Top News Headlines 6th Jun 2022: Amount Spent On Maintaining Divorced Sister To Be Kept In Mind While Awarding Maintenance To Wife

Amount Spent On Maintaining Divorced Sister To Be Kept In Mind While Awarding Maintenance To Wife: Delhi HC

• In the case of Sarita Bakshi vs State and anr. the Hon’ble Delhi HC has held that in India, the bond between siblings and their dependence on each other may not always be financial but it is expected that a brother or sister will not abandon or neglect his or her sibling in the time of need. 
• The Court, thus, observed that though the divorced sister can legally and morally claim maintenance from her husband, however, the respondent brother in this case, must be spending and is expected to spend some amount for his sister on special occasions and in times of need. 
• The instant revision petition was filed against the order of the lower Court, by which maintenance of Rs. 6000 was granted to the revisionist from the date of the order, after taking into account that the salary of the respondent would have to be utilised in taking take care of his father, who is 79 years old, and his divorcee sister as well. The respondent/ex-husband had remarried and had a wife and a child from that wedlock. 
• The Counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent was directed to pay maintenance from the date of the order, but as per the mandate laid down in the case of Rajnesh vs Neha (2021) SCC he should have been directed to pay maintenance from the date of the filing of the maintenance petition. 
• The Court, at the outset, referred to a catena of judgements like Bhagwan Das vs Kamla Devi 1975 CrLJ to observe that the wife should be in a position to maintain a standard of living which is consistent with the status of her marital family, neither luxurious nor penurious in comparison. 
• The Court went on to observe that the respondent has a dependent father, who is 79 years old, and a divorcee sister. Even though the sister is entitled to receive maintenance from her husband, the brother cannot be a mute spectator to her misery if and when she needs any help. Thus, some provision needs to be made to the respondent’s list of expenditures to support his sibling.
• The Court also observed that it is the moral and legal duty of the respondent to look after his father in his golden years and ensure that he gets all the comfort and support that his son can provide. Even though the father of the respondent was not present in Court to ask for maintenance, there is no proof of him being financially independent and thus, it can very well be presumed that the respondent must be spending some resources towards his maintenance. 
• Holding the same, the Court enhanced the maintenance granted to the petitioner from Rs.6000 to Rs.7500/- per month, from the date on which the respondent received his first enhanced salary. 

Protection Officers in Domestic Violence Cases Cannot Undertake Mediation Roles: J&K&L High Court

• In Neelofar Rasool v. Imtiyaz Ahmad Ahangar & Ors, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that the duty of Protection Officer in Domestic Violence Cases does not involve undertaking either mediation or conciliation. 

• The Hon'ble Court further said that the Protection Officer is only under a statutory duty to help the Magistrate in discharge of his functions under the DV Act and to comply with any directions or orders passed by such Magistrate. 
• The matter came before the Court when the petitioner, the alleged victim of domestic violence, was allowed to reside in the shared household in Srinagar by the Additional Munsif.
• The Ld. Munsif Court also refrained the petitioner's husband and the in-laws from committing any further acts of domestic violence against her. 
• Thereafter, the husband of the alleged victim filed a civil suit in relation to the shared household. 
• Subsequently, the petitioner laid an execution motion in the Munsif Court u/s 151 CPC, and the Protection Officer was directed by the Ld. Trial Court to ensure the order is complied with. 
• However, the Protection Officer delayed in executing the said order and it resulted in forcing the petitioner to approach the High Court. 
• The counsel of the petitioner argued that the Protection Officer deliberately disregarded the orders of the trial Court by holding a parallel Court to decide whether the petitioner should be allowed to live in the shared household or not. 
• Within one week of filing the petition in the Hon'ble High Court, the petitioner was put in possession of the shared household and was also given the custody of her minor child along with the arrears of maintenance. 
• In a single bench consisting of Justice Javid Iqbal said that the Protection Officers have statutory duty to comply with the order of the Court and to execute the same on the Court's direction. 
• The Court further observed that mediation or conciliation does not come under the ambit of a Protection Officer's duty. 
• Keeping the facts and circumstances of the case in mind, the Court laid down 6 guidelines.
• First guideline is that it will not be the duty of the Protection Officer to mediate between the parties. 
• Secondly, it is the statutory duty of the Protection Officer to assist the magistrate and execute his orders. 
• Thirdly, a Protection Officer can be nominated to be easily accessible to the victim.
• Fourthly, such a Protection Officer will be given proper training for the same. 
• Fifthly, the magistrate should ensure the presence of the Protection Officer while passing orders. 

A Candidate's Right To Be Considered in General Category Cannot be Taken Away If He Is Not Found Entitled To Reservation Sought By Him: Punjab and Haryana High Court 

• In Om Roj v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission and Ors, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that in matters relating to the appointment to any office, the State has to first fix the general category seats from the merit list first and then allocate the reserved category seats as per the assigned quota. 
• The Court further held that, even if a person is not found entitled to any reservation quota, he can still claim his right to be considered as a general category candidate as given under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 
• In this case, the petitioner belonged to the EWS category and applied for the post of Veterinary Livestock Development Assistant (VLDA) under the same category and appeared for the exam. 
• According to the final result, the last selected candidate in general category scored 70 marks and the last selected candidate in the EWS category obtained 58 marks. Even though the petitioner scored 79 marks, he wasn't selected in either of the categories. 
• Subsequently, the petitioner filed a Mandamus writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court to direct the respondent to consider his claim for appointment as VLDA against either the general category or the EWS category. 
• The respondent State argued that the petitioner had applied under the EWS category and therefore, he could not be considered under the general category. Also, because his EWS certificate was found to be invalid, he could not be considered for selection in this category as well. 
• On this, the Court observed that the most basic principle of reservation is that the general category seats are filled first from the merit list and then from the reserved category as per the quota assigned. 
• Therefore, of a candidate under a reserved category scores higher marks than a candidate in the general category, he will have a right of selection and the appointment will be under the general category. 
• The Hon'ble High Court further held that denying to consider a candidate under the general category on the ground that he is ineligible for the reserved category is against the right given under Article 16 of the Indian Constitution. 
• Accordingly, the Ld. Court directed the authorities to consider the appointment of the petitioner in the general category.