the AAP leader.

A bench headed by Chief Justice H L Dattu took note of the statement of Bharti’s wife Lipika Mitra and disposed of the MLA’s petition saying that it has now become infructuous as the petitioner has already surrendered.

During the hearing, the bench also comprising Justice Amitava Roy asked Lipika’s view on the issue of undergoing mediation at the Supreme Court itself.

“We asked Lipika whether she was agreeable to mediation. Her answer is positive no…” the bench said.

It then asked Vijay Aggarwal, counsel for Bharti, to approach the trial court with a fresh plea seeking regular bail.

“It is now for the petitioner to move learned trial judge seeking regular bail. If an application is made, we direct the trial judge to consider the said application either on the day it is filed or on the next day,” the bench said.

The apex court had on October 1 declined the oral plea of Bharti’s counsel for grant of interim bail and sought Lipika’s presence today to know her stand on possibility of mediation.

The 41-year-old MLA was yesterday sent to Tihar Jail for a day by a trial court, after Delhi Police informed it that it does not seek his further custody.

Bharti’s lawyer had pressed for one-day judicial custody instead of 14 days as sought by the police, as the matter was listed before the apex court today for the purpose of mediation between the leader and Lipika.

Bharti had on September 23 moved the apex court seeking protection from arrest in the case and a direction to restrain Delhi Police from arresting him till his plea challenging the high court order is decided.


( Source – PTI )

Court refuses anticipatory bail to Somnath Bharti

Court refuses anticipatory bail to Somnath Bharti
Court refuses anticipatory bail to Somnath Bharti

A Delhi court on Monday refused to grant anticipatory bail to Aam Aadmi Party MLA Somnath Bharti in a domestic violence and attempt to murder case filed against him by his wife.

Additional Sessions Judge Sanjay Garg dismissed Bharti’s application seeking bail, submitting that he was a former Delhi law minister and there was no chance that he would abscond.

Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, appearing for Bharti, told the court that his client still wanted to support his wife and children and was ready for mediation.

“I (Bharti) am a lawyer, ex-Delhi law minister and a public servant and there is no chance that I will abscond,” Aggarwal said. While opposing Bharti’s plea, prosecutor Shailendra Babbar said the offences alleged against him were serious. He said two notices have already been issued to him by the police for joining probe in the case but he was running away and not cooperating with the agency.

He also claimed that Bharti was an influencial person due to which nobody was coming forward to depose against him. The prosecutor said two FIRs were earlier registered against Bharti, including one on alleged molestation of African women. He also said the politician’s wife was called for mediation four times but it did not help. Bharti’s wife Lipika, who was present in the courtroom, opposed the anticipatory bail plea, saying “my small kids are suffering.

I love my husband and that is why I suffered the abuse for five years.” On court’s query if mediation was an option, she refused and said “no reconciliation is possible. He left me to die in front of my children.” Lipika had filed a complaint of domestic violence with the Delhi Commission for Women on June 10 alleging that her husband had been abusing her since their marriage in 2010.

She had also given a complaint to police in this regard. The Delhi Police had last week registered an FIR against Bharti under sections 307 (attempt to murder),  98A(cruelty towards partner in marriage), 324(voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC.


( Source – PTI )

“Can’t deny maintenance to 1st wife because of 2nd”

"Can't deny maintenance to 1st wife because of 2nd"
“Can’t deny maintenance to 1st wife because of 2nd”

A Delhi court has directed a man to pay his first wife and their two children Rs 8,000 interim maintenance per month in a domestic violence case, saying he cannot shirk his liability on pretext of having responsibility of maintaining second wife.

“The court is of the view that the complainant and her two children are entitled to interim maintenance in view of the fact that the man being her husband and father of their kids, is legally and morally duty-bound to maintain them as per means available to him…

“He cannot shirk this liability on the pretext of having insufficient means or responsibility of maintaining second wife,” Metropolitan Magistrate Mona Tardi Kerketta said while rejecting the man’s contention that he was ill and had to look after his second wife too.

The court, however, rejected the claims of both the parties in terms of income proof saying no detailed evidence has been filed to prove their financial conditions.

As per the complaint, the woman had contended that her estranged husband was earning Rs 55,000 per month from his hotel business and that she was a house-maker without any professional qualification.

The man denied the contentions and claimed that he was merely assisting his father in his business, and earned Rs 10,000 a month. He had further claimed that he was a diabetic and had to maintain his second wife.

The court, however, observed that the man did not disclose complete details of his business and total income.

“He has also not brought any document to prove his income per month. It appears that he has done so with the sole motive of suppressing his true income,” it said.

Rs 1L fine imposed on woman for misusing law against husband

Rs 1L fine imposed on woman for misusing law against husband
Rs 1L fine imposed on woman for misusing law against husband

A court here has dismissed a woman’s complaint of domestic violence against her husband and in-laws, noting that she misused legal provisions as a tool to extort unjustified money from him for unjustified personal gain, and imposed a cost of Rs one lakh on her.

