Justice Dhingra’s Judgment Clarifying CrPC 125

CrPC 125 is meant to serve as a tool to prevent destitution. Highly qualified Indian women harass their husbands by filing these cases to park themselves on their butts and collect tax free pay checks.

Justice Dhingra has turned his attention to putting an end to this malaise of laziness. This judgment embodies everything that can be done to end the abuse of CrPC 125.

Here is the text of this short and sharp judgment:

The petitioner who is an MBBS qualified Doctor and admittedly had been in practice before, claims that she was sitting at home despite being a qualified Doctor and does not work. The petitioner claimed maintenance against her husband who is in service. The Trial Court granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month. This petition is made against observation of the Trial Court that she was working somewhere and earning around Rs.8,000 to 10,000/- PM and that the maintenance granted by the Trial Court was made subject to adjustment of the maintenance being received by her under Section 125. Since counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is not working anywhere, despite being a qualified Doctor, I consider that as she is receiving maintenance from husband, the Court should not allow her experience and qualification to go waste. I consider that she should be directed to work as a honorary Doctor in some public welfare institute or school free of charges where she can take care of health of the poor people. Let her come to Court and give an undertaking that she was prepared to work without charging anything in any institution named by this Court around her house minimum 5 hours a day and 6 days a week, so long she receives maintenance from her husband on the plea of being unemployed.

Here is the judgment: Justice Dhingra’s Landmark Judgment On Purpose Of CrPC 125

PS:

Thanks to the visitor who posted this judgment on my blog as a comment.

____________________________________________________________

Justice Dhingra Fines A Woman For Alienating The Son From The Father

Here are the excerpts from this case:

4.  The notice of the petition was served upon the wife who appeared along with her counsel and also brought the child to the Court. She stated that she could not comply with the order as the child was unwilling to meet his father. The child in this case is about five and a half years old and is student of Class-I. While her mother was addressing the Court the child started weeping loudly and cried that he does not want to meet his father and he continuously cried for some time. It looked as if weeping button has been switched on. Thereafter, this Court enquired from the child why he was unwilling to meet the father. The child told that his father used to beat him and his mother, during meetings. He could not give a single instance of beating either of him or his mother. It is not the case of respondent also that the petitioner used to beat them at the time of meeting under visitation rights. The enquiry made from the child showed that the mind of child was highly poisoned against the petitioner by the respondent and he was tutored to a great extent. It is amply clear that the respondent who was not agreeable to the visitation rights, had seen to it that the child himself created such a scene in the Court that the Court was convinced that child was unwilling to meet the father. The child is of tender years age. The manner in which the mind of the child has been poisoned against the father shows that the respondent was out to frustrate the order of the Court.
5.  It is apparent that there is a clear and willful design of defiance of the order of this Court by the respondent who used the child as a tool of her design by poisoning the mind of the child to such an extent that the child started crying on just seeing the father without any provocation in the Court itself.
6.  Although, it is a clear case of contempt committed by the wife but I consider that it would not be appropriate to sent the wife to the jail since that would cause further trauma of the child and it would be appropriate if a fine of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on the wife for defying the order of the Court. A fine of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on the respondent. In case of default of depositing the fine she shall suffer a simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks.

Here is the judgment: Mr.Aman Oberoi Versus Ms. Tina Oberoi

_______________________________________

Justice Dhingra Explains The Guidelines Used To Determine Child Custody

Here is what Justice Dhingra says while determining an interim child custody case:

