498a-vague-allegations-not-sufficient-prosecute-relatives-husband

http://www.livelaw.in/498a-vague-allegations-not-sufficient-prosecute-relatives-husband-mp-hc/

Parents can deny family property to negligent children

*Parents can deny family property to negligent children: Supreme Court*

Removing any misgiving about the claim of a share in the joint family property, the Supreme Court has held that the parents have every right to deny the share to the negligent children who simply do not take care of them in old age when they need their help the most, but are virtually left in the lurch.

The apex court gave the ruling in dispute among three brothers over the property of their father Harishankar from Madhya Pradesh inherited by him as his share form joint Hindu family property in two partitions held earlier in 1965 and 1985.

Harishankar’s two sons —Vinod Kumar and Anand Kumar — did not bother to take care of their old parents. The parents lived with their third son Mahesh Kumar, who along with his wife, looked after them. A bench of Justices G. S. Singhvi and S. J. Mukhopadyaya said: “There was nothing unnatural or unusual in the decision of Harishankar to give his share in the joint family property to appellant.”

Pointing out that Mr Vinod Kumar and Mr Anand Kumar even did not spend any money on the funeral and other last rites of their mother when she died in 1992, the Supreme Court said, “Any person of ordinary prudence would have adopted the same course and would not have given anything to the ungrateful children form his or her share in the property.”

“Neither of them bothered to look after the parents in their old age. The attitude of the two left Harishankar and his wife with no choice but to live with Mahesh, who along with his wife and children took care of the old parents and looked after them during their illness,” the top court said while declaring the Will executed by Harishankar in favour of Mahesh as valid in law even in respect of the joint family property.

The judgement is being seen as “innovative” by legal experts, especially in the context of the accepted principle of succession in the joint Hindu family property that makes every member entitled of his or her share as per the family tree. The principle so far established in several judgements of the top court was that the parents can give their self-acquired property to any one but cannot “bequeath” their share in joint family property in a Will contrary the legitimate hereditary share of each person in the family tree.

The judges said that they were not required to go so deep into the evidence about the manner Harishankar signed the Will in favour of Mahesh, which was challenged by Vinod and Anand. Their main focus was rather on the “unmistakably” clear evidence, which showed that the two sons had separated from the family and even had taken certain properties as their share, but after that they simply did not “bothered to take care of the old parents.”

The apex court also criticised the MP High Court for overlooking the vital fact that the parents needed the care by their all the children. The HC had overturned the lower court verdict declaring Harishankar’s Will in favour of Mahesh as valid. “We hold that the HC was clearly in error in reversing the well-reasoned finding recorded by the trial court,” the top court judges in their verdict recorded.

Technologically Advanced Measures In Matrimonial Cases: SC

Use Video Conferencing And Other Technologically Advanced Measures In Matrimonial Cases: SC [Read Judgment]

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/use-video-conferencing-technologically-advanced-measures-matrimonial-cases-sc/

Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Bill, 2016 passed

*Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Bill, 2016 passed*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Parliament has passed the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Bill, 2016 as Loksabha passed it on Thursday.

Rajyasabha had passed the Bill during the winter session of Parliament.

The Maternity Benefit Act 1961 protects the employment of women during the time of her maternity and entitles her of a ‘maternity benefit’ – i.e. *full paid absence from work – to take care for her child*. *The Act is applicable to all establishments employing 10 or more persons*. The amendments will help 1.8 million (approx.) women workforce in organised sector.

*Salient Features of the Bill*

(i) Maternity leave available to the working women to be increased from 12 weeks to *26 weeks* for the first two children.

(ii) Maternity leave for children beyond the first two will continue to be *12 weeks*.

(iii) Maternity leave of 12 weeks to be available to mothers adopting a child below the age of three months as well as to the “commissioning mothers”. The commissioning mother has been defined as biological mother who uses her egg to create an embryo planted in any other woman.

