Matrimonial Disputes: Husband’s close should not be roped on the basis Of Omnibus Allegations,SC

NEW DELHI:The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that relatives of a husband should not be roped in cases of matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime is made out. The bench of Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao also cautioned the lower courts to be careful in proceeding against “distant relatives” of the husband in such cases.

The court was hearing a case challenging a 2016 verdict of the Hyderabad High Court, which had dismissed a plea by the petitioners to quash criminal proceedings against them in a case of matrimonial dispute.

The apex court judgement came as it allowed a plea filed by the maternal uncles of a man challenging a Hyderabad High Court s January 2016 verdict dismissing their petition for quashing criminal proceedings against them in a matrimonial dispute case.

In this case, the wife of K. Subba Rao of Telangana was married in 2008 and they were residing in USA. After a few years of marriage, the wife returned to India and filed a complaint alleging harassment by her husband and his family members, including the maternal uncles of her husband. She also complained of the kidnapping of her son by the husband.

Judge names child after estranged inter-faith couple take battle to High Court

In an unusual case, the Kerala High Court has christened a child of an estranged couple belonging to different religions after they fought over the matter.
The court intervened after both father and mother, locked in a matrimonial dispute, were aggrieved by the “inaction” on the part of the municipality to issue a birth certificate in respect of their second child showing the name as per their respective wishes.

While the mother said the child was baptised as ‘Johan Mani Sachin’, the father claimed that the name that they agreed to was ‘Abhinav Sachin.’

Abhinav Sachin was the name given to their second child on the 28th day ceremony (as per Hindu practice in Kerala for naming the newborn), the father had informed the court.

The court observed that it was an urgent requirement that a name be given to the child so that he could be admitted to a school, where a birth certificate would be a pre-requisite for admission.

Counsel for the mother submitted that although the name given in the baptism certificate pertaining to the second child is ‘Johan Mani Sachin’, she was ready to give up the name ‘Mani’ in a gesture of reconciliation with the father.

The father, however, insisted that the name ‘Abhinav’ be retained in the place of ‘Johan’.

In his judgment recently, Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar took note of the differences between the parents. “….. as a conciliatory measure and with a view to pacify both the parents of the child, it would be in the interests of justice to accede to the wishes of both the parents to the extent possible and therefore, assign the name ‘Johan Sachin’ to the second child of the petitioners in both these writ petitions,” the judge said.

The judge said the name ‘Johan’ would represent the wishes of the mother and the name ‘Sachin’ as a surname would satisfy the requirement of the father as it would identify the child as his.

Justice Jayasankaran said this course of action would be in the interests of the minor child, who is now in the mother’s custody, with occasional custody granted to the father as per the directions of the family court, where the matrimonial dispute is pending.

Disposing of the writ petitions, the judge directed the Registrar (Births & Deaths) to issue the certificate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

Child can’t be allowed to suffer due to matrimonial dispute

Child can't be allowed to suffer due to matrimonial dispute
Child can’t be allowed to suffer due to matrimonial dispute

A child should not suffer due to a matrimonial dispute between parents whose duty is to provide all basic amenities the minor is entitled to, a Delhi court has said.

Additional Sessions Judge Pawan Kumar Jain, while rejecting an appeal filed by the father of a minor girl against a trial court order in a domestic violence case, said the mere fact that the mother is working does not deprive the child from maintenance.

The trial court had directed the father to pay Rs 25,000 interim maintenance to the girl on a plea filed by her mother seeking maintenance for the minor.

“Child cannot be allowed to suffer because of matrimonial differences between her parents. It is the duty of parents of the child to provide all amenities to the child for which child is entitled and essential for proper upbringing and growth,” the court said.

It rejected the man’s contention that his estranged wife was a working woman earning a handsome amount and does not require any financial help to maintain the child.

“Mere fact that respondent (wife) is a working woman, is not a ground either to burden her unnecessarily or to deprive the child from maintenance for which she is otherwise entitled,” the court said.

While refusing to interfere with the trial court order directing the father to pay Rs 25,000 interim maintenance holding that it was neither unreasonable, nor “excessive”, the court directed the mother also to provide an additional Rs 12,000 for the child from her own account, noting that her monthly income ranged between Rs 45,000 and Rs 49,000.

It directed the mother to open and maintain a separate bank account in the name of girl child where the contributions of the father and her would be deposited.

“Respondent is permitted to maintain the said account and withdraw upto 50 per cent of the interim maintenance to bear educational expenses and in case she requires more than 50 per cent of the interim maintenance, she shall withdraw the same only with the prior permission of the trial court,” it said.

 

( Source – PTI )