Tag: #maintainence

-Report by A.K. Sooraj

The Delhi High Court in the case of  Rashmi Sehrawat vs Praveen Sehrawat held that the failure to comply with the orders of maintenance, even after giving several opportunities, amounts to contempt of court.

 FACTS:

The contempt petition was filed by the petitioner, wife stating that the Respondent, husband was in wilful disobedience and deliberate non-compliance with the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the Mahila Court, New Delhi ( Trial Court), whereby the Respondent was directed to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 35,000, including rent, for the two minor sons and the Petitioner from the date of application to the disposal of the case. This contempt petition was filed by the Petitioner on 24.08.2020, given the absolute non-compliance of the said order dated 18.09.2019. The petition alleged that since the date of the order, the Respondent has not made any payments. The aforementioned order of 18.09.2019 had been challenged by both parties, and the cross-appeals were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in an order dated 12.11.2020. A finding was returned by the Appellate  Court that the monthly income of the Respondent is Rs. 65,000. The Appellant Court directed the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner an amount of Rs. 5000 per month for the maintenance of each child and apart from that he was directed to pay Rs. 10000 per month for the school fees of each child. In addition, the Respondent was directed to pay Rs 10000 per month for the Petitioner towards the maintenance and Rs. 5000 towards the rent. The Appellate Court determined the sum total of the monthly amount of maintenance as Rs. 45000 subjects to the variation on account of school fees.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER:

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was Rs. 15,45,000 in maintenance arrears as of the current date for the petitioner and her young children. He said that this did not include the minor children’s unpaid school expenses. He claims that the Respondent in this case has a sizable rental revenue of 10–12 lakhs per month based on instructions from the Petitioner. According to him, the respondent in this case and his family are the owners of 32 units in Mahipalpur. He further refers to the Petitioner’s averments, which allege that the Respondent sold the Greater Noida villa for Rs. 49,00,000 in 2018. He claims that the Trial Court had directed the Respondent to present an account of the relevant transaction and specifics of how the relevant sum had been spent. He claims that the Respondent has purposefully disobeyed the aforementioned directive and has not yet supplied it. He added that the minor children were being harassed for fee demands and made fun of by the relevant school as a result of the Respondent’s actions in failing to pay their tuition on time.

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT:

The learned counsel for the Respondent claimed in a computation that the amount of arrears due and payable as of 01.02.2023 was Rs. 8,52,333. The Petitioner disputed the computation and the statement of payments attached, refusing to accept the entries made therein. On February 15, 2023, he restated his arguments from February 13 to the effect that the petitioner could not continue the current contempt proceedings since she had submitted an execution petition that was still being decided by the Trial Court. He also added that the non-compliance with the orders was not wilful or intentional. He claimed that despite his best efforts, the Respondent was unable to pay the arrears under the conditions of the maintenance order due to the Respondent’s meagre income.

JUDGEMENT:

The current matter has been listed 32 times. Even as of the date the decisions were reserved, the amount of accepted maintenance arrears owed by the Respondent was Rs. 8,52,333 (which, according to the Petitioner, should be Rs. 15,45,000). The Respondent had not made the payments of the admitted arrears even after repeatedly, seeking time from this Court to clear the same. the Respondent is a 50-year-old professional, holding a degree and therefore, in accordance with the judgement in Anju Garg vs Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine 1314, capable of earning and maintaining his wife and children. Respondent had numerous opportunities and undertakings, but he had failed to follow the maintenance directives. The Respondent was adjudged to have committed contempt of court and was subject to punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as the Court was of the opinion that the Respondent was defiant and wilfully and intentionally disobeyed the undertakings made to the Court and orders made by the Trial Court, Appellate Court, and the Court in these proceedings. The Court sentenced the respondent, contemnor, Mr. Praveen Sehrawat, to undergo two months of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2000, and in default of the payment of the fine, he shall further undergo fifteen days of simple imprisonment. Following the judgement in Sonali Bhatia vs Abhivansh Narang, the Court directed that the Respondent exhibit his apology by complying with the orders of the Trial Court as modified by the Appellate Court, and directions issued by the Court makes payment of entire arrears of maintenance within ten (10) days and undertakes to continue to pay the maintenance until the order dated 12.11.2020 continues to remain in force, and tenders an unconditional apology to the Court, the Court shall consider recalling the punishment of Respondent undergoing simple imprisonment, provided the respondent complies with the aforesaid directions within 10 days. However, he was instructed to appear before the Jail Superintendent at the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, on April 20, 2023, if he does not abide by the aforementioned instruction within the time allotted.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3zOvT5X

This article is about the evolution of women’s rights before and after the Hindu Succession Act and how it has impacted gender equality.

INTRODUCTION

Gender inequality is one of the main aspects under the law which requires a major focus. There are still a variety of issues pertaining to gender inequality yet to be addressed. One of the major areas where it is still prevalent is property rights. It is true about the very fact that many legislations have been passed with an aim to improve the status of women in society by ensuring economic accessibility as well as their rights on property. Mere passing of the legislation is not enough, the focus on implementation matters and this is one of the major reasons why inequality still exists.

The blame shall not fall on the legislative or judiciary alone. Everyone involved in ensuring equality is collectively responsible in some way or another. Even women themselves are less motivated to uphold their rights because of familial expectations, public stigma, and associated demands. Ancient laws in the country including Hindu law were too harsh on women denying them basic economic rights. A woman was always considered as someone who is always dependent either on their father or their husband. women’s claim to property was reduced by the patriarchal structure laid down by the commentaries and smritis. Male members were given the right of inheritance of the property under the mitakshara school of law. Since divorce was uncommon, women could not easily be denied their right to a place to live and support themselves after marriage. The Hindu Woman’s Separate Residence and Maintenance Act, of 1946 also formalized a woman’s right to demand separate housing and maintenance in specific situations, such as abuse or adultery.

ANALYSIS

The Hindu women’s right to property bill was introduced in the year 1937. The primary aim of this bill was to achieve equality in the matter of property by evicting all sorts of discrimination between men and women. But due to heavy opposition from the public, the bill had to be modified. The English notion known as a widow’s estate was adopted where women were given only rights along with restrictions the concept of providing women absolute rights on the property was discarded. The bill focused on giving women the right the separate property after marriage. The concept of inheriting the family’s property was removed. This act gave more clarity to attaining property from the eyes of a widow and not a woman. Thus, more problems were created in place of solving equality. This gave rise to the setting up of a Hindu law committee in the year 1941 which proposed to give more clarity on this act. Later in 1944, a second Hindu law committee was formed which adopted both property rights in marriage as well as succession.

The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 revolutionized the whole matter of inequality in property rights by demolishing the patriarchal structure of men enjoying all the rights with women having little room to claim rights. Earlier only stridhana was awarded to women before marriage in place of property. But even it did not ensure financial independence as it was limited. But the Hindu succession act ensured economic viability as well as social independence. The act removed the restriction on absolute ownership and ensured.

As the years passed, many needs emerged which were not as such addressed by the succession act of 1956. Many areas of property law have still discrimination. Therefore, the government decided to amend the act of 1956 in the year 2005 with the aim to provide more economic stability to women of the society. The Hindu Succession Act of 2005 gave women the recognition of coparcener and gave them the power to inherit property like that of a son and now there is no difference in the rights of a son and daughter. Now women even have the power to become the karta of the family which earlier only male members could hold the status. The 2005 Act addresses unfairness in inherited property, residential properties, and widows’ rights. It also safeguards the interests of some new heirs by adding them to the Class I heirs list. In fact, it ensures social justice and equality for women in a more profound way. It basically repeals the antiquated Hindu legislation that denied women the ability to own property. The community of Hindu women supports this legislation. Now even a woman member of mitakshara will be born with a silver spoon. All of her rights will be equal to those of her male equivalent. She is nevertheless subject to the same legal obligations for coparcenary property as a male. The Amendment Act of 2005 permits her to request a division of the dwelling. A widow no longer faces the restriction that barred her from inheriting her late husband’s assets if she marries again.

Landmark judgments and judicial interpretations

One of the major landmark judgments regarding the succession act was the Prakash v. Phlulvati[1] case, In fact, it ensures social justice and equality for women in a more profound way. It basically repeals the antiquated Hindu legislation that denied women the ability to own property. The community of Hindu women supports this legislation. Now even a woman member of mitakshara will be born with a silver spoon. All of her rights will be equal to those of her male equivalent. She is nevertheless subject to the same legal obligations for coparcenary property as a male. The Amendment Act of 2005 permits her to request a division of the dwelling. A widow no longer faces the restriction that barred her from inheriting her late husband’s assets if she marries again. She will be eligible for her father’s tribe and self-involved property since birth because the amendment’s main purpose was to abolish the current discrepancies between sons and daughters about their coparcenary liberties. The High Court decided that the revised clauses should be applied. In spite of this, the Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s request, stating that the Act shall apply in the future and until it is expressly stated in the statute.

Since the amendment’s primary goal was to eliminate the current disparities between daughters and sons regarding their coparcenary rights, she will be entitled to her father’s tribe and self-involved property from birth. The altered sections should be used, the High Court said. However, the Supreme Court denied the High Court’s motion, holding that the Act will continue to be in effect up until and unless otherwise specified in the act.

In a recent decision known as Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma[2] stated on the eleventh of August 2020, the status of women’s coparcenary rights has been switched. In this case, it was decided that regardless of when they were born—before or after the amendment—the ladies would be eligible for coparcenary status and the same liberties as sons.

The requirement that dads should be alive on the day the law was passed (09.09.2015) is not necessary. The court gave the act a “retroactive” application. The court’s decision in the Prakash v. Phulvati[1] case was overturned, granting equality to women. The court offered an option between the two viewpoints, first providing women equal coparcenary freedoms since birth and disregarding the fact that the father was still living at the time the amendment was made. Clarification was provided for all the ambiguity and confusion surrounding women’s succession rights.

Conclusion

Over time, things have changed gradually. Women in the modern day now have the same inheritance rights as sons after a gradual process. The rules that prohibited gender inequality are no longer in effect. beginning with the Mitakshara rule, which prohibited women from co-owning property and so discriminated against them. The 1956 Hindu Succession Act also fell short of social law’s standards and wasn’t gender-neutral.

With the Hindu Succession Amendment Act of 2005, which gave women coparcener status, significant changes were brought about. Even though there were conflicting legal options and a chaotic demeanour, the “Vineeta Sharma Case” provided a definitive statement on the subject at hand. The Supreme Court made its final ruling, stating that it is the responsibility of the courts and other bodies to uphold the established principles.

Citations

1. Prakash v Phlulvati, A.I.R. 2011 Kar. 78.
2. Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma, (2020) AIR 3717 (SC).

This article is written by Vishal Menon, from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.