seemabhatnagar - Tumblr blog

[seemabhatnagar]

70% Ownership, 30% Dilemma: A Mother’s Fight for Her Daughters’ Legacy

Smt. Preeti Arora v. Subhash Chandra Arora

Before the High Court of Allahabad

FAO 272/2024

Heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Srivastava J

Subject Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956

The Appellant after the demise of her husband in March 2021, wanted to sell 30% of the share of her 03 minor daughters as such moved an application before the Additional District Judge (ADJ) Saharanpur under section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956.

 The ADJ rejected the application of the Appellant in October 2023, stating that

1.      the Appellant wanted to sell the property to settle in Punjab.

2.      the Appellant has not disclosed from whom she would purchase the property in Punjab and for what amount, after selling the House Property here at Saharanpur.

3.      the property at Saharanpur is residential property and is situated in a posh (VIP) area, it can be let out and the rental income can be utilized for the benefit of the minor children and meet their educational needs.

Facts:

1.      The husband of the Appellant left behind her wife and 03 minor daughters besides his mother.

2.      The husband of the appellant had a 1/2 share in a double-storied house measuring 143.90 square meters.

3.      The other 1/2 share was of her father-in-law.

4.      The heirs of the husband include the Appellant, her mother-in-law, and three daughters.

5.      The 05 heirs inherited 1/5th share, Srivastava each in the house property. (Appellant, mother-in-law, 3 minor daughters)

6.      The father-in-law (Subhash Chandra Arora) out of his own free will executed a Gift Deed in August 2021, gifting his entire 1/2 share in the house property to the Appellant.

7.      The mother-in-law also executed a registered Gift Deed of her 10% share in favor of the Appellant.

8.      The Appellant thus has 70% of the share in the house property.

9.      The remaining 30% was of the 03 minor daughters.

10.   The respondents (Father-in-law & mother-in-law) had accorded their consent in favour of the Appellant and had already gifted their share in the house property in favor of the Appellant.

11.   All members of the family i.e. the Appellant, father, mother-in-law, and minor children had shifted to Punjab and the minor girls were pursuing their studies in Punjab.

12.   The house remains locked and land mafias had their eyes on the property.

13.   The Appellant for the benefit and better prospects of her minor girls wants to sell the house and settle at Zeerakpur, Mohali, Punjab, where she was working & also her parents and brothers were residing there.

14.   But the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act doesn’t allow natural guardian to mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange, or otherwise, any part of the immovable property of the minor or lease any part of such property for a term exceeding five years or for a term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority.

15.   Permission from the Court is mandatory if a natural guardian wants to mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange any part of the immovable property of the minor.

16.   Therefore, permission to sell 30% of the share in the immovable property of the minor was sought by the Appellant.

17.   The Appellant before the Court of ADJ submitted that she shall not misappropriate the funds collected from the sale of the house property and shall make adequate investments to secure the future of the minor girls.

18.   But the ADJ denied permission for the sale of the 30% share in the immovable property of the minor daughters.

First Appeal before the High Court

Aggrieved by the rejection of the permission to sell, the Appellant preferred the First Appeal before the Allahabad High Court.

Order By Allahabad High Court

The High Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the order of the ADJ Saharanpur restraining the sale of the share of the 03 minor daughters as the provision of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act allows natural Guardian to do all acts that are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate.

 Seema Bhatnagar

[seemabhatnagar]

Spousal Consent vs. Medical Necessity: Annu Bai’s Case

Annu Bai v. The State OF Madhya Pradesh through Secretary Health Deptt. Bhopal & 3 Others

WP 5166/2024

Before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur

Heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinay Saraf J

Order

The Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed Bansal Hospital, Shahpura, Bhopal to process the request of the petitioner in accordance with law, by forwarding the same after completing the formalities to the authorization committee, at the earliest.and thereafter the authorization committee shall decide the issue of grant of permission as per the provisions of Act/Rules, without insisting upon filing of NOC of the husband of the  petitioner.

Background

Petitioner-Annu Bai, wanted to donate her kidney to her ailing brother suffering from CKD stage 5-D & was on dialysis at the time of filing of this Writ Petition. The petitioner approached the High Court for giving direction to the Respondents-BANSAL HOSPITAL SHAHPURA BHOPAL & STATE AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES SHYAMLA HILLS BHOPAL to proceed with the Kidney Transplantation procedure pursuant to her medical fitness certificate and also direction to the AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE to  grant the permission to the HOSPITAL. Also for direction to the HOSPITAL & the COMMITTEE to proceed with transplantation without demanding NOC of her husband.

Fact

The Doctors have suggested to the brotheraged about 63 years of the petitioner for kidney transplatationfor kidney transplantation. The petitioner-Annu Bai aged about 46 years had undergone all required tests and was found fit to donate one kidney to her brother.

The family members of the petitioner had given their consent for donating her kidney except her husband. As such the Hospital, was not proceeding with the documents of the petitioner for getting approval from the authorization committee formulated under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014.

Submission of the Counsel of the petitioner

There is no in provision in the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 or in the Rules of 2014 formulated thereunder that the Kidney may be donated only after the written consent of the spouse.

The other family members have already consented and the competent doctor has also issued certificate of medical fitness of living donor therefore, hospital be directed to place the matter before the authorization committee and the authorization committee be directed to take decision at the earliest, without insisting upon filing of the NOC of the husband of the petitioner.

Submission of the Counsel of the Hospital

As per Rule 22 of Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014, if the donor is woman greater precaution ought to be taken and her identity and independent consent should be confirmed by a person other than the recipient.

In compliance of Rule 22, a format has been prescribed and as per check list of the documents, rthe hospital has asked for NOC of the husband of the petitioner.

if all the required documents are not forwarded with the case before the authorization committee, it will not be possible for the committee to take decision and they will delay the process of grant of permission.

The hospital has no objection if the Court issues direction to place the matter before the authorization committee, without obtaining NOC of the husband.

Submission of the State Counsel

As per Rule 18 and 22 of the Rules, 2014, it is desirable to obtain the independent consent of the close relative of a woman, who has proposed to donate her organ to any near relative.

The authorization committee has to decide the application on the basis of available materiel and for the purpose of considering the independent consent, NOC of the husband of a woman donor is required as precautionary major.

Notice was issued to the husband of the petitioner but he has refused to accept the notice.

Observation of the Court

Sub Section (3) of Section 9 of the Act, 1994 prescribes that any human organ removed from the body of living donor shall not be transplanted into the body of recipient, unless donor is near relative of the recipient.

