Omar challenges maintenance proceedings: Delhi HC reserves order

Omar challenges maintenance proceedings: Delhi HC reserves order
Omar challenges maintenance proceedings: Delhi HC reserves order

The Delhi High Court today reserved its order on former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s plea challenging the maintenance proceedings involving his estranged wife in a family court here.

Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal said she would pass an order on Abdullah’s plea which has claimed that the petition moved by his estranged wife, Payal Abdullah, and their two sons seeking maintenance from him, was not maintainable.

Payal’s counsel vehemently opposed Omar’s plea and said the National Conference leader’s wife has been deserted for over a year and left to beg to pay the fees of their two sons.

During the hearing, Omar’s lawyer argued before the high court that Payal had her own business and a house in the national capital and therefore she has to first establish that she cannot maintain herself to be entitled for the relief.

The lawyer also contended that their two sons were adults now and therefore, they too cannot seek maintenance.

In his plea, Omar has sought directions to the family court here to first decide the maintainability of Payal’s plea before it decided on the issue of interim maintenance.

He has also challenged the family court’s September 9, 2016 order issuing summons to him in the maintenance case.

The next date of hearing before the family court is December 9, the lawyers told the high court.

On August 30 last year, a trial court had dismissed Omar’s plea seeking divorce from Payal, saying he had failed to prove irretrievable breakdown of their marriage.

His appeal in the high court against the trial court decision is still pending.

( Source – PTI )

MP: Court nullifies triple talaq for not following norms

MP: Court nullifies triple talaq for not following norms
MP: Court nullifies triple talaq for not following norms

A family court here has “nullified” the triple talaq given by a man to his wife on the grounds that due procedure, as prescribed in Muslim religious texts, was not followed in the matter.

Additional principal judge of the family court, Omprakash Sharma on March 9 observed that the procedure adopted by Tousif Sheikh to divorce his wife was “illegal” and “ineffective” and nullified the same.

Arshi Khan got married to Tousif from Dewas on January 19, 2013 and after some time he (Tousif) started demanding money from her. When his demands were not fulfilled, he started troubling her, the victim’s lawyer Arvind Gaud said.

After some time the woman left her husband’s place and returned to her parents’ home. She later filed a case under the Anti-Dowry Act against Tousif, said Gaud.

That case is still pending in the court, he said.

Meanwhile, on October 9, 2014, Tousif verbally divorced Arshi by stating talaq in Ujjain court premises, where they had come in connection with some other case.

Later, he informed her through a notice that he had divorced her by stating talaq thrice while coming out of the court premises on that date.

Arshi challenged divorce on the grounds that due procedure as prescribed in the Muslim religious text was not followed in the matter, Gaud said.

The court in its order found discrepancies in it and said that Tousif had failed to mention in his reply that through which method ‘Talaq Ahsan or Talaq Hasan’ he had divorced his wife.

The judge said that he failed to give credible evidence of the presence of Arshi in the court premises as mentioned by him when he had pronounced talaq thrice, while as per the religious law, the presence of the woman in question is mandatory.

The court also observed that no steps were taken by the parties concerned for any mediation on the issue as per religious law.

The court took into account various decisions given by other courts on the issue before declaring the talaq as “illegal”, “ineffective” and “nullified” it.

Tousif raised the issue of jurisdiction of the family court on the matter but the judge turned down his plea.

A statement issued by Gaud and his assistant Hafiz Qureshi said they highlighted provisions mentioned in various Muslim religious texts on the issue to convince the court that due procedures were not followed in the matter.

( Source – PTI )

Soundarya files divorce petition in family court

Soundarya files divorce petition in family court
Soundarya files divorce petition in family court

Superstar Rajinikanth’s younger daughter Soundarya today filed a divorce petition in a family court here.

Soundarya and Ashwin Ramkumar tied the knot at a grand wedding ceremony in 2010 which was attended by the who’s who of the film, politics, and business world. They have a one-year-old son, Ved.