Metropolitan Magistrate Shivani Chauhan dismissed the complaint of the woman, a south Delhi resident, saying that she had falsified and concocted various allegations and suppressed important facts in order to harass her in-laws.

The court said that generally women are at the receiving end of domestic violence and the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act is created solely with a view to provide relief to the victims of domestic violence and not to the perpetrators.
It, however, noted that “the testimony of the complainant (woman) throws light on the conduct of the complainant and the extent, to which she has falsified and concocted various allegations and has suppressed important facts in order to harass the respondents (husband and parents-in-laws) and had misused the PWDV Act as a tool to extort unjustified money from respondent no 1 (husband) for unjustified personal gain.”

“It is a fit case which calls for imposition of exemplary cost on complainant, so that like minded people are dissuaded from resorting to such mala fide practices,” the court said, while dismissing the woman’s complaint with a cost of Rs one lakh, to be deposited in the account of Blind Relief Association.

“The imposition of cost is in furtherance of the principle that wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous litigations,” it said.

In her complaint against her husband and in-laws, she said she got married in November 1989 at Patna and it was a love marriage.

After the marriage, however, the differences between the couple grew and she was harassed physically and verbally by her husband while her in-laws turned a blind eye towards the issue, the complaint said.

Leander denies Rhea Pillai’s all allegations

Leander PaesAce tennis player Leander Paes denied all allegations of domestic violence and harassment against him before the local metropolitan magistrate’s court here on Wednesday.

Last month, his estranged live-in partner Reha Pillai had approached a local court and filed a case against him. “Paes filed an application today denying all allegations levelled against him by Pillai”, Rhea Pillai’s advocate V D Mungekar told PTI.

Mungekar said that he would file a counter-application in the court next month. In her complaint, Rhea Pillai had also named Leander Paes’ father Vece Paes and sought monthly maintenance of about Rs 4 lakh.

The estranged couple has been fighting for the custody of their eight-year-old daughter. In her complaint, Rhea Pillai had accused Leander’s father Vece Paes, of preventing her and her daughter from entering their Carter Road residence in suburban Bandra.

She had also sought blocking of any transfer of property to any “third party”. Last month, Leander Paes had filed ‘a guardianship petition’ in the family court here, seeking permanent custody of his daughter from Rhea Pillai.

(Source: PTI)

Domestic Violence: Man who helps woman can get protection

As we all know that Domestic Violence Act protects women against violence but now even men will be protected by Domestic Violence Act.

A Pune court has passed an order, that has established that any man who is assisting the aggrieved woman can also be given protection.

 Judicial magistrate first class Vinay V Muglikar of the Pune cantonment court has restrained a man from communicating with or visiting the wife, her father and her brother after she complained of physical harassment by the husband.

 Hemlata Pawar (name changed), head cashier at a nationalised bank, married Vijay (name changed) on June 29, 2009. “It was an arranged marriage. We were told that he is a contractor for Pune Municipal Corporation, but later I got to know that he was unemployed. Immediately after marriage, he and his parents started saying that the articles given to them by my parents during our wedding were of inferior quality,” Hemlata said.

 Meanwhile, Hemlata got a job at the bank. Vijay allowed her to work on the condition that she gives Rs 10,000 for household expenses, to which she agreed, she said. In June 2010, when she was pregnant, Vijay got suspicious and started doing domestic violence and beat her up. “Since then, he abused me and sometimes even hit me,” Hemlata said.

 She then moved back to her parents’ house. “He then started troubling my father, a retired PWD employee, and brother, who is an engineer. He used to visit my brother’s office and abuse him,” she said.

 During Hemlata’s ninth month of pregnancy, “Vijay came to our place and told me to return home. I refused, and my father backed my decision. He then tried to strangulate my father. He even threatened us that he would harm me and my child. On July 30, 2011, we registered a complaint with the police under the Domestic Violence Act,” she said. However, Vijay allegedly manhandled her on her way to work on October 14, 2011. Hemlata also filed an application in the court seeking interim relief and requesting that Vijay and his parents be restrained from contacting her and her relatives at home or at work or even trying to meet them. The application was filed through her lawyer advocate Rajendra Anbhule.

Vijay denied the allegations in court and demanded that Hemlata’s application be rejected. He stated that he was not in Pune on October 14, 2011, and had gone to attend a relative’s last rites. He alleged that Hemlata was arrogant and misbehaved with him and his parents. After hearing both sides, the magistrate restrained Vijay and his parents to communicate with Pawar and further restrained them from visiting her residence or office. The court also restrained them from communicating with her father and brother.

 “If Vijay or his parents violate the order, they are liable to one-year imprisonment and a fine of Rs 20,000,” said Anbhule.