Treat daughter-in-law as family: SC

dna correspondent @dna

New Delhi: A daughter-in-law should be treated as a family member and not as a housemaid, said the Supreme Court on Wednesday. “A daughter-in-law is to be treated with warmth and affection, and not as a stranger with ignoble indifference. No impression should be given that she can be thrown out of her matrimonial home,” a bench of justices KS Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said. The court expressed concern over brides being tortured and burnt in the country, and upheld the sentence of a seven-year jail term to a man for torturing his wife to an extent that she committed suicide. “Respect of a bride in her matrimonial home glorifies the solemnity and sanctity of a marriage, reflects on the sensitivity of a civilised society and epitomises her aspirations dreamt of in nuptial bliss. But the manner in which the bride is sometimes treated in many a home by the husband, in-laws and the relatives creates a feeling of emotional numbness in the society,” the bench said. “It is a matter of grave concern and shame that brides are burned or otherwise their life-sparks are extinguished by torture, both physical and mental, because of demand of dowry and insatiable greed and sometimes, sans demand of dowry,” the bench added.

(Source::::: DNA, 16-05-2013, p.10, http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=45491&boxid=32959&ed_date=2013-5-16&ed_code=820009&ed_page=10)

AN EASIER UNION?

Indian marriage laws not as knotty as US’s

Have A Big Advantage Being Gender-Neutral

Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN 

New Delhi: US law makers are proposing an amendment to the definition of marriage, which mandates the relationship to be between a man and woman, to bring it in line with judicial pronouncements legalizing same-sex marriages. 
    Will Indian Parliament need to amend the definition of marriage if our Supreme Court upholds a Delhi high court verdict decriminalizing same-sex relationships and if that ultimately leads to same-sex marriages? 
    Though marriage laws — the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) and the Special Marriage Act (SMA) — were framed nearly 60 years ago, the framers had shown great vision by keeping it gender neutral and saving the ruling party of the headache to garner enough support in Parliament to pass an amendment to the definition of marriage. 
    Section 5 of HMA, which was enacted in 1955, says “a marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus”. The SMA was enacted in 1954 to allow marriage between “any two persons” irrespective of the religion they professed. 
    The two phrases “any two Hindus” in HMA and “any two persons” in SMA, both of which do not refer to man and woman as in the US Constitution, would help the law getting applied to marriage between the same sex, if it materializes in the event of the Supreme Court agreeing with the view taken by the Delhi HC. 
    What Indian marriage laws were more worried about was the age and health of the “persons” getting married and to prevent any incestuous relationship. The only differentiation it prescribes is that the groom has to be 21 years and bride 18 years.
    Both marriage laws have fastened identical conditions on parties to a marriage: 

• No person has a spouse living at the time of the marriage (they have to be either single or divorced); 

•At the time of the marriage, neither party (a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or (b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or (c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity; 

• The parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship (very near relatives) unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits a marriage between the two; 

• The parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two.

Source::: The Times of India, 28-03-2013, p.17.

HC: 2nd wife no bar to maintaining first

Rosy Sequeira TNN 

Mumbai: A second marriage is no reason to stop maintaining the first wife or to give her low maintenance, the Bombay high court ruled while recently hearing a petition filed by a Muslim woman. 

    The court said it is for the husband to determine whether he is financially able to maintain two wives when marrying. More than doubling the plaintiff ’s maintenance, it pointed out that even Islam entitles a man to remarry if he is capable of maintaining his wives equally and fairly. 

    Justice Roshan Dalvi was hearing a plea filed by 30-year-old Sajida Khan. Sajida married Anwar Khan, a software engineer with a foreign bank, in February 2007. Following marital discord, Anwar, now 32, left her at her parents’ place. He claimed to have given her talaaq in May 2008. 

    In November 2010, however, the family court in Bandra, while hearing thematter, adjudged that there was no documentary evidence to prove the talaaq. It directed Anwar to give Sajida a monthly maintenance of Rs 7,900, which was about one-fourth of his Rs 31,937 salary. 

    The calculation was based on Anwar’s plea that the other three-quarters of the salary were required to sustain himself, his second wife and a child from the marriage. 

    In early 2011, Sajida approached the high court, contending that the maintenance was insufficient.  

Wife’s share of salary must be on equal footing: HC 

Mumbai: Sajida Khan’s advocate Saeed Akhtar argued that Anwar Khan was “duty-bound to maintain his first wife as she has not been divorced”. In her July 24 order, the Bombay HC’s Justice Roshan Dalvi agreed. The judge said the family court had made a “fundamental error” in reasoning that Sajida’s share should be one-fourth of Anwar’s salary. The HC said a husband and wife are equal and have equal rights and obligations. 