“The principles of law in relation to the custody of a minor child are well settled. It is trite that while determining the question as to which parent the care and control of a child should be committed, the first and the paramount consideration is the welfare and interest of the child and not the rights of the parents under a statute. Indubitably the provisions of law pertaining to the custody of child contained in either the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980 (Section 17) or the Hindu Minority and guardianship Act, 1956 (Section 13) also hold out the welfare of the child are predominant consideration. In fact, no statute on the subject, can ignore, eschew or obliterate the vital factor of the welfare of the minor. The question of welfare of the minor child has again to be considered in the background of the relevant facts and circumstances. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and other decided cases can hardly serve as binding precedents insofar as the factual aspects of the case are concerned. It is, no doubt, true that father is presumed by the statutes to be better suited to look after the welfare of the child, being normally the working member and   head of the family, yet in each case the Court has to see primarily to the welfare of the child in determining the question of his or her custody. Better financial resources of either of the parents or their love for the child may be one of the relevant considerations but cannot be the sold determining factor for the custody of the child. It is here that a heavy duty is cast on the Court to exercise its judicial discretion judiciously in the background of all the relevant facts and circumstances, bearing in mind the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.”

Here is the judgment: J Dhingra: CM(M) No. 752/2000 Ram Murti Chopra and Anr. v. Nagesh Tyagi

More information can be had from here:

INTERPARENTAL CHILD CUSTODY DISPUTES – THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE

___________________________________________________

Justice Dhingra Rules That Attorney Can Represent Client In Mutual Divorce Cases

Justice Dhingra had to say the following:

“Where the parties are living far away from the jurisdiction of the Court competent to dissolve the marriage, the parties after filing their affidavits can appoint attorneys to act on their behalf. Attorney is competent to act on behalf of the principal on the basis of power of attorney executed by the principal. The Courts have been allowing attorneys to file the petition, to withdraw the petition, to carry on proceedings in the Court on behalf of their principal in all other cases. The attorney can also act in matrimonial cases as per instructions of their principle. The Court can take necessary precautions to prevent frauds being perpetuated on it but unless the Court smells some kind of fraud being played with it, the Court should normally recognize the act of the attorneys.”

Here is the judgment: Justice Dhingra Rules That Attorney Can Represent Client In Mutual Divorce Cases

_______________________________________________________________

PIO Hall Of Shame: PIOs Fined For Stupidity

PIOs, you are public servants. Arrogance does not do you much good.  You are our servants.

We are your masters, us, the tax paying law abiding citizens of India. Please start obeying your real masters, not the political excuses that come and go and whose rear ends you tend to lick.

To show these excuses of PIOs in their proper light, here are some of the superstars of the PIO hall of shame.

• Yogesh Mehta:  Law Officer of a disgraced institution known as the NCW. He has been fined Rs 25,000 by the CIC for ignoring an RTI request regarding the Nithari murders, filed by a Naval officer.
  

Yogesh Mehta is on the right, and he’s dozing while Girija Vyas drones on.

By the way, he said: “489a is one of the most important tools in the hands of Indian women who have suffered abuse” in an article published by Indian Express.  Click here for the pdf. I do wonder why these fools call themselves law officers. They don’t seem to know about a very basic right: the right against arbitrary arrest. Under 498A, more than 1,50,000 women have been arrested since 2004.  Returning to our male Feminazi, Yogesh Mehta — SIF activists had  filed a number of RTIs and heard that he burrowed into a hole to avoid answering their calls. He went to the extent of having someone from the NCW say that he was on a 6 month vacation.  Moron !.

This is what the CIC said while fining him:

• NCW has been so lackadaisical hitherto as to neglect its duty to conform to the Sec 4 (1) sub-section (b) (iv)of the RTI Act,2005 it will do so now, by publishing the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions, in consonance with our decision on File CIC/WB/C/2008/00426.
• Moreover, we find a failure to respond within the mandated time limit to the application of 20.12.2007. PIO Shri Yogesh Mehta will, therefore Show-cause as to why he should not be held liable for a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- for the delay between 20.1.2008 when the response became due up to 9.5.2008 when it was actually provided, a delay of 110 days @ Rs. 250/- per day not exceeding Rs. 25,000/-.

• Dipender Pathak: Excuse of a PIO at Police HQ and Addl. Commissioner of Police (Gen. Admn). This is what the CIC had to say about him:

• “The above cases are held in File Nos. CIC/WB/C/2007/00274 and 275. Although PIO was given full opportunity to be heard as mandated u/s 20(1), neither have we received any written reply nor has he or the errant officials appeared before us in person. Under the circumstances, we find Shri Dipender Pathak, PIO Police HQ and Addl. Commissioner of Police (Gen. Admn) liable for the penalty in both cases up to a maximum of Rs. 25,000/- each, amounting to Rs. 50,000/- on the whole.”  You can read the CIC’s order here.

____________________________________________________________________

Justice Dhingra Explains The Meaning Of Shared Household

This great Indian judge has yet again delivered us from evil.

He defines a shared household as the following:

“Once a person gains majority, he becomes independent and parents have no liability to maintain him. It is different thing that out of love and affection, the parents may continue to support him even when he becomes financially independent or continue to help him even after his marriage. This help and support of parents to the son is available only out of their love and affection and out of mutual trust and understanding. There is no legal liability on the parents to continue to support a dis-obedient son or a son which becomes liability on them or a son who dis-respects or dis-regards them or becomes a source of nuisance for them or trouble for them. The parents can always forsake such a son and daughter-in-law and tell them to leave their house and lead their own life and let them live in peace. It is because of love, affection, mutual trust, respect and support that members of a joint family gain from each other that the parents keep supporting their sons and families of sons. In turn, the parents get equal support, love, affection and care. Where this mutual relationship of love, care, trust and support goes, the parents cannot be forced to keep a son or daughter in law with them nor there is any statutory provision which compels parents to suffer because of the acts of residence and his son or daughter in law.”

He defines a matrimonial home in the following manner:

“However, matrimonial home was not just a building made of bricks and walls. It was a home/place comprising of sweetness of relations of family members and elders, full of blessing. In the matrimonial home, matrimonial rights and obligations are to be equally observed. Practically speaking, the residence of husband should be the home of the wife where both the spouses have equal right to reside.”

Here is the judgement, a boon to those facing the ugly reality of the clumsily drafted domestic violence act:

J Dhingra: Neetu Mittal Vs Kanta Mittal DVA 2007

____________________________________________________________

Justice Dhingra: Maintenance To Be Fixed On Actual Earnings

Here is yet another judgment from Justice Dhingra. This time her states that

“The maintenance is to be fixed on the basis of actual earnings of a person and not on his being able bodied person. In this country, there is no job guarantee given by the government to every able bodied person. Many able bodied persons are jobless in our country. The only job guarantee is under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme under which 100 days labour work is assured to an unemployed rural person. The husband does not qualify for that. Moreover, the wife is equally able bodied. The wife has failed to show, in this case, any earning of the husband. She did not dispute the facts stated that the van was sold by her, the house was sold by her and she was facing a case filed by the father of the husband in respect of illegal sale of the house. The amount received from sale of the house is with the wife and she must be earning interest on it. She has failed to show any source of income to the husband. The bald allegation of his doing tuition without stating as to what was his educational qualification and to whom he was teaching, would not serve the purpose.”

Here is the judgment:

CM(M) No. 1790/2006 Ritu Raj Kant v. Anita

________________________________________________________

Justice Dhingra Explains Section 24 Of The HMA – 2008

Justice Dhingra explains Section 24 of the HMA in a judgment. Section 24/HMA reads as follows:

“24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.- Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable””

Here is the excerpt:

5. From the perusal of Section 24, it is abundantly clear that the object and intent of this Section is to enable the husband or the wife, as the case may be, who has no independent source of income for his or her support and necessary expense of proceedings under the Act to obtain maintenance expenses pendent lite so that the proceedings may be continued without any hardships on his or her part. The benefits granted under this Section are only temporary in nature and there are other provisions of law where a wife, who is not able to maintain herself, can claim maintenance/permanent alimony from the husband e.g. Section 25 of HMA or under provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The provisions of this Section are not meant for equivalising the income of wife with that of husband but are meant to see that where divorce or other proceedings are filed, either of the party should not suffer because of paucity of source of income and the Court should pass an order even during the pendency of such a petition, for maintenance and litigation expenses. Where a wife has no income or is without any support for maintaining herself, the Court has to pass an order considering the income and living status of the husband. However, where the wife and her husband both are earning and both are having good salary, merely because there is some salary difference, an order is not required to be passed under Section 24 of HMA.

