Top News Headlines 19th Mar 2022: Father Not Liable To Pay Education And Marriage Expenses Of Daughter Who Is Not Willing To Maintain Ties With Him

Father Not Liable To Pay Education And Marriage Expenses Of Daughter Who Is Not Willing To Maintain Ties With Him:SC

• In the case of Ajay Kumar Rathee vs. Seema Rathee the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a daughter who is unwilling to maintain any relationship with her father is not entitled to obtain expenses for her marriage or education from him. 
• In the instant case, the husband had initially filed a petition for the restitution of conjugal rights which was rejected by the trial Court. He then subsequently filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage by way of divorce, which was granted by the District Judge. The wife went in appeal against this decision before the Punjab and Haryana HC. 
• The HC set aside the order of the lower Court, and the husband went on appeal before the SC. During the pendency of the proceedings, several attempts at reconciliation were made before the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. But the mediation report was one of failure and the parties were not even capable of sitting across a table and talking, let alone continuing the marriage. It was argued by the Counsel for the appellant that the relationship had become extremely unpleasant.
• The Hon’ble Apex Court, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, for the purpose of doing complete justice in the case, declared the marriage between the appellant and the respondent as dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. 
• As regards the daughter’s expenses, the Court held that she will not be entitled to any amount for her marriage and education expenses from a father with whom she does not want to maintain any ties. The Court observed that the daughter was about 20 years old and was free to choose her own path, but then cannot demand the amount towards her education and marriage form the appellant. 
• But the Court also observed that while awarding permanent alimony to the wife, it would keep in mind that if the mother chooses to pay for her daughter’s expenses, the funds were available to her. 
• Thus, the Court awarded Rs.8000 to the mother as monthly maintenance and Rs. 10 lakh as full and final satisfaction of her claim.

Minor’s Interest Will Prevail Over Personal Law In Custody Battle: Chhattisgarh HC

• In the case of Irfan Ur Rahim Khan vs Farha Khan the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh HC has held that whenever there is a conflict between the personal law to which the minor is subject and his welfare, the latter has to prevail.
• In the instant case, the father had filed an appeal before the HC challenging the order of the lower Court which granted custody of the monir twins to their mother. The appellant had alleged that the mother was unemployed and that he being a police officer was better suited to take care of the children. 
• The statements of the children were taken when they were 10 years old and they both had expressed their desire to live with their mother. The cross-examination which they were subject to showed that there was a consistency in their answers and that they were old enough to form an intelligent preference to be in the custody of the mother. 
• The HC was of the opinion that under the principles of muslim law, the mother is entitled to the custody of her male child until he has attained the age of 7 years and the daughter until she had attained the age of 14 years. But an established principle of law which has to be taken into consideration is that in a proceeding for the appointment of guardian, it is not the guardianship of the minor which is of paramount consideration but the welfare of the minor. 
• The Court also went on to observe that when there is a conflict between the personal law to which the minor is subject and the consideration of minor’s welfare, the latter must take precedence. Thus, where the provisions of law are in conflict with the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, the latter will prevail.
• The Court relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble SC in the case of Ritika Sharan vs. Sujoy Ghosh (2020)SCC wherein it was held that a balance has to be struck in situations when parents are in conflict so as to ensure that the child has a sense of security and that the interests of the children are best served when both the parents have a presence in their upbringing. 
• The HC also noted that in the case of Yashita Sahu vs State of Rajasthan (2020)SCC it was held that even after custody was given to one of the parents, the other parent must have sufficient visitation rights so as to ensure that the child does not lose social, physical and psychological touch with any of the two parents.
• Thus, in the instant case, the mother was granted custody of her children while the father was allowed visitation rights.

OROP Policy Upheld; Representation Made By A Public Body Cannot Be A Basis To Invoke Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectations: Supreme Court

• The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Indian Ex Servicemen Movement & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No.416 of 2016] has held that the ‘One Rank One Pension’ (OROP) policy is constitutionally valid and not violative of any fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution of India. The Honourable Bench held that policy matters like these are more suitable to be addressed by elected representatives since they involve negotiations, trade-offs and a consensus-driven decision-making process. These should not be adjudicated by courts until there was a clear inconsistency with Fundamental Rights.
• The present petition challenged the manner of implementation of “One Rank One Pension” (OROP) policy for ex-servicemen of defence forces by the central government. Instead of an automatic revision of the rates of pension, as proposed earlier, the revision was now to take place at periodic intervals, this was contended to be arbitrary and unconstitutional.
• In December 2011, A Committee had recommended that OROP should be implemented. The Committee defined OROP as a uniform pension to be paid to armed forces personnel retiring at the same rank with the same length of service, regardless of the date of retirement, where any future improvements in the rates of pension were to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners.
• The Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the execution of the scheme with the new definition would lead to a situation where the pension drawn by an ex-serviceman who retired earlier, would be less than the pension drawn by one who retired in 2014, until such time that the said ‘periodic review’ was conducted to correct the deviations.
• It was submitted that the new definition created a class within a class where ex-servicemen who retired with the same rank and same length of service would receive different pensions. In UOI v. SPS Vains, the Apex Court had held that creation of a class within a class would not be constitutionally valid.
• The Learned Counsel representing Union of India submitted that the scheme contemplated revision of pension once in five years but in civilian pension schemes which are revised once in ten years. The plea of the petitioners to provide ‘automatic’ adjustment cannot be agreed. It was contended that besides lacking any prior precedent, in terms of the practice governing pay scales, pensions etc. of a government personnel, automatic revision would be impossible to implement.
• The expression ‘automatically’ used in the Koshyari Committee report defining the OROP follow the expression ‘in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners.’  It must be read with a meaning that the rates of pension would be passed to the past pensioners without any difficulties and delay. The phrase ‘automatically’ never denoted the period of time.
• The Honourable Court observed that the Committee Report was a report submitted to the Rajya Sabha by the Committee on Petitions. The report could not be enforced as a statement of government policy.
• The petitioners had impliedly relied on the Principle of Legitimate Expectations. This could not be invoked in a situation where a representation made by a public body leads an individual to believe that they would receive a substantive benefit. A part of the petitioners’ grievance, in the present case, arose from the belief that an assurance made by committees, the Ministers of the Union Government, did not translate into a conscious policy decision, which was contained in the communication dated 7 November 2015.
• It was held that the expression ‘automatically passed on’ should not be interpreted as a commitment with reference to any period of time for the computation of benefits. The manner of revision of pensions, salaries etc. was a pure question of policy. The decision of the Government to revise the pension in a period of five years cannot be held to be in violation of Article 14.
• In the case of UOI v. SPS Vains. The Court had held that a discrepancy in the pension payable to two groups of officers in the same rank of Major General based dates violated Article 14. This decision involved a completely different factual situation than the present matter.
• In light of the facts underlying the petition, the Honourable Bench found no constitutional inconsistency in the OROP principle as defined by the communication issued dated 7 November 2015 as the definition of OROP would be evenly applicable to all pensioners without reference to the date of retirement. Hence the petition and any pending applications were disposed of.