Select court in marital dispute as per wife’s convenience: HC

Shibu Thomas TNN

Mumbai: Convenience of the wife to attend legal proceedings should be considered while deciding on which court will hear a case of matrimonial dispute, the Bombay high court has ruled.
    Citing apex court judgments, HC Justice Sambhaji Shinde said, “In the proceedings filed by the husband, it is the convenience of the wife that should be looked into.”
    The court was hearing an application filed by Sheela Patil (27), who had urged for the shifting of a petition filed by her estranged husband Anil from Dhule to Shirdi, where she was staying with her parents. “It is not in dispute that the (couple’s) two minor daughters are staying with (Sheela) and it is very difficult for the applicant to travel from Shirdi to Dhule. There is no dispute that the distance between Shirdi to Dhule is approximately 200 km,” said Justice Shinde. “(Since Sheela) has to maintain (her daughters aged five and three), in my opinion, the balance of convenience would lie in favour of the applicant.”
    Anil and Sheela were married in 2006 in Rajasthan and the couple later shifted to Dhule. According to Sheela, she was harassed by her husband and in-laws after she gave birth to her first daughter. In 2010, she came to her parental home in Shirdi to deliver her second child. Sheela said that after she delivered her second daughter, Anil abused her and refused to take her back to their matrimonial home in Dhule.
    She filed an application seeking maintenance for her and the daughters, saying that Anil had neglected and failed to maintain them. Anil, too, filed a petition in Dhule. Sheela sought a transfer of the petition to Shirdi, saying it was difficult for her to travel to Dhule for the hearings as she had to take care of her young daughters. Anil opposed the plea, saying he was ready to reunite with his wife and maintain her.
    The court ruled in Sheela’s favour and ordered that the petition be transferred to Shirdi. It told the trial court judge, “since the proceedings in hand are matrimonial proceedings”, an endeavour should be made to dispose it off within a year.
    (Names changed to protect identities)

Source:::::  The Times of India, 10-04-2013, p.02, http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIM&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW&AW=1365570427881

Ex-husband who defaults on maintenance can be arrested: HC

Shibu Thomas TNN 

Mumbai: A non-bailable arrest warrant can be issued against a man who fails to pay maintenance ordered under the Domestic Violence Act, the Bombay high court has ruled. 
    “The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to maintenance as also the Domestic Violence Act, which are beneficial legislations for protection of women such as the wife in this case, are required to be construed so as to benefit those persons for whom they are enacted,” said Justice Roshan Dalvi. The court dismissed a plea filed by a city resident who had challenged the NBW issued against him by a magistrate over his failure to pay maintenance to his wife, despite court orders. 
    “The magistrate issuing NBW seems to have followed the special procedure for the arrest of the husband for non-payment of the maintenance. Such procedural order is within the framework of the Act and hence cannot be faulted as it is not seen to be illegal,’’ the judge said, adding, “The NBW shall be executed unless the husband pays off the entire arrears now due and payable.” 
    Seema Patil had moved court against her estranged husband Ashish under the domestic violence law. The court asked Ashish to pay her monthly maintenance. 
    Ashish failed to pay the maintenance and ran up arrears of Rs 56,000. Seema approached the magistrate, who issued an arrest warrant against Ashish, saying he will be released only if he pays dues at the time of execution of the warrant. Ashish challenged the magistrate’s order. 
    (Names changed to protect the couple’s identity)

Source::: The Times of India, 05-04-2013, p.5, http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIM&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW

HC: Father must support daughter till her marriage

Rosy Sequeira TNN 

Mumbai: An adult, unmarried daughter is entitled to receive maintenance from her father, the Bombay high court has said, coming to the rescue of a 20-year-old who was left in the cold by her Bahrain-based dad who had remarried. A father of three, he had agreed to pay maintenance to his two minor children but not his eldest daughter, saying she was legally not entitled to it as she was a major. 
    The girl’s mother had challenged the family court’s order last year upholding the man’s claim and rejecting maintenance for their eldest daughter who was then 19. Justice K U Chandiwal of the HC recently agreed with her lawyer’s contention that a father is liable to pay maintenance to daughters till they marry and added that though a major, the eldest daughter has no independent income and is entirely dependent on her mother, a homemaker who has studied up to SSC. 
    The woman’s petition said the couple, who married on November 29, 1987, has three children—two daughters and a son. The man worked in Bahrain and would visit his wife and family who stayed in Mumbai every two years. After the death of her father-in-law, the woman went to Mahad in August 2008 to stay with her mother-in-law. On returning to Mumbai two years later, she learned that he had allegedly divorced her through talaq and remarried. 

‘Family court did not cite any reasons’ 
Mumbai: On May 23, 2011 the wife, who was divorced through talaq, moved the family court for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She claimed her husband who was working in the finance department of the Bahrain government for over 25 years easily earned over Rs 90,000 per month. However, he claimed he got only Rs 30,000 per month. The family court, taking into consideration his statement, directed him to pay Rs 5,000 to his wife and Rs 2,500 each to the two minor children as interim maintenance. 
    In his October 16 order, Justice Chandiwal noted that family court principal judge U S Iyer did not assign reasons for rejecting maintenance for the couple’s eldest daughter as she had come of age and said the order requires interference. 
    He ordered the man to pay his eldest daughter Rs 1,500 as an interim measure from the date of the petition till the application for maintenance is finally heard. He also directed that an additional Rs 5,000 be paid to the wife. The HC also asked the family court to dispose of the main petition for maintenance within three months.


Source:::: The Times of India, 29-10-2012, p.01, http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIM&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW

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