Claiming difference of opinion between them, a mutual consent divorce petition was filed in a family court.

After reports about her troubled marriage came out in September, Soundarya confirmed that she has separated from her industrialist husband and said that divorce talks are on.

“News about my marriage is true. We have been separated for over a year and divorce talks are on. I request all to respect my family’s privacy,” the “Kochadaiiyaan” director had tweeted in September.

Soundarya is a graphic designer and filmmaker.

( Source – PTI )

HC sets aside Family Court order granting divorce to Pune man

The Bombay high court has set aside a Family Court order granting a divorce decree ex-parte to a 35-year-old Pune man without providing a fair opportunity to hear his wife, thereby causing prejudice to her.

Hearing the woman’s appeal against the Family Court order, the HC Bench noted last week “We are convinced that the wife is required to be provided with an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. She could not get appropriate opportunity to put up her defence and cross-examine the respondent (husband).”

Accordingly, Justices Naresh Patil and A R Joshi sent the matter back to Pune’s Family Court while ruling that denial of an opportunity of hearing had caused prejudice to the appellant (wife).

The woman’s lawyers, Vrishali Rane and Pooja Bhojne, argued that she did not get a chance to lead evidence and put up her case before the Family Court which had caused prejudice to her rights.

Moreover, when the matter was being contested in the Family Court, the appellant’s minor daughter was suffering from viral fever. She was residing in far away Dhule (around 350km from Pune) and had to travel to the city to attend the court regularly. She has been facing financial constraints and due to several factors, she could not get opportunity to defend herself, they pleaded.

However, the husband’s Counsel, Vikas Shivarkar, refuted the charge that opportunity was denied to wife to put up her case.

He submitted that the appellant, in spite of giving sufficient opportunities, failed to avail of the same and therefore the Family Court was left with no other alternative than to proceed with the matter and decide on it finally.

The HC quashed the divorce decree granted ex-parte and asked the Family Court to hear the matter afresh and decide within six months. It also asked the couple to cooperate with the lower court in this regard.

HC quashes divorce decree on ground that wife should be heard

A divorce decree has been set aside by the Bombay High Court which has granted by a family court eight years ago to a man who had claimed that his Australian wife had deserted him in 1991.

The court opined that the consequences of a decree of divorce had far-reaching effects on the marital status of the parties and hence adequate opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the wife who claimed that she was not heard.

“At the same time, care has to be taken that no party deliberately delays hearing of proceedings or intentionally avoids participation in the proceedings before Family Court,” mentioned by the Justices Naresh Patil and A R Joshi in a recent order.

“We are therefore of the view that though the appeal (of wife against divorce) is pending since 2005 and that substantial valuable time is lost, the same could be remedied by directing the Family Court to dispose of the petition after hearing the parties on its own merits, in accordance with law, within a stipulated time limit,” the bench noted.

Accordingly, the Judges directed the Family Court to dispose of the appeal within six months and directed the couple to remain present in the Family Court in the first week of March so that it can hear the matter afresh.

However, if the appellant-wife did not appear before the Family Court on two consecutive dates or failed to cooperate with the Family Court then that court would be entitled to decide the matter finally in accordance with law, the High Court bench ruled.

The Judges remarked, “we are of the view that an opportunity is required to be provided to the appellant (wife) to participate in the proceedings.”

“Though she had taken a stand that summons were not served on her personally but that grievance is not sustainable as she had engaged a counsel and she had personally appeared before the court. Thereafter she ought to have taken steps to participate in the proceedings,” they said.

The respondent-husband had filed a petition under Section 18 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 read with Section 27(1)(b) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion.

According to him, he got married to an Australian woman on November 11, 1988 and they decided to settle down permanently in Mumbai thereafter.

The husband contended that on March 12, 1988, he went to Tasmania via Melbourne to study at the Australian Marine Time College. During that period he met the appellant-wife. She was already married to someone else but promised to take a divorce and lead a life with him. She took divorce from her first husband on October 20, 1988 and married him.