There is no provision in the Rules to insist upon the filing of NOC of the husband of a woman donor.

Any other person, except the recipient, may confirm the independent consent of the donor and that wlil suffice the compliance of Rule 22 of Rules, 2014.

Insistence of consent of spouse, without any requirement in the Act or Rules, cannot be given seal of approval and is liable to be quashed and the Hospital cannot insist upon NOC of the husband of the donor.

Any other close relative of a woman donor, except recipient, may execute the document as required by the check list.

Seema Bhatnagar

[seemabhatnagar]

 “Maintenance Quandary: When Orthodoxy Meets Contemporary Lifestyles”

Sukhendra Chaturvedi v. Smt Sneha & Ravi Prakash Chaturvedi Crl. Misc. Case 54170/2023 Before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur Heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia J

Order:  The Criminal Miscellaneous case filed by the Husband was dismissed by the High Court holding that no jurisdictional error was committed by the Trial Court by awarding monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 Sneha. Fact 1.     The basic reason for the separation of the applicant-husband from respondent No.1 was his belonging to a very orthodox family, whereas respondent No.1-wife Smt Sneha was a very modern girl.

2.     The Applicant is willing to pay the maintenance amount awarded to respondent No.2 Ravi Prakash (son of the applicant)and he would continue to pay but so far as the maintenance amount awarded to respondent No.1 (Wife-Sneha) is concerned, in view of her lifestyle, the order of maintenance be quashed. Rupees 5000/- was allowed as maintenance amount payable to the wife and Rs. 3000/- for his son.

3.     Aggrieved with amount maintenance order passed in favor of respondent no.1 the criminal miscellaneous was filed u/s 482 Cr P C invoking inherent power of the High Court for quashing the order passed in favor of Respondent No.1 allowing payment of Rs.5000/- as maintenance amount to her.

Observation of the Court

1.     The Court cannot hold the wife as wrong if the wife is leading a modern life and if such an act of the wife is immoral in the eyes of her husband.

2.     Leading a modern life without committing an offence cannot be criticized at all.

3.     Unless and until it is held that the wife is residing separately without any reasonable reason, she cannot be denied maintenance.

4.     Nothing else is pointed out to show that the wife is residing separately without any reasonable reason except that the wife is in the habit of living a modern life which is not acceptable to the applicant.

5.     If the lifestyle of the wife is an issue for the husband, then the Court can only say that so long as respondent No.1 is not indulged in any criminal activity, she is free to live her life as per her own wishes whether orthodox or modern.

6.     In the light of the price index, cost of living as well as the cost of goods required for daily needs, this Court is of the considered opinion that by no stretch of the imagination, it can be said that the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month as awarded by the Trial Court is on the higher side. Seema Bhatnagar

[seemabhatnagar]

"Accountability Matters: High Court's Stand on Child Welfare Committee's Oversight”

Km Pooja Rajput Corpus & another v. State of UP & 4 others

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition 228/2024

Before the High Court of Allahabad

Heard by the Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra J

Order The Allahabad High Court allowed the custody of the minor girl to the father as the girl expressed her desire to go with the father.

Considering the conduct of the committee, the Court awarded a cost of Rs.5,00,000/- ( Five Lacs) payable to the father of the girl within thirty days from 22.04.2024. The amount will be used for upbringing of the minor girl child.

In case the cost of Rs.5,00,000/- is not paid before the next date of listing(23.05.2024), the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar is directed to ensure that the Chairman of Nari Niketan/Child Welfare Committee, Kanpur Nagar will remain present in the Court.

Facts

The Habeas Corpus petition is filed by the mother for producing her daughter before the Court and also giving her custody. At the time of the hearing on April 22, 2024, both the parents were present before the Court. There was a dispute between the parents and the parents were living separately. The couple had a girl child out of their marriage. The father was handicapped but was taking care of the girl child, her education, and the fees of school. The mother earlier took custody of the child Pooja with herself but had not taken care of her education and involved her husband in a false case. Hence, the girl aged about 15 years has been residing with the father for the last 5-6 years.

On the direction of the Court, the detenue Pooja Rajpoot was brought before the Court from the Nari Niketan, Kanpur Nagar.

The shocking part of this case is when parents are there and are willing to keep the child with them then under what circumstances the minor girl Pooja Gupta was sent to Nari Niketan Kanpur.

She was detained in Nari Niketan Kanpur Nagar since 20.01.2024 the time when she was supposed to appear for the class 7th examination. Being detained she was unable to appear for the Final Examination and as such lost one academic year.

When enquired from the girl with whom she wanted to go, the minor child explicitly stated that she wanted to go with her father. The Court allowed her to go with her father as per her wish so that she could continue her studies. However, the Court kept it open for the mother to seek custody of the girl by the appropriate law by filing a petition before the competent Court of Law.

Though mother didn’t dispute that the child has been taken care of by the father for the last 5-6 years.

Now as the child is growing up mother now wants custody of the child with her.

The Court took the matter seriously due to the non-application of the judicial by the Chairman and members of the Child Welfare Committee the liberty of life of the girl was curtailed. The matter is put for hearing on 23.05.2024.

The shocking part of this matter is when parents are there and are willing to keep the child with them than how Nari Niketan kept the child with it.

The court on April 10, 2024, directed the Child Welfare Committee, Kanpur to send its authorized representative along with an affidavit as to how and in what manner the girl child has been sent to Nari Niketan/Child Welfare Committee (women).

None on behalf of the Committee was present on April 22, 2024, despite specific direction.

Seema Bhatnagar

[seemabhatnagar]

Legal Consultancy

🔹 Attention all! 🔹

Are you seeking guidance and assistance in family legal matters? Look no further!

👩‍⚖️ As a seasoned legal consultant specializing in family law, I offer expert consultancy on a wide range of issues including:

✨ Maintenance for Spouse, Children, and Elderly Parents: Ensuring financial support for your loved ones in times of need.

✨ Restitution of Conjugal Rights: Reclaiming your right to marital companionship and support.

✨ Dissolution of Marriage: Navigating the complexities of divorce proceedings with empathy and efficiency.

✨ Law of Inheritance: Facilitating fair distribution of assets and properties according to legal statutes.

✨ Drafting of Agreements, Contracts, Affidavits, etc: Crafting legally binding documents tailored to your specific needs.

✨ Legal Notices and Show Cause Notices: Effectively communicating your legal stance and intentions.

📜 Chargeable Services: Please note that my consultancy services are chargeable, ensuring dedicated attention and quality assistance tailored to your requirements.

