Top News Headlines 31st Jan 2022: Easy Character Of Wife Not Indicative Of Her Abetting Her Husbands Murder

Easy Character Of Wife Not Indicative Of Her Abetting Her Husband’s Murder; Mens Rea Necessary: Punjab And Haryana HC

• In the case of Maam Gujjar @ Maam Hussain vs. State of Punjab the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana HC has held that a mere allegation that the wife is of easy virtues does not indicative that she abetted the suicide of her husband, in the absence of a dying declaration or a suicide note allegeing the same.
• In the instant case, an FIR was lodged by the petitioner- wife alleging that it was her suspicion that her husband had consumed a poisonous substance because he was upset with her threats to murder his entire family. She filed an application before the HC pleading for the grant of an anticipatory bail.
• Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the entire FIR was based on a suspicion and that there was no prima facie evidence to prove that the petitioner actually caused the husband to commit suicide. The deceased husband had not made any complaint against his wife, nor had any suicide note been found him.
• The lack of a suicide note coupled with the fact that the SP(D) inquiry had found no role of the petitioner in the suicide, the Counsel urged that the wife’s plea of anticipatory bail should be granted.
• The Court, in this case, referred to the decision of the HC in the case of State of Punjab vs. Kamaljit Kaur@ Bholi and anr, where the accused was charged with inciting the victim to kill himself and his son, the Court had noted that although the charge can be based on a mere suspicion and evidence need not be looked at meticulously, but if there was no prima facie case against the accused, and the provision of section 107 had not been met, then the accused should be granted bail.
• In the light of this judgement, the HC noted that for an offence under section 306 of IPC, ingredients laid down in section 107 IPC must be met. There should be evidence of incitement as that is a key ingredient in the offence of abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC.
• The Court also noted that a woman may be a bad wife but that does not mean that her conduct was for the purpose of inciting her husband to commit suicide.
• The Court also observed that there was no auicide note and no complaints made by the deceased husband against the wife’s alleged threats and thus, there was no prima facie proof that the wife had abetted the husband’s suicide.
• Thus, anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner- wife.

Lis Pendens Under 52 TPA Does Not Bar Temporary Injunction Against Alienation Of Property: Andhra Pradesh HC

• In the case titled K Ravi Prasad Reddy vs. G Giridhar the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh HC has held that section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act which incorporates the doctrine of lis pendens does not operate as a bar to the grant of temporary injunction prohibiting the alienation of the suit property.
• In the instant case, the plaintiff/ respondent had filed a suit seeking a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell against the defendant, directing him to execute his part of the agreement by receiving the entire sale consideration in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff had pleaded that he had always been willing to perform his part of the contract.
• While the suit was pending, the defendant had alienated the suit schedule property in favour of other defendants, thus the petitioner had filed a suit under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for the grant of an interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating their property. This application was allowed by the trial court.
• An appeal was then filed in the HC under Order 43 Rule 1 challenging the order of interim injunction by the lower Court. It was argued by the applicants that section 52 does not create a bar on the alienation of the suit property. The plaintiffs, on the other hand argued that any further alienation of the suit property would cause irreparable damage to the plaintiff and hence it should have been granted. It was also argued by them that section 52 of TPA does not create a bar on the grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 of CPC.
• Referring to a plethora of judgments, the Andhra Pradesh HC observed that the order of temporary injunction is an order which would restrain alienation and is thus pre-emptive in nature, whereas the doctrine of lis pendens as incorporated under section 52 of TPA comes into effect after an alienation has taken effect. Thus, the applicability of section 52 TPA is not in question as there would be no transfer pending the litigation if the application of temporary injunction is granted.
• The primary objective of the grant of temporary injunction is to maintain the status quo and the Court held that the grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 would not be barred by section 52 of TPA.
• Thus, the appeal was dismissed by the HC.

‘Equal Pay For Equal Work’ Not A Fundamental Right, But A Constitutional Goal: SC

• In the case of State of MP vs. RD Sharma the Hon’ble SC has held that ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ is not a fundamental right vested in any employee, but is certainly a constitutional goal which is to be achieved by the Government.
• In the instant case, a writ petition was filed before the Delhi HC by the retired Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF). The Government of India had rejected his application seeking to revise his pension from Rs37,750 to Rs.40,000 as per the new rulers. This application was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
• Aggrieved, he moved the HC, where his writ petition was allowed and it was held that he would be eligible for the grant of Rs.40,000 as pension at par with other officers.
• An appeal was filed against this order by the State, the Apex Court thus noted that the HC had gravely misinterpreted the judgements of the Apex Court in State of Punjab vs Jagjit Singh and ors. (2017) SCC which did not apply to the case at hand.
• The Apex Court observed that the equation of posts and the determination of pay scales was the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary, thus the Courts will not enter into the task of job evaluation which is left generally to bodies like the pay commissions.
• The Court also observed that unless there occurs a grave error while fixing a pay scale for a given post, and that the Court’s interference was absolutely necessary to rectify the injustice done, the Courts would not interfere in such complex matters.
• The Court also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and anr. vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (2002) SCC wherein it was held that equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee, but is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the State.
• Thus, keeping in mind the aforesaid contention, the SC observed that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim made by the appellant. Since there was no miscarriage of justice, and neither had the Tribunal made any grave error, the interference by the HC in the order made by the Tribunal was unnecessary and thus, the appeal was allowed.