However, after marriage the wife informed the husband that she had already undergone hysterectomy operation and therefore it could not be possible for her to have children.

The respondent felt cheated. They had decided to adopt a baby and ultimately to settle down in India. The wife was older to him by 12 years, the husband contended.

On December 20, 1990, they decided to return to India with a view to settle down permanently. The husband argued that his wife was guilty of deserting him since May 1991 for more than two years. Thereafter he filed for divorce and the Family Court issued summons to his wife to appear in the case.

The wife contended that summons was never served on her and that the packet containing summons and petition was given to the tenant residing in her flat. The packet was returned to the Consulate of India in Australia. On her instructions, her lawyer appeared in the Family Court.

In 2004, she came to India and assured the Court that she would not leave for Australia till the matter was decided. Later, she asked permission from the Court to leave for Australia as her ticket was to expire. The Family Court rejected her plea. Eventually, she left for Australia without taking permission.

The High Court observed, “From the record it emerges that the wife did not participate in the proceedings filed by the husband. She could have been more diligent in taking part in the proceedings before the Family Court. Inspite of an undertaking to the Court she had left India for Australia saying that her air ticket was to expire.”

High Court quashes ex-parte divorce order, sends case to family court

Describing it as “erroneous”, the Bombay High Court has set aside an order of Nashik family court granting a divorce decree ex-parte to a man in the absence of his wife who did not attend the proceedings Allowing an appeal filed by the aggrieved wife against the impugned judgement of December 7, 2011, a high court benc recently reverted the case to the Family Court for final disposal after hearing both sides.

Quashing the lower court judgement which granted divorce ex-parte (in absence of the other side) and restoring the case, justices Naresh Patil and A R Joshi asked both wife and husband to appear before the Family Court on February 25 in the same matter.

The Judges asked the family court to dispose of the petition (filed by the husband seeking divorce) on its own merits. They also asked both the parties to co-operate with the court in final disposal of the petition.

“The appellant (wife) could have been more diligent in prosecuting her remedies and participating in the proceedings before the family court. Certainly, the issue was relating to claim of divorce. Serious consequences flow from the orders passed in the matter of this nature. The relationship between the parties gets affected”, the judges observed.

The family court had rejected the application filed bythe wife observing that the matter was posted for judgement and there was no scope to review the order.

“The view expressed by the trial court (family court) is erroneous and in contrast with settled principles of law. The court ought to have looked into prayer made by the appellant (wife) substantially instead of taking technical view of the matter”, observed the high court bench.

“In the facts of the case, we find that adequate opportunity is required to be provided to the appellant (wife)to test the matter on merits. We are inclined to remand matterto the family court for expeditious disposal on merits”, the judges noted.

The husband had filed an application under section 13(1)(ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce from his wife. The couple got married on February 14, 1996, and have a son and a daughter.

After marriage both were staying together in Nashik. However, the husband alleged that his wife never cohabited with him properly since beginning and insulted him every now and then. The husband contended that he tolerated her alleged misbehaviour and humiliating treatment for quite some time and when she did not change, he initiated divorce proceedings claiming that his wife was behaving whimsically and eccentrically.

The husband submitted that he had purchased a flat in Nashik from his own income. However, his wife, her parents and brother were staying there and he was denied entry in his own house. He alleged that he was driven out of the house along with his disabled son after he had filed divorce petition in court.

The husband said that on December 2, 2009, he had sent a notice to his wife for resumption of cohabitation but did not get any response. He said his wife was a teacher earningRs 25,000 to Rs 30,000 monthly and only the daughter was dependent on her hence she was able to maintain herself and the child.

On the other hand, he had a meagre salary and his disabled son was dependent on him. On June 8, 2011, the notice for conciliation was sent to the wife and on June 23, 2011 the meeting was fixed for this purpose. As the wife did not turn up, a failure report was filed on July 1, 2011, and on the same day an ex-parte order was passed by the family court.