🌟 Referral Bonus: If anyone in your circle is in need of expert legal consultancy, referring them to my services not only helps them but also earns you a referral bonus as a token of appreciation!

Whether you're facing a challenging legal situation or seeking proactive legal advice, I'm here to provide personalized support every step of the way.

Feel free to reach out for a confidential consultation to discuss your needs and how I can assist you effectively.

Thank you for considering my services. Let's navigate the legal landscape together!

[Seema Bhatnagar] amees21438@gmail.com

[seemabhatnagar]

Behind the Headlines: The Modi Charitable Trust Case Unveiled

Behind the Headlines: The Modi Charitable Trust Case Unveiled

Pawan Pandey v. State of NCT Delhi

WP Crl 824/2024

Before The Delhi High Court

Heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan J

The Writ Petition was dismissed as the FIR apparently discloses the commission of cognizable offence.

Moreso, the investigating is at a very nascent stage and before investigating agency does its job, f at all FIR is quashed it would be like stalling the statutory right of the Investigating Agency.

Background

The petitioner filed WP read with section 482 Cr PC invoking inherent power of the High Court is for getting the FIR quashed. The FIR was registered at Police Station Special Cell for offences under Sections 419 & 420 IPC.

Fact

A complaint was made by the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs alleging that the petitioner is running an NGO in the name of Modi Charitable Trust and misrepresenting the name of the Prime Minister. The petitioner is using the picture of the Prime Minister along with his picture on National News Channel to deceive the public at large which was evidenced by an advertisement broadcasting the picture of the petitioner along with the Prime Minister.

The petitioner is receiving donations from the general public by using the name of PM.

The petitioner was arrested on 09.02.2024 and was released on bail on 26.02.2024.

Submission of the Counsel for the petitioner

Trust in the name of ‘Modi Charitable Trust’ was registered with different social objectives such as education, establishment of schools, providing hostels, libraries, etc.

FIR does not disclose any criminal offence except offence under Section 420 & 419 IPC.

The FIR has been registered only to harass and humiliate the petitioner and, therefore, the present FIR deserves to be quashed.

Submission of the Counsel of the State

The petitioner has cheated and dishonestly induced the public at large by running an NGO – ‘Modi Charitable Trust’, using the surname of the PM.

The petitioner’s Surname is Pandey and is not in any way connected with the Surname of the PM.

Observation of the Court

The powers under Section 482 of the CrPC are to be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations made in the complaint/FIR, even if taken at the face value, do not prima facie disclose the commission of offence.

To constitute offences under Sections 420 & 419 IPC, the necessary ingredient required to be proved is the dishonest inducement by an accused, and that too, by personating to be someone else, for obtaining wrongful gain at the expense of others.

In FIR specific allegations have been made that the petitioner is collecting donations by using the surname of the PM.

The picture of the PM has been used admittedly; the petitioner’s surname is not ‘MODI’.

The advertisements have been broadcasted on YouTube and other National News channels with the picture of the PM.

The allegations, that the petitioner is dishonestly inducing people to deliver the property in the form of donations.  And the FIR, discloses commission of cognizable offences.

The Police has statutory right and duty to investigate into all aspects of the cognizable offence as alleged in the FIR.

The investigation is at a very beginning stage and the Court while exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC ought not to prevent an investigation.

Seema Bhatnagar

[seemabhatnagar]

From Allegations to Adjudication: Deciphering the Umariya Legal Proceedings

Nitish Umariya & 4 others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Poonam Umariya

Misc. Criminal Case 46335/2019

Before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur

Heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia J

Order: The petition of the husband praying for quashing of the FIR alleging vague and general allegations against him and his family for dowry demand was dismissed. The allegations were specific and not vague in the FIR lodged by the wife.

Background

The inherent power of the High Court is invoked by the Petitioner-husband, brother-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister for quashing the FIR lodged by the respondent-wife (Poonam Umariya) against them. The wife alleges that the petitioners had physically and mentally harassed the respondent-wife for bringing less dowry in marriage more specifically not bringing AC Car & AC.

Submission of the Petitioner’s

1.     Respondent-wife earlier also lodged an FIR u/s 354D of IPC read with section 66C of the Information Technology Act alleging that the husband-Nitish Umariya without her consent stealthily watched her Facebook and Gmail account.

2.     It was also alleged that the petitioner Nitish Umariya even kept her mobile with him on 01.07.2018 and he along with her brother-in-law changed the password of her Facebook and G Mail account and also changed the lock pattern of her mobile and refused to give her back.

3.     The Petitioner-husband also kept her original documents with him.

4.     The respondent left her matrimonial home on 14.07.2018 and went to her parental home. Applicant-husband filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights.

5.     The husband also filed many other complaints alleging the respondent-wife had an extramarital affair with Sarvesh Gupta.

6.     Since there was no change in the behavior of the respondent as such he filed suit for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and extramarital affair.

7.     Both parties were called for counseling before the Family Court.

8.     The matter was reconciled on the first date itself before the Family Court.

9.     But the respondent on the next day of the counseling lodged an FIR for the offence of Dowry against the Applicant-husband and his family.

Submission of the Counsel of the Petitioner

1.     The allegations against father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law & sister are general and vague.

2.     FIR is a counterblast to his allegations and complaint made by him against the respondent.

3.     No allegation of dowry was made when FIR u/s 354D IPC &Sec.66C of the IT Act was filed.

4.     Lodging an FIR for the offence of dowry is an afterthought.

5.     The other respondents are not residing with the Petitioner as such FIR be quashed.

Issue

Whether the FIR lodged by the Respondent-wife discloses the commission of the offence.

1.     In the FIR it was specifically stated that since she didn’t bring sufficient dowry as desired by the family including AC Car and AC, dissatisfied family members were hiding eatables from her and also kept her thirsty.

2.     The applicant-husband had left the respondent-wife at her parental home and was not taking her back.

Observation of the Court

1.     Not providing food to the married woman is certainly physical and mental harassment. As such it can’t be said that the allegations of the Respondent-Wife are general and vague.

2.     Compelling the respondent to live at her parental home for non-fulfillment of dowry amounts to mental harassment punishable u/s 498A of IPC.

3.     Merely because FIR is lodged after the filing of divorce petition by the applicant-husband it can’t be said it is a counter blast.

4.     For the argument's sake, she kept quiet all along doesn’t mean that she had not suffered physical and mental harassment at the hands of her husband and family members. She lodged FIR when she found there was no possibility of reconciliation then she also decided to bring forth the misdeeds she had suffered.

5.     It is also evident that the relationship between the applicant and the respondent was not cordial as the husband has kept her mobile doubting her character, changed the password of her Facebook & Gmail Account, and changed the lock pattern of her mobile.

