Maintenance Under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has provided the procedure by which a person who has unable to maintain himself can claim maintenance to another if that another fails to discharge his duty to maintain certain of his relations.

Who can claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C?

1. A wife.
2. A minor child (both legitimate and illegitimate)
3. A child who has unable to maintain himself due to physical or mental abnormality or injury.
4. Parents.

Important points

1) The application for claiming the maintenance shall be presented before the Judicial Magistrate of First class.
2) A monthly allowance is paid as maintenance.
3) An Interim maintenance and expenses of the proceeding can be claimed during the pendency of the proceeding which should be disposed of within 60 days from the date of service of notice of the application.
4) A wife includes a divorced wife who has not remarried.
5) A married minor daughter can claim maintenance to her father if his husband is unable to maintain her.
6) A daughter who is not married can claim maintenance to his father whether minor or not if she has no means to maintain herself. (Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim, AIR 1997 SC 3280. )
7) The parents can claim maintenance from their daughter if she has sufficient means, but only from the income of their daughter. But they can’t claim maintenance from her husband’s income (Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai, (1987) 2 SCC 278).
8) Stepparents can also claim maintenance from their step child.
9) A Muslim woman can also claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. irrespective of enforcement of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce Act, 1986).
10) A husband can refuse to maintain his wife if -
a) She is living in adultery.
b) She refuses to live with her husband without any reasonable cause.
c) She is living separately by mutual consent.
11) The Judicial Magistrate can enforce the order of maintenance by committing the person for one-month imprisonment if he fails to pay the monthly allowance after executing the warrant for every failure.

Cases:

1. Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) 2 SCC 556.
2. Daneil Latifi v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 740.
3. Khatoon Nisha v. State of U.P (2014) SCC 646.
4. Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan JLT (2015) SCJ 109.

Do’s

1. The application shall be filed within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First class where the person (the respondent) is residing.
2. Specify that the petitioner has no means to maintain himself.
3. The petitioner has to prove that the respondent has neglected or refused to maintain him.
4. All the income and resources of the respondent should be mentioned so that the proper allowance can be fixed.
5. If the custody of children are with mother .it must be mentioned also so that the provision for their maintenance can also be made.
6. The allowance is fixed according to the living standard of the parties.

SC refuses to stay Parrikar Oat taking ceremony

On March 14^th, 2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India refused to stay the oath taking ceremony of Manohar Parrikar before the Goa Legislative Assembly to be sworn as the Chief Minister of Goa. Furthermore, it ordered a floor test to be held on March 16^th, 2017.

Where it all began

At the completion of Goa Assembly elections on 40 seats, Congress party stood at 17 seats, BJP at 13, Goa Forward Party (GFP) at 3, Maharashtravadi Gomantak Party (MGP) at 3, Independent numbering 3 and NCP at 1. BJP got support from GFP, MGP and two independent MLAs and claimed majority before the Governer of Goa. Mridula Sinha, the Governor of Goa, invited BJP to form the government in the state. Congress filed the petition before the Supreme Court challenging the decision of Mridula Sinha.

Contentions of the Parties

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Congress, contended that the Governor failed to adhere to the mandates of the Constitution of India and acted in a mala Fide and arbitrary manner as he should have invited Congress, i.e., the single largest party in Goa to form the government. They also contended that BJP employed a late-night political maneuver and defeated the mandate of the people which was in favor of Congress.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Mridula Sinha, contended that the Governor was convinced of BJP’s majority while on the other hand, Congress failed to prove its majority. He also stated that the floor test will happen as soon as possible. Moreover, the swearing-in ceremony should go as planned, on 14^th March at 5 p.m.

The Verdict

A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India J S Khehar observed that there is no rationale for staying the oath taking ceremony. It further stated that all the formalities required by the Election Commission to be completed by 15^th March and the floor test to prove the majority should be conducted on 16^th March at 11 a.m. Supreme Court cracked down on Congress by pointing out that “The Congress don’t have the numbers or else it would have proven its majority before the Governor. Everything is lacking in their plea and they haven’t approached the Governor to form the government.” It finally directed the parties to appoint a ‘Protem’ speaker to conduct the floor test.

SC’s landmark decision to Protect Online Freedom of Speech

Before 2015, no sane person would have thought that the knees of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 would go weak and that too against one of the most powerful persons of Maharashtra. In March 2015, Supreme Court of India struck down Sec. 66A which restricted the freedom of speech and expression under Art. 19(1)(a) while upholding the people’s right to know.

How it all began

In 2012, two girls allegedly posted some negative comments against the total shutdown in Mumbai in pursuance to the death of Shiv Sena leader the late Bal Thackeray. After their arrest, a Bristol University astrophysics graduate, Shreya Singhal, filed a PIL before the Supreme Court of India where she challenged the undue restrictions on online speech which had been acknowledged under Sec. 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Section 66A reads as follows: “Any person who sends by any means of a computer resource-

a)      any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or

b)      any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.”

Contentions of the Parties to the Case

Section 66A was not originally enacted with the statute of 2000 but inserted by way of 2009 amendment. The petitioner’s contention circled around the fact that restrictions under Sec. 66A are in clear violation of the right to free speech and expression enshrined under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Causing of annoyance, hatred, danger, obstruction, insult, ill-will, insult, criminal intimidation, injury, inconvenience are not hit by the conditions of Art. 19(2). The public has the right to know various kinds of views on a particular topic. However, it was countered by the respondents with the contention that the legislature is in the best position to understand and cater to the needs of the people.

The Judgment

The Apex Court placed focus upon what is the content of “freedom of speech and expression”. It stated three concepts in this regard – first is a discussion, second is advocacy and third are incitement. Discussion and advocacy form the core of Art 19(1)(a) but when it effects incitement, Art. 19(2) comes into play. However, what may be offensive to one may not be to other. It observed that the whole discussion centered around public disorder and ‘reasonable restrictions’ can be interpreted on the lines of Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1950] S.C.R. 759, Mohd. Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., [1970] 1 S.C.R. 156. It also stated that written words causing inconvenience, danger, annoyance, etc. does not count as an offense itself and are vague and overbroad. The court further observed that it is bound by the law laid down in Ram Manohar Lohia’s case [1960] 2 S.C.R. 821 and held that “Section 66A is unconstitutional also on the ground that it takes within its sweep protected speech and speech that is innocent in nature and is liable therefore to be used in such a way as to have a chilling effect on free speech and would, therefore, have to be struck down on the ground of overbreadth.” The bench of Justice J Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton F Nariman further supplemented their findings by stating that government’s assurance to prevent misuse of the provision will not matter as governments come and go.

Surprisingly, a data released by National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in 2015 showed that 2,402 people were arrested under Sec. 66A in 2014.

Right to be forgotten- Kerala High Court asks Indian Kanoon to remove name of the rape victims from Judgements

In 2017, a rape victim filed a petition before the Kerala High Court to pass an order directing the online web portal ‘indiankanoon.com’ to strike off her name published in a Kerala High Court judgment on its website and also prevent her name from being visible in the search results of Google, Yahoo, etc.

Facts:
The name of the rape victim appeared online on ‘indiankanoon.com’ in the judgment of the Kerala High Court which was passed in regards to her. Moreover, the judgment appeared in the general search results of Google and Yahoo.

Legal Contention:
She stated that the publication of her name was without authorization/prior permission from the court or her which is in clear contravention of the mandate provided under Rule 5 of the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practises and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011. Her grievance extended to the search results of Google and Yahoo.
According to her, the publications violated her right to privacy and right to a dignified life enshrined under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India as it has diminished her job prospects and social life which has brought upon further shame and destitution upon her. Furthermore, the essence of Section 228A of IPC is also diluted.

Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code:
Under Section 228A of IPC, disclosure of the identity of a rape victim may amount to two years imprisonment and fine. She also contented her ‘right to be forgotten’. In State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja AIR 2004 SC 433, the Apex Court of India held that the names of the rape victims should not be mentioned in court cases keeping in mind the social object of preventing social victimization or ostracism of the victim and hence, in line with Sec. 228A.

What is “Right to be Forgotten”?
The roots of this phrase ‘Right to be Forgotten’ can be traced back to the ‘Right to Oblivion’ in French Jurisprudence. The rationale of such a principle was to give an opportunity to the offenders to object against the publication in regards to their crimes and strike off their names for an effective social integration. This right went into practice in the European Union and Argentina as well and has been seen as a tool for social integration and development of a person. In Vasunathan v. Registrar General, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 424, Karnataka High Court, while directing its registry to remove the name of the victim from being reflected in the public domain, observed, “This is in line with the trend in Western countries of ‘right to be forgotten’ in sensitive cases involving women in general and highly sensitive cases involving rape or affecting the modesty and reputation of the person concerned.”
Recently, a tussle has been going on between France and Google over the ‘right to be forgotten’ where France is trying to impose such rule upon Google to censor its search results. In India, there are no provisions under Information Technology Act, 2000 or any other statutes which prevents Google or any other search engine to enforce the ‘right to be forgotten’ as the scope of public domain is pretty scary. It will wrangle anything out from the world. To prevent such anomalies, the weapon of Judicial Activism is a requirement.

Order
Recognizing the ‘right to be forgotten’ and confidentiality of her identity under Sec. 228A of IPC, Justice Shaji P. Chaly of the Kerala High Court directed the web portal indiankanoon.com to remove her name from its website. However, no such direction has been passed towards Google and Yahoo.

Victimization under 498A IPC

When a complaint, true or false, is filed by a wife against her husband and against relatives of her husband in a police station, police officials usually call both parties to settle down the dispute or pass on the complaint to the women cell so that both parties can try to reach a compromise to the satisfaction of complainant. 

If the parties are still unable to solve the dispute amicably, then the women cell usually direct parties to go for mediation. If the dispute remains unresolved, then the matter comes back to women cell then police officials register it as FIR. 

Important points: -

1. If the accused is not arrested, then he should file for anticipatory bail as early as he can.
2. If any of the accused is arrested, then they can apply for regular bail.
3. If the arrest warrants are issued, the accused must surrender as soon as he can before the police. It becomes easy to defend the case in the court if accused has willfully surrendered.
4. Sometime these accusations can be placed out of sheer outburst of the sense of revenge, and wife may realize the futility of her actions with the passage of time, therefore husband shouldn’t put more efforts to expedite the judicial process and must wait for things to settle down and let them take its normal course.  


Statutory law Reference.

1. 498A IPC

Prevention of Arrest

1. When a FIR is lodged against husband and his relatives, one should apply for an anticipatory bail for all involved. Even if  one of accused gets the anticipatory bail, others can substantiate their claim on that basis
2. Try to put your case for mediation with the help of your lawyer.
3. Try to schedule your case for Lok Adalat hearing with the help of your lawyer so that it may lead to a compromise.


4. Try your best to negotiate and settle the dispute with the accuser and her parents.
5. If the husband and his relatives have not committed any offense such as demand for dowry or physical abuse, then he has every right to defend his rights and court take cognizance of unsubstantiated accusations.  

Your Claim for Child custody

In matrimonial disputes, the question about rightful custody of children may crop up before the court. The court is usually requested to decide the question during the pendency of the trial. It is an important matter to decide as it not only affects the parents but also the children who may feel being pulled up in opposite directions by parties, they probably love equally. The court can exercise its jurisdiction only if it has jurisdiction in the main petition which is pending before the court. If the child is under the age of 5 years, the mother is usually considered as guardian.