(iv) Every establishment *with more than 50 employees* to provide for *crèche facilities* for working mothers and such mothers will be permitted to make four visits during working hours to look after and feed the child in the crèche.

(v) The employer may permit a woman to work from home if it is possible to do so.

(vi) Every establishment will be required to make these benefits available to the women *from the time of her appointment*.

maternity-benefit-amendment-bill-2016-passed/

Read Bill, http://www.livelaw.in/maternity-benefit-amendment-bill-2016-passed/ Looking for legal news and events. Download Livelaw app,  India's no:1 Legal news app. http://onelink.to/bxd89a

Maintenance Case laws in favor of husbands

*⭐Maintenance Case laws in favor of husbands:*

1. Reduced interim maintenance. (SC), Hbl J. R. M. Lodha, order on 20-07-2010, Appeal No. 5660 of 2010, Arising SLP (C) No. 6736 of 2007, Neeta Rakesh Jain Vs Rakesh Jeetmal Jain. Citation No. AIR 2010 SC 3540; (2010) 12 SCC 242; 2010 (7) JT I 76 (SC).

2. Wife is not entitled to maintenance who deserted her husband. (Supreme Court), Bench Hbl JJ. S. Ahmed & D. Wadhwa, order on 02-03-200, AIR 2000 SC 952, 2000(2) ALD Cri 15, 2000Cr. LJ 1498, Rohtash Singh Vs Smt. Ramendrei & Ors. Citation No. (2000) 3 SCC 180; JT 2000 (2) SC 553.

3. Maintenance not granted as it is proved that wife wants to reside separately. No maintenance to deserting wife. (HC Chhattisgarh), Hbl J., L. C. Bhadoo, order on 15 -02-2004, Crl. Revision No. 544/2003, Shiv Kumar Yadav Vs Santoshi Yadav.

4. Husband can get PF details of wife. (CIC, Delhi), Decision No. 1816/ IC (A) 2008, F No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00583, Prof M.M. Ansari, order on 10 Jan 2008.

5. Wife guilty of contempt of court, maintenance denied with cost. (HC Delhi), Hbl J. S. N. Dhingra, order on 25-01-2010, Cont. Case (C) 482 of 2008, Gurbinder Singh Vs Manjit Kaur.

6. Children have to maintain their parents. (High Court Gujrat), Hbl J. Akhil Kureshi, order on 09-02-2011, CR RA/759 of 2009, 4/4, Hasmukhbhai Narayan Bhai Viramiya Vs State & Ors.

7. Conditions when maintenance to be paid. (High Court Delhi), Mr. Pradeep Nandrajog J., order reserved on 02-04-2007, order on 14-04-2007, CM (M) No. 367 of 2007, Alok Kumar Jain Vs Purnima Jain. Citation No. 2007 (96) DRJ 115.

8. All states amends in Sec 125 CrPC is invalid. (SC), Bench Hbl M. Katju, Gyan Sudha Mishra JJ., order on 11 Jan 2011, Crl Appeal No. 107 of 2011, SLP (Crl) No. 6568 of 2009, Manoj Yadav Vs Pushpa Yadav. Citation No. 2011 : 1 L.W. (Crl.) 520.

9. Wife should clear that she is unable to maintain her. No maintenance to enable wife who deserted her husband. (High Court Karnataka), Bench Hbl J. M. Patil, order on 13-02-1980, Haunsabai Vs Balkrishna Krishna Badigar. Citation Nos. 1981 Cri LJ 110; ILR 1980 KAR 612; 1980 (2) Kar LJ 158.

5 STEPS TO WIN THE INTERIM MAINTENANCE

10. Maintenance on actual earning. (High Court Delhi), Hbl J. Shiv Narayan Dhingra, order reserved 25-07-2008, order on 18-09-2008, CM (M) No. 1790 of 2006 and CM No. 1435 of 2006, Ritu Raj Kant Vs Anita. Citation No. 154 (2008) DLT 505.

11. Maintenance denied for working wife. (High Court Madras), Hbl A. S. Venkatachalamoorthy J., order on 21-06-2002, Kumaresan Vs Aswathi. Citation No. (2002) 2 MLJ 760.

12. No maintenance for capable and working wife. (High Court Maharastra), Hbl J. C. Chitre J., order on 24-03-2000, Smt. Mamta Jaiswal Vs Rajesh Jaiswal. Citation No. 2000 (4) MPHT 457; II (2000) DMC 170.

13. No maintenance to earning wife, only to children. (High Court Karnataka), Hbl K. Manjunath J., order on 22-08-2005, AIR 2005 Kant 417, ILR 2005 KAR 4981, Dr. E. Shanthi Vs Dr. H K. Vasudev.

14. No Maintenance to working wife in 125 CrPC. (High Court Madras), Hbl P. Sathasivam J., order on 21-01-2003, Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy Vs M. Devaki. Citation Nos. AIR 2003 Mad 212; I (2003) DMC 799; (2003) I MLJ 752 (Mad), CMP No. 16264 of 2002.

15. No Maintenance to wife, but only to child. (HC Mumbai), Hbl J. B. L. Marlapalle, order on 18-7-2009, Appeal No. 20 of 2005 and 144 of 2005, Smt. Manju Kamal Mehra Vs Kamal Puskar Mehra. Citation Nos. 2010 AIR (Bom) 34; 2009 (5) AIIMR 798; Legal/ 360.in 114983; LS/Bom/2009/1374.

16. No maintenance U/s 125 CrPC when wife deserts hubby without cause and also she is earning. No Maintenance to capable wife, but only to child and no maintenance to wife living in adultery. (HC Uttaranchal), Hbl J. Alok Singh, order on 18-11-2009, Crl. Rev. No. 201 of 2006, Smt. Archana Gupta & ors Vs Rajeev Gupta.

17. Wife should clear that she is unable to maintain herself. (HC Allahabad), Hbl J. B. Katju, order on 25-03-1976, Manmohan Singh Vs Smt. Mahindra Kaur. Citation No. 1976 Cri LJ 1664.

18. No Maintenance if wife is working. (HC Uttaranchal), Hbl J. Dharamveer, order on 25-10-2010, Crl Rev. No. 88 of 2002, Vikas Jain Vs Deepali @ Ayushi. Citation No. LAWS (UTN) 2010-1-36.

19. Wife living separate troubled in family no maintenance. (HC Madras), Hbl J. P. R. Shiva Kumar, order on 22-02-2008, Crl. R. C. No. 1491 of 2005, Marimuthu Vs Janaki. Citation No. AIR 2003 Mad 212; I (2003) DMC 799; (2003) I MLJ 752.🇮🇳🇮🇳🏅🏅🏅. Pradeep🏅🏅

5 Legal Rights that Every Woman

5 Legal Rights that Every Woman Should Know About  :

Most women are unaware of their legal rights until they appoint/engage a legal advocate/firm for their problems.  Merely  a handful of  Women  would say “Yes, I know my legal rights.”.

1). Entitlement to  Equal remuneration : Section 4 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 gives right to the women not to be discriminated against the remuneration paid to men. 

2).  Right against sexual harassment  :  As per the Sexual Harassment Act, 2013, it is now mandatory for every organization consisting of  more than 10 employees to form an Internal complaint committee, under Section  4 of the Act. Non compliant shall be punishable with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and even uphold cancellation of License of the Organization.

3).  Right to be arrested by a female Police officer only and not to be arrested at night under Section 46(1) of Cr.P.C

4).  Right to inherit  property under Hindu Succession Act ; The daughter has also a right in the property of her parents as the sons have, unless there is Will (written)  by the parents.  She has a right a shelter in her parents house, if she is deserted or divorced. 

5).  Right to Anonymity for sexually harassed female  ;  Sexually harassed women  have a right of  confidentiality from press, public or media in any manner.