Here is this all important judgment: Justice Dhingra Explains Section 24 Of The HMA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: August 18, 2008
Date of Order: September 18,2008
CM(M) 949/2008
18.09.2008
Manish Kumar …Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku with Mr. Abhinav Bajaj, Advocate
Versus
Mrs. Pratibha…Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani and Ms. Ekta Kalra, Advocates
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.
JUDGMENT:
1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed an order 25th July 2008 passed by learned trial court whereby the learned ADJ awarded a maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month to the respondent wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).
2. There is no dispute about the fact that both husband and wife were gainfully employed. Wife claimed that her monthly salary was Rs.28,500 whereas her husband was having monthly salary of Rs.90,000/- per month. She claimed a maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month.
3. Both husband and wife were working in private companies and their salary statements and other record was placed before the trial court. The trial court found that the take-home salary of wife was Rs.41,900/- and that of the husband was Rs.75,761/- per month respectively. Finding that the salary of the husband was more than the salary of the wife, the trial court granted maintenance of Rs.7,500/- to the wife.
4. I consider that while awarding maintenance to the wife, the trial court has lost sight of the basic ingredients of Section 24. Section 24 of HMA reads as follows:
“24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.- Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable”
5. From the perusal of Section 24, it is abundantly clear that the object and intent of this Section is to enable the husband or the wife, as the case may be, who has no independent source of income for his or her support and necessary expense of proceedings under the
Act to obtain maintenance expenses pendent lite so that the proceedings may be continued without any hardships on his or her part. The benefits granted under this Section are only temporary in nature and there are other provisions of law where a wife, who is not able to maintain herself, can claim maintenance/permanent alimony from the husband e.g. Section 25 of HMA or under provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The provisions of this Section are not meant for equivalising the income of wife with that of husband but are meant to see that where divorce or other proceedings are filed, either of the party should not suffer because of paucity of source of income and the Court should pass an order even during the pendency of such a petition, for maintenance and litigation expenses. Where a wife has no income or is without any support for maintaining herself, the Court has to pass an order considering the income and living status of the husband. However, where the wife and her husband both are earning and both are having good salary, merely because there is some salary difference, an order is not required to be passed under Section 24 of HMA.
6. In the instant case, it is nowhere pleaded by the wife in her application under Section 24 that the income being earned by her was not sufficient for her maintenance. Her contention in the application was that the petitioner was liable to bring her to the same status and station as if she was living with him in the matrimonial home. In my view, this is not the intent and purpose of Section 24. The purpose and intent of 24 is quite different as stated above.
7. The salary slips of the wife has been placed on record which show that she was having salary in the range of around Rs.50,000/- per month. Her statement of salary account from February 2007 to January 2008 shows that she had a take-home salary during this year of Rs.6,80,188/-. The average monthly salary was thus Rs.56,682/-. This salary was after deduction of tax, employees provident fund, PF contribution etc. Her gross salary inclusive of tax, provident fund etc was around Rs.80,000/- per month. A person who is earning this much of salary can very well maintain herself with such a standard which may be envy of many and under no stretch of imagination it can be said that the income earned by her was not enough to maintain her. There was no other liability on her. There is no offspring from this wedlock.
8. In view of my foregoing discussion, I consider that the trial court has wrongly allowed maintenance to the respondent wife. The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25th July 2008, granting maintenance of Rs.7500/- per month to the wife, is hereby set aside. However, the petitioner would be liable to pay the litigation expenses, as ordered by the trial court. No order as to costs.
September 18, 2008
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.

_______________________________________________________________________________________