6.     If the allegation of adultery is found to be incorrect then the behavior of the husband would certainly amount to cruelty.

Seema Bhatnagar

[seemabhatnagar]

Custody Case: Court Upholds Child's Wishes Over Mother's Habeas Corpus Petition

Dr.  Athulya Asok v. The State Police Chief & 7 others

WP (Criminal) 163/2024

Subject Custody of Child

Before High Court of Kerala at Ernakulum

Heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil K Narendran J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice G Girish J

Order: The Habeas Corpus Petition of the mother for the custody of the child aged 13 years and having exceptional maturity was dismissed as the child in unequivocal terms said he did not want to go with the mother and wanted to go with his aunt, uncle, and cousin.

The petition was dismissed on April 4, 2024

Facts

The petitioner is the mother having filed writ of habeas corpus seeking production of the detenue boy aged 13 years before the Court. The petitioner mother after the dissolution of her marriage with the father of the detenue, re-married and had a daughter from her second marriage.

The alleged detenue was living with his father at Dubai where he was working and detenue was studying at Sharjah. The father of the detenue died in October 2023 of Cancer. After the death of the father of the detenue, the detenue was shifted to Dubai and he was got admitted in the same school where he was studying under the care and protection of the sisters and brother-in-law of the deceased.

Upon direction the detenue was produced before the Court but the boy was reluctant to go with the mother.

Interaction was made with the mother and the boy individually and collectively in the Chamber of Hon’ble Judges and Consultant Psychologist at the Counselling Centre also interacted with the boy.

During the interaction with the Hon’ble Judges the boy made it clear that he was not willing to go along with his mother. The reason he stated is the mental pain suffered by him by the act of his mother, who had no reservations in speaking bad about his father, who had left for his heavenly abode.

The boy who was having emotional attachment of a high grade with his father, felt it extremely hard to hear verbal abuse and ill-will uttered by the petitioner against her former husband

The detenu even tried to show the Judges his mobile phone, where the petitioner has sent abusive chats about his father.

The boy clearly and in a calm demeanor told the Judges that he is comfortable with his aunt, uncle and cousin and he gets pleasant atmosphere at home and at school and he will not be able to adjust with his mother, step sister and step father.

Observation of the Court

The petitioner was not able to establish that the act of the respondent’s uncle and aunty keeping the custody of the detenu with them, and taking care of his affairs including education and grooming up, is in violation of any law applicable to the parties.

The court rejected the contention of the counsel of the petitioner that being mother Petitioner stands on a better footing for the custody of the boy than his uncle and aunty.

As the boy who is having mental maturity far beyond his age, has conveyed to the Court in unequivocal terms that he will not be able to live along with his mother who often ventured to hurt him by saying bad words about his deceased father with whom he was having deep affectionate bondage.

In the writ of habeas corpus relating to the custody of children, the paramount consideration should be the welfare of the children.

If an order directing the custody of a child with a parent is likely to be detrimental to the interest of that child, especially when the child is of advanced age, and having considerable maturity in mind to decide his future course of action, it is not possible for the Court to pass an order compelling that child to live with such parent who is totally unacceptable to him.

We understand from the interaction with the detenu separately and jointly with the petitioner, that he is likely to suffer emotional trauma leading to disruption of his studies and peace of mind if he is compelled to live with the petitioner.

In view of the child’s clear disinterest to go with the petitioner, the request of the petitioner to have custody of the detenu cannot be entertained in this petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Seema Bhatnagar

[seemabhatnagar]

"Mutual Consent Divorce: Maintenance Waivers and Legal Implications"

Gaurav Mehta v. Anamika Chopra

Crl. Revision 4152/2023 filed by the husband

&

Crl. Revision 4452/2023 filed by wife for enhancement of maintenance

Before the High Court of Allahabad

Heard by the Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit J

Order: Crl. Revision filed by the revisionist husband Gaurav Chopra was allowed as the respondent-wife had already waived off her right to claim maintenance at the time of divorce.

Crl. Revision of the Wife was dismissed.

Background

This is a case where Divorce based on mutual consent was allowed by the Family Court between the parties.

Fact

The marriage between the parties was solemnized in February 2004 according to Hindu rites and customs. A son out of wedlock was born in December 2004. Things were all well till August 2006 & thereafter due to differences between them, they started living separately.

Both parties filed divorce by mutual consent u/s 13B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the District Judge, New Delhi.

Out of all the terms and conditions of divorce by mutual consent one of the Terms was that the wife will not claim any amount of money by way of stridhan, maintenance, compensation, damages, etc. (past, present, and future) from her husband.

It was also agreed between the parties that the son, shall remain in the custody of his mother till he attains the age of majority.

The husband was given visitation rights to visit and meet his son once a month.

The divorce petition was decreed in August 2007 on the terms and conditions agreed between the parties.

After six years of divorce, a maintenance petition was filed by the son through her mother in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar in the year 2013.

The maintenance petition was allowed by the Family Court in November 2019 granting maintenance in favor of the son at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of filing the petition the father used to pay the same to his son.

The wife also filed an application before the Family Court claiming 25% of the income of the husband as maintenance in February 2020.

The wife also moved an application in August 2020 claiming interim maintenance @ Rs. 50,000/ per month.

Submission of the Husband

The husband objected pleading that the divorce petition was decreed with mutual consent and the wife had agreed that she would not claim any amount towards stridhan, maintenance, compensation damages, etc.

The Family Court allowed the application of interim maintenance awarding Rs. 25,000/- to the wife.

Submission of the wife in person

She is facing acute hardship.

The son is studying in Toronto Canada.

So long she was able to manage the expenses she didn’t claim. Now she is unable to as such she has filed a maintenance petition and the Family Court has allowed a very meager amount of Rs.25,000/-

Law

Once the wife waives her right to maintenance from her husband at the time of divorce and the divorce decree was passed on the terms and conditions of the agreement, it is not open to the wife to claim maintenance from her husband in the future.

Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. also provides that no wife shall be entitled to receive the allowance for maintenance from her husband if she is living separately by mutual consent.

Observation of the Court

The wife has waived off her right to claim maintenance by filing an affidavit in the divorce petition as such the Revision petition filed by the wife claiming maintenance, itself is not maintainable and the Family Court has committed gross illegality in granting interim maintenance @ Rs. 25,000/- per month to the wife.

