WOMEN RIGHT OVER STRIDHANA PROPERTIES

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishna Bhatacharjee Vs. Sarathi Choudhury and another (reported in 2015 AIR SCW 6386) have decided on the claim made by women over her Stridhana properties, the apex court observed who is the “aggrieved person” as defined under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and whether the claim was barred by limitation and the relationship of husband and wife when there is a decree of judicial separation.

Stridhana properties means: Stridhana properties are properties gifted to the girl before her marriage, at the time of marriage or at the time of giving farewell or thereafter. It is her absolute property with all rights to dispose at her own pleasure. Husband has no control over her Stridhana properties, he may use it during the time of his distress but nonetheless he has a moral obligation to restore the same or its value to his wife. The Stridhana properties are not joint properties of the wife and husband, the husband will have no right or title over the Stridhana property.

Domestic violence includes Economic Abuse: The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is the beneficial as well as assertively affirmative enactment for the realisation of the constitutional rights of women and to ensure that they do not become victims of any kind of domestic violence. The definition of “Domestic Violence” covers a range of violence including “Economic Abuse”.

Background before appealing to Supreme Court: The appellant (woman/wife) having lost the battle for getting her Stridhan back from her husband, before the learned Magistrate on the ground that the claim preferred under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was not entertainable as she had ceased to be an "aggrieved person" under Section 2(a) of the 2005 Act and further that the claim as put forth was barred by limitation; preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who concurred with the view expressed by the learned Magistrate. Subsequently approached the High Court of Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Revision, the High Court declined to interfere with the lower court findings, consequently wife preferred appeal, by special leave before the Supreme Court.

Difference between decree for divorce and judicial separation: There is a distinction between a decree for divorce and decree of judicial separation; in the former, there is a severance of status and the parties do not remain as husband and wife, whereas in the later, the relationship between husband and wife continues and legal relationship continues as it has not been snapped. Therefore wife does not cease to be an “aggrieved person” because of decree of judicial separation. Once decree for divorce is passed the parties become different, but that is not so when there is a decree for judicial separation.

Continuing offence: The retention of Stridhana by the husband or any other family members is a continuing offence.  Neither the husband nor any other family members can have any right over the Stridhana and they remain the custodians. Wife as long as she remain the status of the “aggrieved person” can file for her right or claim under 2005 Act for her stridhana properties. In the above case, the wife had submitted the application on 22.05.2010 and the said authority had forwarded the same on 01.06.2010 to the Magistrate. In the application, the wife had mentioned that the husband had stopped payment of monthly maintenance from January 2010 and, therefore, she had been compelled to file the application for Stridhana. Regard being had to the said concept of "continuing offence" and the demands made, the Hon’ble Supreme held that the application was not barred by limitation and the courts below as well as the High Court had fallen into a grave error by dismissing the application being barred by limitation.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the concerned magistrate to proceed with the application filed by the appellant wife under provision of section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates

HUSBAND’S ILLICIT RELATIONSHIP IS NOT ALWAYS CRUELTY

The Hon’ble Supreme Court Acquited Appellants Due to Lack of Evidence to Prove Mental Cruelty U/S 498a

The prosecution case was that the husband, Rakesh had an extra marital affair with Jasuben, a divorcee. This illicit relationship shattered his marital relation with his deceased wife Biniben. The said Biniben committed suicide on 4/3/04 by consuming poison. The death of the deceased was known to her parents only on 17/3/04.  After the knowledge of her suicide her mother filed complaint at Jamnagar police station and pursuant to the statement of 21 witnesses the police filed charge sheet u/s 498 A, 306, 201 and 114 of IPC against father-in -law of the deceased as accused 1, husband as Accused 2, mother-in-law as accused 3 and Jasuben as Accused 4. The elder brother and wife of accused 2 were exonerated by the trial court due to lack of evidence against them. Other accused were convicted by the trial court and they preferred appeal in the High court The Honorable high court also upheld the conviction of the trial court. Against the finding of high court the appellants moved appeal before the Apex court.

The Bench presided over by Justice Sudhanshu Jyoti Mukhophadya and Justice Deepak Misra had scrutinized minute aspects of the sections the appellants have been charged, and with reference of similar citations reached the conclusion to acquit the appellants.