Important points while determining the child custody issue: -  

1.      Age and sex of the child.  

2.      The character and capacity of proposed guardian.

3.      Any wishes of deceased parent i.e. specified in a will.

4.      The minor’s preference, if the child is old enough to give an intelligent preference.

5.      The court usually tries to keep children united.

6.    Though the guardianship decisions tend to tilt a lot in favor of the mother, justifiably so, and guardianship of girl child virtually always goes with the mother only, however, if the mother is ill and financially not strong or a disable then usually court deny guardianship on these grounds.

7.       Usually, the children maintenance cost is borne by the father irrespective of the fact that its mother who has been given the child custody.

  

Statutory law references.

1.      Section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

2.      Section 38 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954

3.      Section 25 in The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

Important judgments: - 

1.      Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka Vs. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka 1982(1)SCALE 608 (Supreme court)

2.      Sheila B. Das Vs.P.R. Sugasree 2006(1)RCR(Civil)758 ( Supreme court) 

3.      Kumar V. Jahgirdar v. Chethana Ramatheertha 2004 ( 3 ) RCR (Civil) 233 (Supreme court)

4.      Roxann Sharma Vs. Arun Sharma 2015(2)RCR(Civil) 93 (Supreme court)

Do: -

1.      Disclose all the facts related to marriage.

2.      Disclose all  the details about the pending cases, if any, to your lawyer

3.      Provide all the details  such as Age, educational expenses, comparative emotional attachment to either parent, physical abuse etc. with your lawyer

4.      Provide details of opposite party i.e. income, status, character, nature etc.  to your lawyer

How to Divorce your spouse -Mutual Consent divorce- Hindu Divorce Law

Introduction: - A mutual consent divorce between Hindu couple is governed by Hindu law (Hindu marriage Act 1955) under section 13B.

Section 13B states that a petition for dissolution of marriage may present by both parties before District court If they are living separately for a period of one or more than one year as they have not been able to cohabitate owning to personal differences and that they have mutually agreed that their marriage should be dissolved.

Important Points. 

As per section 13B of Hindu marriage act 1955 

1. Husband and wife have been living separately for a period of one year or more, 
2. That they are unable to live together
3. They are  somehow living together under one roof but owing to personal differences and bitterness in relationship, didn’t have sex for more than a year
4. And that both husband and wife have mutually agreed that marriage has totally collapsed, hence marriage should be dissolved. 

Under these circumstances, a divorce by mutual consent can be filed. 


5. A petition should jointly be presented before the court. 
6. Both parties have freely consented for dissolution of marriage. 
7. The court must be satisfied to the statements made in the petition after making inquiry and hearing the parties. 


Statutory law references-

1. Section 13B of the HMA Act 1955 provides for divorce by mutual consent. period of separation is 1 year)
2. Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides for divorce by mutual consent.
3. Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869, provides for divorce by mutual consent (period of separation is 2 years) 

Important judgments-

1. Soni Kumari Vs. Deepak Kumar 2016(1)RCR(Civil)52 (Supreme court) 
2. Devinder Singh Narula Vs. Meenakshi Nangia 2012(4)RCR(Civil)235 (Supreme court) 
3. Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain 2009 ( 4 ) RCR (Civil) 309 (Supreme court) 
4. Kiran v. Sharad Dutt JT 2000 ( 1 ) SC 532 (Supreme court) 




      Do: 

1. Share all the facts related to the marriage with a lawyer. 
2. Share every document/evidence related to the marriage with your lawyer. 
3. Provide details of ‘Streedhan', how parties are going to settle it, If already agreed else take help from Lawyer
4. Discuss and settle the important issues such as Alimony amount, child custody, and children maintenance before your file for a mutual consent divorce.-IMPORTANT
5. Create MoA (Memorandum of Agreement) along with your spouse and append it with your divorce application.