Seema Bhatnagar

[seemabhatnagar]

The Dark Trail: Sonia Keshwani’s Extortion Chronicles

Sonia Keshwani v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Mohit Dudeja Crl. Misc. Case No. 11714/2024 Before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur Heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Maninder S Bhatti J Order: The case was dismissed by the court because directallegations against the applicant Sonia Keshwani. Background This is the Regular first bail application filed U/s 439 Cr P C by the Applicant Sonia Keshwani for the offence registered against her U/s 384, 389, 452, 506, 427 IPC. Submission of the Counsel of the Applicant 1.     The allegation of the prosecution that the applicant came to the house of the complainant and attempted to ransack it is false. Neither any amount nor any kind of property or valuable security was delivered to the applicant. Hence, no case of extortion is made out in terms of section 383 and no case could have been registered U/s 384 IPC. 2.     The Trial Court rejected the bail application on the ground that there are other cases of similar nature registered in the past against the applicant. 3.     The Trial Court was required to appreciate that previously as many as four cases were lodged by the present applicant against her husband Vikas Ramrakhyani. 4.     Previous cases could not have been made the basis to reject the bail application of the applicant. 5.     The applicant is innocent and has been in custody since 19.2.2024. 6.     The applicant herself is a victim & has been falsely implicated. Submission of the Counsel of the State 1.     Applicant is in the hashtag#habit of hashtag#lodgingfalse and frivolous hashtag#cases. 2.     The Trial Court has rightly rejected the bail application of the applicant. 3.     The Trial Court has considered details of all previous cases. 4.     The present applicant, is in the habit of hashtag#blackmailing and hashtag#manypersons have been made hashtag#scapegoats at the instance of the present applicant. 5.     The applicant even lodged the false First Information Report against the persons and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a grant of bail. 6.     In the present case there are direct allegations against the applicant. 7.     It is alleged that the applicant while threatening the complainant extorted money and even ransacked the shop of the complainant and the hashtag#conduct of the applicant was also hashtag#captured in hashtag#CCTV of the hashtag#shop. 8.     The application for bail deserves to be dismissed. Observation of the Court 1.     A perusal of the case diary reflects that there are hashtag#directallegations of hashtag#extortion against the applicant. 2.     The statement of Mohit Dudeja, the complainant, also reflects that upon being threatened he gave a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to the present applicant. 3.     It is also not in dispute that the present applicant has also lodged 5 cases under Section 376 I.P.C against different persons including two cases against one Vikas Ramrakhyani who, according to the applicant, is her husband. Seema Bhatnagar

[seemabhatnagar]

From Tragedy to Courtroom: Unraveling the Mystery of Employment-Related Death

National Insurance Company v. Rakesh Kumar Sharma & 6 others

MA 9/2009

Subject: Compensation due to death arising out of and during the course of employment

Before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu

Heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar J

Order The claimants (family of the deceased truck driver) miserably failed to prove the connection that the death has arisen out of employment and during the course of employment. Nothing was brought on record as evidence by the claimants. Neither a copy of the FIR nor the outcome of the police investigation was brought on record. Hence Insurance Company succeeded in appealing before the High Court.

The issue before the High Court

1.      Whether the employer and the insurer are liable to compensate the petitioners/dependents of the deceased even if the deceased has not suffered any injury/died in an accident when admittedly the deceased was found murdered and had neither died because of any injury directly attributable to his employment; and,

2.      Whether there was any nexus with the nature of employment and the murder and the cause of death, when there is no finding of the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act in this respect.

Background

Suraj Prakash Sharma was a truck driver and he was carrying vegetables for delivery at Punjab. On the way, he stopped at village Jagatpura near the Mittal petrol pump and parked his truck. It is stated in the FIR registered u/s302 & 201 IPC that the foul smell emitting from the parked truck came to the notice of Village Sarpanch. On enquiring, it was found that a dead body was lying on the back seat of the cabin. Since the death occurred in the course of employment family member of the deceased filed a claim before the Workman Compensation Commissioner. Since the age of the deceased was 35 years and he was earning 6000/- PM hence the family was entitled to compensation.

The issue before the Workman Compensation Commissioner (WCC)

1.      Whether the deceased was engaged as a workman by respondent No.1 for driving the vehicle and died during the course of his employment with respondent No.1?

2. The cause of death attributed in the petition during the course of employment of the insured falls under the provisions of terms and conditions of the policy. If not, what is its effect?

Decision of WCC

Since the death occurred in the course of employment and having regard to the age and monthly earnings, the Workman Compensation Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs.3,68,340/- in favor of the Claimants. As the vehicle was insured the insurance company was called upon to indemnify the employer by depositing the awarded amount in the Court. This was done by the Commissioner vide impugned award dated 24.10.2008

The insurance company challenged the award of the WCC.

1.      There is no causal connection of the death of the deceased with his employment viz. the use of a Truck and, therefore, the death of the deceased cannot be said to be on account of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the employer.

2. There is not even an iota of evidence on record to show that the deceased, who was found murdered in the Truck, was killed by an accident in respect of the use of the vehicle which, at the relevant time, was under his control as its driver.

Observation of the High Court

1.      The murder of the driver was an accidental murder or an intended murder and is not brought in the form of the evidence on record.

3.      Neither the copy of the FIR has been produced before the Commissioner, nor any effort has been made by the claimants to summon a report from the concerned Police Station.

4.      It is very difficult for this Court to concur with the conclusion of the Commissioner that the death of the driver had occurred out of and during the course of his employment.

5. The Commissioner has not made any effort to find out whether there is any causal connection between the death and the employment of the workman.

6. The murder of the driver in the instant was not an accidental murder. Neither there was any attempt on the part of the claimants to plead an accidental murder, nor was there brought on record any evidence to show that the death of the deceased driver was caused due to an accident that was not an intended murder.

7. The correlation between the death of the deceased driver and the nature of his employment is completely missing.

8. Neither the Truck was stolen by the assailants, nor the goods were stolen. Possibly, the deceased driver was murdered because of some old enmity or for reasons not connected with the use of a vehicle under his control.

Seema Bhatnagar

[seemabhatnagar]

"Victory for Justice: High Court Orders Issuance of Widow Identity Card to Parvathamma"

Smt Parvathamma v. The Joint Director, The Sainik Welfare & Resettlement Department

Writ Petition 416/2024

Before the High Court of Karnataka

Heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M Nagaprasanna J

Order: The writ was allowed on 22.03.2024 & direction was given to the Respondent Department to issue a Widow Identity Card within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order copy, it was also declared by the Court that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits that will flow from the Widow identity card.