The wife moved the family court for setting aside the ex-parte order but it was rejected. The court then proceeded to decide the case ex-parte and impugned order was passed on December 7, 2011, granting the divorce decree.



64-year-old father gets custody of surrogate child

In Jaipur a family court has allowed a 64-year-old surrogate father to retain the custody of a six-year-old child. The custody of the child was being claimed by the surrogate mother.

The order was passed on a petition filed by one K K Singh, a 64-year-old entrepreneur who got a child born out of surrogacy in 2006 form a surrogate mother who was his own office staff. The child was born in Mumbai and the child was handed over to him by the surrogate mother. It was given out in the petition filed by Singh that the surrogate mother became greedy and later sought custody of the child.

The surrogate mother approached State Child Rights Commission and also the Child Welfare Committee (CWC). The commission, taking note of the grievance of the surrogate mother, directed that the child be given to her. In order to comply the order of the commission, chairman, CWC, Ram Prakash Bairwa asked the police to get hold of the child and produce his father and the surrogate child on January 16 before the committee.

“We made a written complaint against the misuse of power by the CWC to the additional chief secretary, social justice department as both the commission and the CWC chairman misused their power on the custody of a minor as it can be decided only by a family court or a district judge under the law. The petition was also moved before the family court which has granted a stay order and the custody of the child will now be with father,” said Abhinav Sharma, counsel for petitioner.

The family court judge, Devendra Joshi in his order observed: “The child rights commission and the CWC are entitled to look into the rights of a child who is left stray, or is a runaway child, or a child in need of care and protection but it cannot disturb custody of child who is being brought up well. We, therefore, direct that the chairman, CWC and child rights commission will not undertake any action to disturb the custody of the surrogate child till further orders.”



Rs 1 crore and a flat is cost of Divorce

The biggest divorce settlement ever that you would not have heard till date is here. The Bombay high court has inked a historical judgement in its history by awarding a flat and Rs 1 crore as permanent alimony and maintenance to an estranged wife. A city resident will pay this whooping amount to his estranged wife.

A division bench of Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice A R Joshi last week gave its approval to the settlement agreed upon by Powai residents Arnab and Piyali Sen. “Since the couple was inclined to amicably settle the matter and had even drawn up the terms of settlement, it would be appropriate and in the interest of their children, who are now grown up and need special attention for further and higher education, to finalize the terms,” said the judges, while adding that they hoped the couple understood that “they have to act responsibly and not create any untoward situation which would jeopardize the settlement terms”.

 As per the settlement Arnab, a businessman, is allowed to sell off his sprawling flat in a 36-storey tower in Hiranandani Gardens, where his wife and two minor children currently reside. Flats in the area sell for around Rs 20,000/sq ft. After paying bank and society dues, Arnab will invest 50% of the proceeds in a new flat in the name of Piyali and their son and daughter. The remainder will go to Arnab, who will also have to pay his wife Rs 50 lakh permanent alimony and Rs 25 lakh each to his children as permanent maintenance.

 This amount will be put into a fixed deposit, and the children will be entitled to withdraw the proceeds when they turn 21.

 Once the flat is purchased and Piyali and the children move in, the couple will approach the family court for a divorce by mutual consent. The couple has also agreed to withdraw all criminal and civil cases that they have filed against each other. Piyali also assured the court that once she receives her alimony she would have no claim over the property owned by Arnab or his family members. She also agreed to let Arnab have weekly access to the children.

 The court has scheduled the matter for further hearing on August 2, 2012, when the couple would inform the judges about the compliance of the terms of the settlement.

 Arnab had moved the family court in 2010 for divorce, which is still pending. The family court had granted maintenance to the two children, which was subsequently fixed by the high court at Rs 12,500 per month for each child. The high court asked Arnab to pay Rs 25,000 as monthly maintenance for each child till he deposits the permanent maintenance. 

(Names are changed to secure their identity)