Top News Headlines 13th Jun 2022: Frequently Visiting Parents House Without Taking Husband’s Consent Not Cruelty

Frequently Visiting Parents House Without Taking Husband’s Consent Not Cruelty: Allahabad HC

• In Mohit Preet Kapoor vs Sumit Kapoor the Hon’ble Allahabad HC has held that the wife frequently visiting her parents house without taking the consent of her husband and other family members can neither amount to cruelty nor desertion. 
• The instant appeal was filed by the wife challenging the judgement and order passed by the Family Court, Bareilly under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, granting the decree of divorce in favour of the husband.
• The parties in the instant case had married in December of 2013. In July of 2017, the husband had filed for divorce stating that his wife had left the matrimonial home in January of 2015 without any cogent reason, in his absence, with her family members. 
• It was also alleged that in January 2017, she refused to accompany the respondent to her matrimonial home. It was also alleged that the appellant herein had refused to do the household work and misbehaved with the members of the family. She would go to her parental home or to her relatives without informing the respondent or his family members. She had also filed various matrimonial cases against the respondent. 
• The appellant wife, on the other hand, alleged that she alongwith her daughter were thrown out of her matrimonial home by the respondent in July of 2016, and he had not brought any legal action with a view to claim the restitution of conjugal rights. 
• At the outset, the Court observed that the act of the wife leaving her home to go to her parental house, which was barely 400 mtrs away, cannot be termed as desertion. She was pregnant at the time, and might have gone to her parents house for sometime, and not permanently.
• The Court relied on the judgement of the Apex Court in Savitri Pandey vs Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) SCC wherein it was held that desertion means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without the other’s consent, and without reasonable cause. 
• The Court also went on to observe that the respondent husband or his counsel never participated in the proceedings of maintenance instituted under section 24 of HMA, and did not even seem willing to take care of his own minor daughter. The Court observed that it looked like he had deserted his wife and was shying away from responsibility, as a father, towards his minor daughter. 
• Regarding the ground of cruelty, the Court observed that the act of the appellant visiting her parental house without the consent of the respondent does not amount to cruelty. The fact that the appellant was admitted to the hospital by the respondent at the time of delivery, or that he had borne expenses of their daughter’s treatment does not go against the appellant, rather it shows that she never intended to leave her husband permanently, and had never done any act which would deprive the respondent from the pleasures of fatherhood. 
• Thus, the appeal was allowed and the judgement and order of the Family Court was set aside, and the HC directed the respondent to pay Rs. 30,000/- per month towards the maintenance of his daughter. 

General Category Is Open To All Meritorious Candidates Even If They Belong to The Unreserved Category: Gujarat High Court

• In Jatin Kumar Kishore Kumar Bhatt v. State of Gujarat, the Gujarat High Court held that a meritorious candidate belonging to reserved category should be permitted to merge in the unreserved category because of his own merits.
• Depriving such a candidate from securing a birth in the unreserved category would result in communally dividing a homogeneous class of meritorious candidates.
• In this case, the Recruitment Board issued an advertisement for the post of Sub-Inspector, Class III, inviting applications for 1,382 posts in total. The petitioners took the preliminary exam and aspired to take the main examination. 
• According to the Rule 8(f) of the Posts of Sub Inspector, Class III (Combined, Competitive Examination for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 2021, the total number of candidates that were to be called to appear in the main examination were three times the candidates of each category i.e. reserved category and general category to the number of vacancies advertised.
• The contention of the petitioners is that the inclusion of reserved category candidates in the list of general category candidates in the merit list of the preliminary exams is unfair and in violation of Article 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
• The petitioners further contended that a fresh merit list should be prepared for candidates appearing in the main examination by calling upon three times the candidates of each category without including candidates of the reserved category in general category for the purpose of appointment.
• The respondents contended that the term 'general categories' implies a category open to all meritorious candidates, irrespective of the fact that they belong to the reserved categories.
• The respondents threw light on the fact that according to Rule 8(f), when it comes to choosing the number of candidates to be called for the preliminary examinations, and especially when a large number of candidates have appeared, the number which is lower in the present case i.e. only a figure three times the number of vacancies have to be called.
• The respondents further stated that the term 'general category' cannot have two different meanings at two different stages of the examination i.e. one meaning at the time of the preliminary examination and a different meaning at the time of the main examination.
• The Court took note of the contentions raised from both sides and observed that the object of the screening test is to eliminate an unduly large number of candidates and only the selected ones can appear for the main examinations. However, if more candidates are called by declaring the results as conceived by the petitioners, the object of Rule 8(f) would be frustrated. 
• Accordingly, the Court held that the respondent State had evolved the concept of merit correctly while considering the policy of reservation in the context of law laid down by the Supreme Court, i.e, the open category is open to all candidates based on their merit regardless of the fact that the candidate belongs to a reserved category. 
• Therefore, the Ld. Court dismissed the present petition.