Facts

Smt Parvathamma-the petitioner was the wife of L Ramakrishna was Ex-Serviceman from the Army. The marriage was solemnized in the year 1987. The couple had a daughter from their marriage who is now 28 years old. Most of the time the husband of the petitioner remained on duty and used to come home for two months in a year. Husband took VRS in the year 2006. Since the husband of the petitioner started living at home he began to quarrel with the petitioner on every small thing. When it became difficult for the petitioner to tolerate, she filed a complaint with the police, and in retaliation the husband filed a petition for the dissolution of a 30-year-old marriage against the petitioner.

Family Court issued notice to the wife since the wife didn’t appear, Family Court proceeded Ex parte and passed Exparte Divorce Decree. When the petitioner came to know about the Ex Parte Divorce Decree she filed an application for setting aside the Ex-parte order. The application was pending for hearing before the Family Court.

Before the Ex-parte order could be recalled, the husband of the petitioner died. As such another application was filed in the Divorce Petition for dismissing the petition as abated. Thus, there is no decree of divorce.

Since there is no decree of divorce existing as such the petitioner filed a representation with the Sainik Welfare and Resettlement Department for the issuance of an Identity Card to the petitioner as Widow of Ex-Serviceman.

The card was denied to the Petitioner by the Department as she is no longer the wife of the Ex-Serviceman since she is Divorced during the lifetime of the Ex-Serviceman.

Submission of the Counsel of the Petitioner

1.      The husband of the petitioner filed a Divorce petition as his brothers pressured so that the share of the petitioner was siphoned off. Ex-parte decree of divorce is no decree in the eye of the law as when the petitioner came to know about the Ex-parte order, she immediately filed petition for recall of the order of divorce.

2.      The divorce petition was dismissed as abated.

3. Wherefore, the petitioner is entitled to an identity card for being the widow of an ex-serviceman.

Submission of the Counsel of the State

1.      The Deputy Solicitor General of India, Sri. H. Shanthi Bhushan in all fairness submitted that the ex-parte decree of divorce, cannot be acted upon and the petitioner being a widow is entitled to the identity card for all the benefits of the Ex-serviceman.

2.      As the proceedings in the Divorce Petition are dismissed as abated.

3.      It is the discretion of the Court to grant relief to the petitioner or otherwise.

Observation of the Court

1.      Any widow of an Ex-serviceman who dies, becomes entitled to a widow identity card, and several benefits would flow from the card being granted to a widow.

2.      The decree of divorce does not even exist as the petition is itself dismissed as having abated.

3.      At the outset, the decree was an ex-parte decree, which, save in exceptional circumstances, is no decree in the eye of the law.

4. Viewed from any angle, the stigma of divorce cannot be permitted to be hanging on the head of the petitioner for her to be denied of any benefit, of being a spouse of ex-serviceman.

5.      What the respondent ought to have had is, lots of empathy and little sympathy towards the petitioner, as on the death of the husband, the sole breadwinner of the family, the wife and family are driven to the grave, impecuniosity and would be condemned by penury.

6. The plight and plea of the widow are blissfully ignored by the respondent; the respondent ought to have, without driving the petitioner to this Court, issued a widow identity card, as was sought.

[seemabhatnagar]

"Quashing of Denial of Joining to Pregnant Nursing Officer"

Misha Upadhyay v. State of Uttarakhand and Others

W P 241/2024

Before High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital

Heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit J

Writ Petition was allowed and the order denying joining to the petitioner on account of being pregnant was quashed. The respondents were directed to give immediate joining to the petitioner within 24 hours from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

Background

Petitioner was denied joining as Nursing Officer in B.D. Pandey District Hospital, Nainital as she was 13 weeks pregnant. Hence, she approached the High Court for quashing of the order dt.15.02.2024. Petitioner was given appointment letter dt 23.01.2024 under the signature of Director General of Medical Health and Family Welfare, Dehradun, Uttarakhand.

Issue

The issue which came on the way of joining of the petitioner Misha Upadhyay was Fitness Certificate containing the endorsement,’ presently unfit for joining’.

This endorsement was given in the light of Gazette of India: Extraordinary, Part I, section 1, page – 120, clause 09, which prescribes as under: -

“If as a result of the test a female candidate is found to be 12 weeks or more pregnant, she should be declared temporarily unwell until she give birth. She will be re-examined for a medical certificate 6 weeks after the date of delivery on production of a medical certificate from a registered medical practitioner.”

Submission of the Counsel of the State

In view of the guidelines the petitioner was denied joining and there is nothing wrong on the side of the Respondent.

The duties, which the petitioner is required to perform, are cumbersome and owing to her pregnancy, she could not be perform.

Observation of the Court

The medical certificate does not disclose any disease, weaknesses or bodily infirmity except the pregnancy of 13 weeks and the same medical certificate further reveals that it is not a disqualification for any employment.

The kind of treatment, meted out to the petitioner by the respondents amounts to gender bias and she cannot be denied joining.

When a woman is entitled for maternity leave which is her social and fundamental right as held by the Apex Court time and again, then to deny joining on the ground of pregnancy, would be highly discriminatory to a woman. Denying joing to a pregnant woman is violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

If a woman who joins service on fresh appointment and becomes pregnant after joining, she would get maternity leave, then why a pregnant lady cannot join her duties on fresh appointment.

After joining, she would also be entitled for maternity leave.

The action of the State is highly parochial against the women who make half of the population it cannot be countenanced. We have to look at it with a new angle.

Seema Bhatnagar

[seemabhatnagar]

Unraveling Talaq: A Legal Duel Between Tradition and Reform

Javed Naseem v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Afreen Shaheed

Before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur

Criminal Misc. Case 8056/2024

Subject Triple Talaq

Heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice G S Ahluwalia J

Order The High Court dismissed the petition of the Husband on March 20, 2024. From the manner and conduct of the Petitioner-husband, it was evident that his intention was for irrevocable Talaq i.e. Talaq-e-Biddat and he very cleverly took the shield of Talaq-e-Ahsan by sending a registered post to his wife Afreen that if he comes within three months from the date of pronouncement, he would accept her otherwise Talaq would be Final and Operative and the relationship between them would come to an end.

Background

Respondent Afreen Shaheed married Javed Naseem in April 2017. She received a Talaqnama signed by the petitioner-husband Javed Naseem along with signature of 2 witnesses Mirza Karim Baig & Rahim Mirza on it with date reflecting as 09.10.2022 & 2.01.2023.

As per the averment of the Respondent she was given talaq as she had given birth to a girl child and had not fulfilled the demand of dowry.

