SC-Maintenance From Parents In Law Cannot Be Claimed By DIL – 2008

Here is the judgment: SC-Maintenance Cannot Be Claimed By DIL – 2008

Parents-in-law can’t be forced to maintain daughter-in-law:

The Supreme Court has ruled that a woman, if neglected by her husband, cannot eye her mother-in-law’s property for getting maintenance. Maintenance of a married woman is her husband’s personal obligation and the property in her mother-in-law’s name can never be the subject matter of the obligation to maintain a daughter-in-law even after the death of her husband, said a Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and V S Sirpurkar. A woman lawyer, who had filed several cases against her parents-in-law in Chincholi, Karnataka, had even taken recourse to litigation to see that their property was auctioned for getting the maintenance she was entitled to from their son. Disapproving the extra-legal arguments taken by her and deprecating the trial court and the Karnataka High Court overstretching the law as well as their jurisdiction to go by her pleadings, the Bench said a woman could seek attachment of properties only if her husband had a share in it. This means, if the parents-inlaw’s properties were self-acquired and not inherited, then their daughter-in-law could institute suits seeking attachment of those properties which stood in the name of her husband and not against those owned by his parents. Referring to the plea of the daughter-in-law, Sonalben, the Bench said she might be entitled to maintenance from her husband and the decree in her suit could only be against his properties. “The decree, if any, must be executed against her husband and only his properties could be attached for that but not of her mother-in-law,” said Justice Sinha, writing the judgment for theBench. Referring to the HC order, which was challenged by mother-in-law Vimlaben, the apex court said it suffered from “total non-application of mind” and was “wholly unsustainable”.”

The said orders might have been passed only on consideration that Sonalben is a harassed lady, but the fact that Vimlaben is also a much harassed lady was lost sight of (by the HC),” the Bench said. Directing release of the attached properties to Vimlaben, the court directed Sonalben to give Rs 50,000 to her mother-in-law as cost of litigation.

____________________________________

AP HC Acknowledges The Abuse Of 498A – 2007

Here is a great judgement from Justice Swaroop Reddy Of the AP HC. He basically acknowledges the abuse of 498A going on in the country and in the state.

Here are some excerpts:

• 8. Before parting with the petition, I feel it desirable to observe that there is rampant misuse of S.498-A IPC. False complaints are given against kith-and-kin of the husband, including the married sisters and their husbands;unmarried sisters and brothers and married brothers and their wives. There are instances where even young children, aged below ten years, were also implicated in the offences of this nature. My experience, while sitting in matrimonial Bench revealed that several families are ruined; marriages have been irretrievably broken down and chances of reconciliation of spouses have been spoiled on account of unnecessary complaints and the consequent arrest and remand of the husbands and their kith-and-kin. To discourage this unhealthy practice, it is desirable that anticipatory bail is granted very liberally in all cases of S.498-A IPC, particularly when the petitioner/accused is not the husband of the complainant and when the allegations are not very specific and prima facie do not inspire confidence.
• 9. Section 498-A IPC is incorporated by the Legislature basically in the interest of women and to safe guard them from harassment. But, it has become somewhat counter productive. In several cases, women are harassed, arrested and humiliated on the complaints given under section 498-A IPC. The truth or otherwise of the allegations is subject to proof. For giving complaint absolutely no authentic and prima facie material like medical evidence is required, but on such complaints, in several cases, number of women are being arrested. In cases of arrest of married young women, they might face problems from their husbands and in-laws; in case unmarried women are arrested their marriage prospects would be badly affected and if government servants are arrested their service prospects are affected. In the present case, only one woman is the alleged victim; but at least four women might have to go to jail even before trial, effecting their reputation, subjecting them to rude treatment at Police Station etc.
• 10.Only in cases where, strong and authentic evidence like letters written by the accused-husband to the spouses or their parents etc., are available and where there is sufferance of serious injuries or death of the victim only, perhaps, it is desirable to refuse anticipatory bail, that, too, for the accused-husband. Another important aspect is in this type of cases; there is no chance of witnesses turning hostile or being influenced by the accused, as the witnesses would invariably be the kith-and-kin of the alleged victim like herself and her parents etc.These aspects have to be kept in view, while dealing with the cases of anticipatory bail/bail in cases of offences involving section 498-A IPC.

Here is the judgment:  AP HC Acknowledges The Abuse Of 498A

_____________________________________

The Judge’s Take On Heather Mills- A Potential 498A Wife

A gold digger just struck gold. If this had been India this famous Beatle would have faced a 498A but would have avoided an arrest and the case would have been quashed or hushed up (498A doesn’t apply to the rich and famous). Since this was England, he found himslef in a familiar predicament, having to pay up for committing the blunder of getting married to a gold digger, just like any of us who ended up with 498A wives.

This gold digger walked away with a whopping $49 millionUS. Here are some excerpts from the judgment:

• Judge Bennett: “The husband’s evidence was, in my judgment, balanced. He expressed himself moderately, though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest.”
• Judge Bennett: “Much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate, but also less than candid”.
• Judge Bennett: “The wife for her part must have felt rather swept off her feet by a man as famous as the husband. I think this may well have warped her perception leading her to indulge in make-believe. The objective facts simply do not support her case.”
• Judge Bennett’s conclusion: that Mills’ “association with the husband advanced, not stultified, her career.”

Judge Bennett considered Mills “her own worst enemy”, given to “distinctly distasteful” behaviour and a “me-too” attitude based on a greedy belief she was entitled to an equal share of all the worldly riches of the multi-millionaire pop star.

The judge described her claim to roughly £ 3.25m a year as “unreasonable, indeed exorbitant”. The judgment scathingly derides Mills’s claim she played a key role in professionally rehabilitating her pop-star husband.

Here is the judgment: Heather Mills Judgment

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1723254,00.html

Check out the expression of this gold digger as she walks away with close to $50 million.

___________________________________________