Unless Prosecution Establishes Prima Facie Case, Husband Can't Be Asked To Explain Wife's Death: Bombay High Court

• In Suresh Ladak Bhagat v The State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court set aside the conviction of an accused in connection with the murder of his wife. The Court took this decision even after knowing that the body of the victim was found in their home and the accused was found near her. 
• A Division Bench comprising of Justices Sadhana S. Jadhav and Milind N. Jadhav reasoned that before the accused can be asked to explain the circumstances in his defence, it is for the prosecution to first prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
• The Bench further said that the accused has a right to maintain silence and it cannot be taken away from him.
• The Court observed that according to section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the initial burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution. And the onus of burden would not shift upon the accused if the prosecution is unable to prove that the accused took his wife's life.
• Hence, unless the prosecution is nle to give a conclusive proof of the fact that it was the husband who took the life of his wife, the onus would not shift on the accused.
• In this case, the accused husband was found in his house with the body of the deceased wife lying in a pool of blood. The husband also allegedly confessed to have killed his wife to Witness no. 1.
• According to the prosecution, the accused hit his wife on her head and back at night while she was asleep. Later, when he woke up at 6 am the next morning, he noticed that she was dead.
• Subsequently, witness no. 1 reported this to the police and a charge sheet was filed. However, he did not depose about the confessional statement made by the accused to him and deposed in front of the Court that the accused had only told him that his wife was dead. The witness was accordingly declared hostile.
• The Court noted that an accused can only be convicted in the eventuality that such material are recorded during the investigation which could be converted into admissible evidence. However, in the present case, due to the nature of the evidence presented by the prosecution, it can't be presumed that the fact of homicidal death at the hands of the accused stands proved.
• The court further noted that except for the fact that the dead body of the deceased wife was found in the house of the accused, there is no other evidence to prove that he hurt his wife. Hence, the burden of proof is not discharged by the prosecution.
• The court held that extra judicial confession cannot be relied upon as the witness no.1 turned hostile. Accordingly, the court acquitted the accused husband.

Even Relatives Living In Distant Places Can Be Booked For Harassing Wife U/S 498A: Bombay High Court

• In Rajesh Himmat Pundkar v. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court has turned down the argument that since the in-laws and other relatives weren't residing with the victim and the husband, the allegations of harassment and cruelty cannot be considered true.
• The Hon'ble Court further refused to quash an FIR filed against the relatives of the husband in a cruelty case on the ground that sometime relatives living in distant places also meddle in the matrimonial affairs of a couple and cause mental cruelty to the wife.
• In this case, a petition was filed by the husband, his parents and siblings to quash an FIR filed against them.
• The accused argued that the husband lived in Akola district, his parents and one married sister were residing at Amravati district and a younger brother was living in Pune. 
• They collectively argued that since they didn't live with the accused husband, the allegations made against them are frivolous and cannot be said to be true.
• In this case, the couple got married in 2007 and has three children. However, in 2017, the wife found out that the applicant husband was involved in an extra-marital affair. Upon confrontation, he allegedly assaulted her.
• As per the FIR, when the in-laws were informed of the husband's affair, they also started abusing her. 
• Furthermore, they allegedly demanded dowry of Rs. 50,000/- as well.
• However, the applicants argued that since they were not living with the couple, their names should not be included in the FIR.  
• The Court disagreed with the arguments of the applicants on two grounds. 
• Firstly, it can't be presumed that a relative living at a distance is innocent. A relative living away from the couple can, many a times, meddle in the private affairs of the couple and that too to such an extent as to cause mental cruelty and harassment.
• Secondly, the allegations made by the victim against the applicants are very specific in nature and their genuineness can only be tested at the time of trial and not at this stage.
• The Court further noted that as per the contents of the FIR, a special role has been assigned to all the applicants in the case. Hence, no vague or ambiguous statement has been made and it makes out a prima facie case against them.
• Accordingly, the Court refused to quash the FIR lodged against the applicants.