The SC observed that the prosecution had produced and based on the deposition of PW 21 the sister of the deceased it was quite clear the deceased had obtained a divorce with 2nd accused and stayed on the terrace of the house. She had also intimated that after the festival of Holi she will return to her parental house.

The apex court further analyzed whether the charges framed u/s of IPC is applicable to the appellants in the instant case. The alleged charges of mental cruelty inflicted on the deceased by her husband owing to his extramarital affair wouldn’t attract Section 498 A as the cruelty defined in the section require proper evidence of such imposition of harassment on the deceased. The court observed that the in laws of the deceased were alleged to take her daily earnings but that was also not proved.  Any torture stated in Section 498 A and demand of dowry is not committed by accused and hence alleged cruelty by them in laws is also not proved and does not attract the explanation cruelty or harassment in section 498 A.

The endurance of mental cruelty depends on the mental status of each individual as per the court and the Bench affirmed that a fact of husband having an illicit relation imposed mental cruelty on the deceased is not proved by any strong undeniable evidence or fact. Another point of consideration by the court was the element of abetment or instigation u/s 306. Court observed that the suicide note of the deceased states that she was possessive about her husband and due to emotional stress she relieved her husband through the act of suicide that does not come under the ambit of abetment stated in section 306.

On the conclusion Apex Court has found that the accused appellants are not guilty u/s 306 and 498A of IPC hence the conviction is not sustainable u/s 201. The appellants were acquitted on the light of the above findings.

[Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya & Others Vs State of Gujarat – 2015 AIR SCW 3950]

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates

DIVORCED WIFE CANNOT FILE PETITION FOR MAINTENANCE

From section 125 of the Cr.P.C it is seen that, to file a petition, the status of wife and husband should exist between the petitioner and the respondent. In addition she should show that she does not have any source of income and she is unable to maintain herself.

High Court of Karnataka in Dr.Shrishail Ramakrishna Bijapure Vs Smt. Vidya  

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates

WIFE MAINTENANCE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED

The Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and to all those he is obliged under law and also statutory but involuntary payment or deductions from his income. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she used to when she lived with her husband and she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. The amount when fixed cannot be excessive.

High Court of Karnataka in K R Arun Vs Smt. M. Latha

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates

ALLEGATION THAT THE APPELLANT HUSBAND PLAYED FRAUD ON THE FAMILY COURT AND OBTAINED DECREE OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

ALLEGATION THAT THE APPELLANT HUSBAND PLAYED FRAUD ON THE FAMILY COURT AND OBTAINED DECREE OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

The appellant husband filed a petition under Section 13(1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage. The notice issued to 1^st respondent-wife was retuned as refused, the Family Court held service of notice on the wife as sufficient. The 1^st respondent-wife was placed ex parte and the case was adjourned. The first respondent-wife’s counsel filed vakalathnama and an application under Order IX, Rule 7 of C.P.C, the said application was allowed, the ex parte order was set aside. The 1^st respondent-wife was absent and evidence was closed. Appellant-husband got himself examined as P.W-1 and got marked Exs. P1 to P4. Cross-examination of P.W-1 was taken as nil, the family Court allowed the petition and dissolved the marriage of the parties.

The 1^st respondent-wife challenged the judgement of the dissolution of marriage before the High Court on the grounds of fraud.

The main allegation made by the 1^st respondent-wife is that the husband played fraud on the Family Court and obtained the decree of dissolution of marriage. In support of such submission, she submitted that she had not engaged any Counsel in the case and that blank Vakalathnama was taken at the time of settlement for their mutual divorce and that she never appeared before the Family Court.

No question as to whether the appellant-husband played fraud on the Family Court and obtained the decree of dissolution of marriage or whether the appellant-husband committed any offence punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code was framed by the High Court. The High Court failed to notice that this is a case in which there is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided without faming a proper issue and in absence of evidence on record. Consequently the Hon’ble Supreme Court had set aside the impugned judgement passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka and thereby the appellant-husband appeal was allowed. [Sunil Vs. Sakshi@Shweta].

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates