Review: Allahabad HC Rules That Wife’s Failure to Take Care of Aged In-Laws is Not Cruelty, Especially When Husband is Living Separately
In this edition of Court Judgements, we look at SC’s decision that the right of a natural guardian to their child’s custody is not forfeited merely because temporary custody was granted to a relative, Allahabad HC’s ruling that wife’s failure to take care of aged in-laws is not cruelty, especially when the husband is living separately, MP High Court’s verdict that mere occasional harassment or misbehaviour does not amount to abetment to suicide, among others.
SC: The right of a natural guardian to their child’s custody is not forfeited merely because temporary custody was granted to a relative
In the case, Gautam Kumar Das vs. NCT of Delhi and Others, the appellant is the biological father of a minor girl and had appealed to the Supreme Court seeking custody of the girl. He lost his first wife due to COVID-19 in April 2021, when their daughter was only 10 days old. He then lost his father due to a COVID-19 infection within a month. The appellant handed over the custody of his children to his sister-in-law as an interim arrangement. While custody of his son was returned, the sister-in-law retained custody of his daughter, citing her young age and need for maternal care. The appellant remarried and sought to regain full custody but faced refusal. After filing a case under the Guardians and Wards Act and later a writ petition, the High Court granted visitation rights but not custody, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan acknowledged that the appellant had faced significant personal losses and had acted reasonably by initially seeking help from the in-laws. It observed that the paramount consideration in custody cases is the child’s welfare. It noted that the appellant, as the only surviving biological parent, should have custody, emphasizing that temporary custody by relatives did not justify denying the father his rights. The Court also noted that the child had bonded well with the appellant’s family during visitation. Quashing the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court also allowed the sister-in-law to visit the girl child at the appellant’s residence every week.
Allahabad HC: Wife’s failure to take care of aged in-laws is not cruelty, especially when the husband is living separately
The case, Jyotish Chandra Thapliyal vs. Smt. Deveshwari Thapliyal before the Allahabad High Court was regarding a Divorce Petition filed by the husband, Jyotish Chandra Thapliyal, against his wife Deveshwari Thapliyal, on the ground of Cruelty. The appellant claimed that the respondent exhibited cruelty by refusing to care for his elderly parents, which was the moral duty of a wife. However, it was noted that the appellant, who served as a police officer, lived separately from the respondent. He expected his wife to reside with and care for his parents despite his absence from the matrimonial home. He had filed the appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, challenging a decision by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad.
The High Court bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh relied on some past judgements of the Apex Court such as N.G. Dastane (DR) vs. S. Dastane, Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddy, Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, and others. It emphasized the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case when determining cruelty as cruelty can take many forms, including mental torture and wilful conduct. In this case, the husband’s allegations of cruelty against his wife were not established. The Court found that the wife’s refusal to take care of her husband’s aged parents is a subjective fact and did not constitute cruelty, especially since the husband chose to live away from the matrimonial home.
Bombay HC: Mental Healthcare Act’s provisions override the penal consequences usually associated with Section 309 IPC
The case, Shital Dinkar Bhagat vs. State of Maharashtra, involves a police constable who attempted to commit suicide by cutting her wrist with a knife after being frustrated with her unrequited love for a married colleague. The applicant was serving as a police constable and had developed a love affair with Yuvraj, who was also a police colleague. However, Yuvraj was already married and eventually ended the affair due to his wife’s resistance. The police registered an FIR against the applicant under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The case before the Bombay High Court was an application to quash the FIR.
In its judgment, the bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Vrushali Joshi allowed the application to quash the FIR, citing Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. This section presumes that anyone attempting suicide is under severe mental stress and should not be tried or punished under Section 309 of IPC unless proven otherwise. The court found no evidence contradicting the applicant’s state of mental stress, thereby applying the statutory presumption in her favour. The court emphasized that the Mental Healthcare Act’s provisions override the penal consequences usually associated with Section 309 IPC, highlighting that individuals presumed to be under mental stress should not face prosecution.
Delhi HC: Approves termination of pregnancy for single mother in Live-in relationship
The petitioner in Mrs C vs. the Principal Secretary Health And Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others, is a 27-year-old deserted married woman raising her 7-year-old daughter alone. She approached the court seeking permission to terminate her 22-week pregnancy. The pregnancy resulted from a live-in relationship after her husband abandoned her. Due to financial constraints and social stigma, she sought termination under Sections 3(2)(b) and 3(3) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, amended in 2021, and Rule 3B(c) of the MTP (Amendment) Rules, 2021.
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula allowed the petition, permitting the petitioner to undergo a medical termination of pregnancy. According to the MTP Act, a pregnancy may be terminated when the length of the pregnancy exceeds 20 weeks but does not exceed 24 weeks if the woman falls within the prescribed category of women under the MTP Rules. In this case, the court observed that Rule 3B of the MTP Rules which applies to women experiencing significant changes in marital status during pregnancy, such as abandonment was applicable.
The court concluded that the petitioner’s circumstances, including the abandonment by her husband and the untraceability of her live-in partner, significantly impaired her capacity to raise another child. The court recognized the pregnancy as a risk to her mental well-being and noted that her financial and social conditions justified the termination under the MTP Act. The petitioner was granted the right to choose a medical facility for the procedure, acknowledging her understanding of the potential risks involved.
Madhya Pradesh HC: Mere occasional harassment or misbehaviour does not amount to abetment to suicide
A woman, Vandana Rawat, died by hanging herself. Her parents alleged that her husband, Vikram Rawat, and his cousin, Khairu Rawat, had harassed and instigated her to commit suicide. The police registered a case under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC against Vikram and Khairu, alleging that they had harassed and instigated Vandana to commit suicide. The case was committed for trial to the Sessions Court, which framed charges against Khairu under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC for abetment of suicide. The case Khairu alias Satendra Singh Rawat vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and Others before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenges the Trial Court’s order.
The MP High Court’s single-judge bench of Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar found that the charges against Khairu for abetment of suicide were not substantiated. It determined that the allegations of harassment were trivial and generally took place in every household. It noted that this mere occasional harassment or misbehaviour does not amount to abetment to suicide. The court revisited the definition of ‘abetment to suicide’ and concluded that there was no direct evidence showing that Khairu intended for Vandana to commit suicide or that he provoked or encouraged such an act. Consequently, the court set aside the charges framed against Khairu under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their original owners.
Comments are closed.