Her husband, Rahim Mirza, and her mother-in-law also came to her paternal home and gave triple Talaq to her and also gave a copy of Fatwa dt 19.07.2023 of Mufti Raees who also held the Talaq as correct.

Respondent Afreen lodged an FIR against her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and Rahim Baig and Mirza Karim Baig.

In retaliation the husband Javed Naseem filed a present criminal petition invoking the inherent power of the High Court to quash the FIR and the consequent proceeding arising out of it.

Submission of the Counsel for the Respondent-Wife

Section 4 of the Muslim (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019 provides that any pronouncement of Talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife, by words, either spoken or written or in electronic form or any manner whatsoever shall be void and illegal.

Submission of the Counsel for the Petitioner-Husband

The Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the petitioner had sent the Talaq-e-Ahsan by registered post on 30.1.2023 and Talaq-e Ahsan is a recognized mode of divorce under Muslim Law.

The Talaq-e-Ahsan does not have an instantaneous effect Talaq and it becomes operative only after the passing of three Menstrual cycle of the wife, therefore, it is not covered under the definition of section 2(c) of the 2019 Act.

Even after giving Talaq-e-Ahsan the husband can always withdraw the same prior to coming into force of the said Talaq.

Legal Provisions

‘Talaq’ as defined under section 2©which means talaq-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq having the effect of irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband.

Section 3 provides that “any pronouncement of Talaq by a Muslim husband to his wife, by words, either spoken or written or in electronic form or in any other manner would be void and illegal”.

Observation of the Court

Talaq-e-biddat is instantaneous talaq which becomes operational immediately. Whereas Talaq-e-Ahsan is revocable Talaq and it becomes operational after three menstrual cycles.

The object of the Muslim Act 2019 was to safeguard the interest of the Muslim Women from the Wrath of the Muslim Husband by pronouncing Triple Talaq at their whims.

The Talaq-e-Ahsan was written in such a form as if it was putting pressure on the Respondent Wife to come back home within three months otherwise after the expiry of the three months or the period of iddah aforesaid period Talaq will become final and irrevocable.

The husband has already expressed his irrevocable divorce to the respondent wife and has made it conditional that only if the respondent wife comes back to her matrimonial house then he would take her in kindness.

Merely because the applicant has sent Talaq-e-Ahsan with a condition that would not take his case out of the purview of section 2(c) of the 2019 Act because the applicant has already expressed his intention to grant irrevocable talaq to respondent No.2. Such a Talaq-e-Ahsan sent by the applicant is contrary to the objects of the 2019 Act.

Talaq-e-Ahsan was sent by registered post on 30.1.2023 to be in operation after three menstrual cycles.

But the husband and his mother even before the expiry of the three months came home of the Respondent Wife & gave Talaq-e-Biddat by pronouncing Talaq thrice.

Talaq-e-Ahsan had not become operative as Talaq-e-Biddat was given to the Respondent wife who made an offence against the petitioner.

[seemabhatnagar]

“Passport Issuance Amid Pending Criminal Cases: A High Court’s Perspective”

Kashif Ahmed v. Union of India

Criminal Writ Petition 2067/2024

Subject Issuance of passport when a criminal case is pending

Before Lucknow High Court

Heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shameem Ahmad

Order Writ Petition was allowed on 22.03.2024 with the observation that no hard and fast straight jacket formula can be laid down regarding issuance of permission or giving no objection by the court concerned for issuance of passport.

Facts

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vth Lucknow denied permission for renewal of the passport to the Petitioner Kashif Ahmad on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction.

The Passport of the petitioner expired on 30.11.2019 and the marriage of his brother-in-law is scheduled in Saudi Arabia on 30.04.2024 and he wanted to attend the ceremony.

In December 2019, five cases were registered against him given his protest against the Citizen Amendment Act & National Register for Citizens. In all these pending criminal cases, the charge has not yet been framed by the Court.

Aggrieved by the denial of permission by the ACJM-Lucknow, the Petitioner approached Lucknow High Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus.

Submission of Petitioner's Counsel

The Petitioner’s Counsel contended that the Magistrate didn’t apply his mind while rejecting the application of the Petitioner.

Submission of the Respondent's Counsel

The Counsel for the Respondent-Union of India too affirmed the submission of the Petitioner’s Counsel quoting the Office Memorandum dt.10.10.2019 which provided an exemption to citizens of India against whom criminal proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, subject to the following conditions, namely: -

1.      For the period as specified in the order of the court.

For renewal after the expiry of the stipulated period, a fresh court order is required specifying a further period of validity of the passport for travel abroad

2.      If no time is specified, a passport shall be issued for one year.

The passport can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not traveled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and in the meantime, the order of the court is not canceled or modified.

3.      If the time specified for travel abroad is less than one year but the validity of the passport is not specified then it shall be issued for one year.

And passport can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not traveled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and in the meantime, the order of the court is not canceled or modified.

4.      If the time specified for travel abroad is more than one year but the validity of the passport is not specified then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel as specified in the order.

In this situation renewal of the passport requires a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad.

5.      Apart from this, the citizen has to give an undertaking in writing to the passport-issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court concerned, would appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued.

6.      For issuance of a passport, a declaration has to be made by the applicant that the applicant has not been convicted by any Court of Law in India for any criminal offence and has not been sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more than two years with other relevant information.

Seema Bhatnagar

[seemabhatnagar]

"Boundary Breach: The University's Intrusion into Collegiate Affairs"

University of Calicut v. K P Ameen Rashid & another

Writ Appeal 50/2024

High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Heard By Hon’ble Mr Justice  A Muhamed Mustaque J & Hon’ble Madam Justice Mrs Shoba Annamma Eapen J

Order pronounced on 14.02.2024 dismissing the Writ Appeal of the Calicut University. The Bench observed that the role of the University in Private Colleges is limited to the extent of ensuring that University regulations are followed or not. The University cannot assume the role of the Principal and direct the College Principal to act on their direction. There is no merit in this writ appeal. The writ appeal fails, and it is accordingly, dismissed.

 This is a case that began from a complaint by a Research Scholar, C H Amal, in the Department of Physical Education from Calicut University against a student, KP Ameen Rashid, of BA (Economics) from the SEEDAC College of Arts in Palakkad District & affiliated with Calicut University enrolled for the Academic Session 2022-2025

The complainant questioned the election of Rashid as a Senate Member while being a regular student of SEEDAC College & his working as a Project Assistant with Thachanattukara Grama Panchayat.

The University enquired with the Panchayat with regards to the engagement of Ameen. Panchayat confirmed that Ameen was engaged from 9/12/2021 till 12/4/2023 as a Project Assistant.