    Stating that the wife’s share must be on an equal footing, Justice Dalvi raised Sajida’s maintenance to Rs 18,000 a month. “Each is entitled to an equal share in earnings and properties. If the husband is in a position to earn, the fact that he remarried and has a second wife cannot bring down the maintenance quantum for the first wife, whom he failed and neglected to maintain. It is for the husband to determine if he is in a financial position to have and maintain two wives,” read the order. 

    Justice Dalvi added: “The second marriage is not a reason not to maintain the first wife.... In fact, as per the enjoinment in Islamic law, the respondent would be entitled to marry for the second time if he was capable of maintaining both the wives equally and fairly.” 

    Anwar filed an affidavit in the HC, arguing that his service had been terminated, while Sajida told the court that Anwar earned Rs 60,000 a month. Justice Dalvi ruled there was no documentary evidence to prove Anwar’s claim and added that neither the second marriage nor the service termination absolved him from his “seminal liability, obligation and responsibility of maintaining his wife”. (Names of parties were changed to protect their identity)

Source::::: The Times of India, 27-09-2012, p.01. http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIM&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW 

Woman loses plea over hubby’s illicit relation charge

Rosy Sequeira TNN

Mumbai: The high court on Thursday upheld the divorce granted to a man whose wife alleged he had illicit relations with his sisters, saying such allegations were bound to cause him mental cruelty. 

    A division bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and A R Joshi was hearing a petition by Naina Patel challenging a family court’s December 2011 order granting divorce to her husband Nilesh, saying it was mental cruelty on her part and that she deserted her husband. The family court had said this disentitled her plea for maintenance and separate residence for herself and her daughter. 

    The judges said the decree of the family court ought to be upheld on grounds of cruelty, considering that Naina—in her response to her husband’s two letters—mentioned the alleged illicit relations between Nilesh and his sisters. “Suffice to say the same are serious and disparaging remarks,” said the judges, adding that she went on to justify it was made on the basis on her “inner feeling”. 

    “The making of such false, frivolous and unsubstantiated allegations against the husband in the communication as well reiterating the same in (a) written statement, and also in the oral evidence given by the wife before the court, was bound to cause mental cruelty to the husband,” said the judges, adding that it was a clear attempt to “sully the reputation” of Nilesh and his two sisters, a lawyer and a doctor. 

    “That is a good and germane ground(s) for dissolution of marriage,” they wrote. The judges noted that the family court had rightly concluded that Naina showed intentions to bring “cohabitation to an end” and refused to go with Nilesh and his family when they came to take her home. 

    However, the judges quashed and set aside the family court’s order disallowing Naina’s plea for maintenance and separate residence for herself and their 18-year-old daughter. They directed the court to reconsider Naina’s plea afresh. (Names changed to protect identities).

Source::::  The Times of India, 22-06-2012, p.07. 
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIM&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW&AW=1340341899039

For 1st time, wife’s property share defined

Himanshi Dhawan TNN 

New Delhi: The Marriage (Amendment) Bill that seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, seeks to introduce irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a condition for divorce through mutual consent. 

    This is the first time that a woman’s share in marital property has been made part of the legislation. So far, the wife’s right to property was recognized, but alimony and compensation were decided by the courts. 
    “The amendment will give a woman right to 50% of the residential property owned by her husband even if it is acquired before the marriage. This will ensure that the woman is not left without a roof over her head in case divorce is given through mutual consent. However, division of other property, money, assets will be decided by the courts,’’ sources said. 

    However, some of the activists remained unhappy with the bill, saying it still remained biased against women. Former Rajya Sabha member Brinda Karat said this legislation would “compromise the future rights of women in a marriage’’. Karat, along with MPs and others, had met law minister Salman Khurshid on Tuesday to press home the point that restricting a woman’s share only to residential property would be unfair. They argued that the woman’s right to property was established under law and she should have an equal right to all property acquired during marriage. 

    “There has been some change but it is not enough. This is a very poor substitute and should not be passed in the name of a pro-woman legislation,’’ Karat said. 

Anti-dowry law changes to be fast-tracked 

New Delhi: The government appears keen to fast-track the anti-dowry amendments, and has lined up an important meeting with women MPs on May 21. The women and child development ministry has been mulling over amendments which will ensure both moveable and immoveable property be considered dowry, and differential penalties for those giving and taking bribes. The proposed amendments range from changing the definition of dowry to imposition of harsher penalty for dowry deaths. The ministry hopes to garner political support for the bill. 


Source::: The tTimes of India, 18-05-2012, p.09 : http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIM&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW