Skip to main content

Domestic Violence Act does not override personal laws

Observing that the ‘Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act does not override personal laws completely’, a Delhi court has reduced the interim relief granted to a Muslim widow from Rs.30,000 to 15,000 per month.

Additional Sessions Judge Sanjay Bansal reduced the relief amount saying payment of the previous amount would amount to payment of maintenance, which is not permissible under the law. The widow had sought interim monetary relief from her father-in-law and brother-in-law ( jeth ) alleging that they tortured her and her three children physically and mentally, besides taking over her husband’s shop after his death. A Metropolitan Magistrate had earlier asked her in-laws to pay Rs. 30,000 per month to her as expenses for her children and herself.

The in-laws, however, challenged the order before the Sessions Judge.

“It is well settled that under Muslim Law there is no obligation upon the father-in-law to maintain the widow and children of his deceased son. The position of law is even more clear in respect of Jeth. A Jeth is under no obligation to maintain widow and children of his deceased brother. Though provisions of the PWDV Act are secular, but it is not that the said Act completely overrides the personal laws. The law regarding inheritance, succession, marriage and maintenance would still be the personal laws of the parties. The provisions of PWDV Act have no say in those matters,” said Mr. Bansal.

“The award of Rs.20,000 per month for payment of school fee cannot be sustained as that would amount to payment of maintenance, which is not permissible under the law. Even award of Rs.10,000 per month as kitchen expenses is not legally permissible i.e. not payable as maintenance,” the Judge said while reducing the interim relief amount.

“However, the respondent/widow can be granted monetary relief – not as maintenance – but as monetary relief for her loss of earnings and share of income from the shop because there are allegations that the shop run by her husband has been grabbed by the appellants (the in-laws),” the Judge further added.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...

An order of attachment before judgment ends if a suit is dismissed

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a...