The Vice-Chancellor heard the complainant C H Amal and student Ameen Rashid. Based on the hearing, the Vice Chancellor on 25.07.2023 directed the Principal of SEEDAC College to remove Ameen Rashid from the rolls as he had not attended class on a single day in the first semester and cancel his admission and report the same to the University.

Abiding by the instructions of the Vice Chancellor the Principal of SEEDAC College cancelled the admission of Ameen on 14.08.2023. 

Ameen Rashid challenged his cancellation of admission through Writ Petition before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and submitted that the University of Calicut granted affiliation to SEEDAC College in Economics quite late and to compensate for the academic loss, the College was directed to provide extra classes as well as online classes. He has attended all the online classes along with other students and his attendance is there on record of the College. And with regards to his working as a Project Assistant, it is on a daily wage basis on Holidays and he is doing work at night. 

The Single Judge of the High Court set aside the order of the Principal of cancellation of Admission of Ameen Rashid & observed that out of the 9 students enrolled for the regular classes, none attended the regular classes why Ameen Rashid is singled out which is legally unsustainable.

Aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, Calicut University went in Appeal before the High Court.

Observation of the High Court in Writ Appeal

1.      The role of the University providing affiliation to the college is confined only to the supervisory nature, and the authority to determine the factum of absence from classes lies with the Principal of the College.

2.      The Principal has no case that Ameen Rashid did not attend the classes. The Principal cannot surrender his freedom to take action against a student, to the University.

3.      If conducting classes online is not permissible, the University will have to take action against the College and not against the student who attended the classes online. If the College had conducted classes online and allowed the students to attend classes online, we do not understand why the University is showing undue interest in this matter.

4.      The complaint was concerning the first semester and the University itself had allowed Ameen to write the first semester examination. The University subsequently can’t raise any complaint while allowing Ameen to write the first-semester Examination.

5.      The University in a proceeding challenging the selection of the student in an election matter, cannot collaterally decide a question on non-attendance and decide against the student. At best, the University could only have ordered the Principal to provide a report regarding the actual attendance of the student to the University.

6.      The Principal of the College in its counter filed in Writ Petition had certified that Rashid had sufficient attendance and he had attended all the online classes.

7. The University on its own jumped from the student being elected as senate member to the inquiry regarding the attendance of the student. Attendance of the student is a regular day-to-day administrative matter falling within the domain of Principal of the SEEDAC College. It is difficult to understand why the University was taking undue interest in the matter of Ameen Rashid. When none of the 9 students enrolled for BA Economics didn’t attend the regular class and all attended the online class. The University needs to be concerned about the standards of education but not in a way of chasing a wild goose.

Seema Bhatnagar

[seemabhatnagar]

“Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019: Enhancing Road Safety in India”

Today thought of sharing the changes that were made to the Motor Vehicle Act through amendment in 2019. These amendments were brought due to the inconsiderate driving behavior of many Indians, and several cases of road accidents are reported all over the country. It is shocking to know that in 2019, road accident deaths comprised around 43% of the deaths in India. This was due to the sheer lack of discipline among road users despite strong laws already there, as such the government decided to change several provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act in 2019.

The fine amount & sentence period is enhanced and the compensation limit has also been increased under the new amendments. This has been done to send a clear message to the violators of traffic rules that transgression in traffic rules won't be tolerated.

Compensation limits for accident victims have also been set. If the injuries caused are severe, then INR 2.5 lakhs will have to be given to the victim, and if the accident turns fatal, then INR 5 lakhs will have to be paid as compensation.

Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act deals with dangerous driving. Dangerous driving includes:

Taking an important call or just mindlessly scrolling through Instagram when driving.

Using your mobile phone or any handheld device while driving is considered an offense.

Jumped a red light.

Stopping when asked by the traffic authorities can spare you the wrath of this section.

Violating a stop sign can also get you in trouble

wrongfully overtaking a vehicle is another violation

Causing inconvenience by driving against the flow of traffic is a transgression

Most importantly, driving dangerously enough to grievously hurt a person will also land you in trouble.

Penalties under New Motor Vehicle Act, 2019:

1.Driving/ Riding without a license

Rs.5,000 and/or community service.

2.Driving/Riding under the influence of an intoxicating substance

Rs.10,000 and/or 6 months prison| Rs.15,000 and /or 2 years jail for the repetitive violation.

3.Over speeding 

Light motor vehicle: Rs.1,000- Rs.2000MPV/HPV: Rs.2,000-Rs.4,000 (license seizure).

4.Driving without a seat belt

Rs.1,000 and/or community service.

5. Driving/Riding without insurance

Rs.2,000 and/or 3 months prison, community service | Rs.4,000 for a subsequent offense.

6.Violating road regulations

Rs.500- Rs.1000

7.Dangerous driving/riding and jumping red light

Rs.1,000- Rs.5,000 and/or 6 months to 1 year in prison, license seizure.

8.Driving/Riding while on the mobile (handheld)

Rs.5,000

9.Speeding, Racing

Rs.5,000 and/or 3 months prison, community service | Rs.10,000 for subsequent violation and up to 1 year in prison, community service.

10.Not giving way to emergency vehicles like ambulances, fire engines, etc.

Rs.10,000 and/or community service.

11.Riding without Helmet (rider and pillion rider)

Rs.1000, and or license disqualification, community service for 3 months.

12.Overloading Two-Wheelers

Rs.2,000 and license disqualification and/or 3 months of community service.

13.Juvenile Offences

Rs.25,000 with 3-years prison, cancellation of registration for 1-year, juvenile ineligible for license until 25 years of age.

14.

Driving/Riding despite disqualification

Rs.10,000, and/or community service.

15.Overboarding Passengers

Rs.200 for every extra passenger and/or community service.

16. Driving/Riding without ticket

Rs.500

17.Offence committed by enforcing authorities such as offering bribes

Twice the penalty (varies according to traffic rules violated).

18.Unauthorized use of vehicles without a license

Rs.1,000- Rs.5,000

19.Disobedience of orders of the authorities

Rs.2,000

20.Vehicles without permit

Rs.10,000 and/or up to 6 months prison, community service.

21.Oversized Vehicles

Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000 and/or community service.

22.Overloading

Rs.20,000 + Rs.2,000 for every extra ton and/or community service.

23.Driving/Riding without a license (for aggregators)

Rs.25,000 to Rs.1,00,000

24.Driving/Riding without registration

Rs.5,000 | Rs.10,000 for a subsequent offence.

25.Using a horn in a silent zone

Rs.2,000 | Rs.4,000 for a subsequent offence.