Ground-4

Ground4: Because the learned court has readily believed that there is nothing wrong in Respondent indulging in shopping at the Delhi airport on the unfateful day of 24.08.2018 when she was subjected to domestic violence and dowry harassment and had a narrow escape on her life at her matrimonial home in Faridabad .

a. Petitioner had duly showcased to the honorable court that respondent megha indulged in shopping at Terminal 1 D of Delhi airport on 24.08.2018. 

b. An entry dated 24.08.2018 in her ICICI Bank saving account No 140001510406 shows purchase of apparel worth Rs 1799 at the airport

c. Petitioner  argued that this cannot be a normal behavior of a women who has been subjected to torture at her matrimonial home on the very same day and had to run for her life . The learned court has made a note of the same.

d. In response to this finding of petitioner ,respondent through her learned counsel had filed a reply that she was shivering with cold and was also feeling feverish since she was beaten at her matrimonial home on account of DV and dowry harassment .Hence she had to purchase a sweater to protect herself from cold.

e. To this response, Petitioner  in his final WS again argued that sweaters are not sold in the month of August 2018 either in Delhi or Jabalpur.

f. The learned lower court in the absence of evidence found respondent’s explanation valid.

g. Petitioner started hunting for the receipt of the purchase apparel by respondent at the airport terminal 1 on 24.08.2018. It is the utter surprise to court and Petitioner  that respondent has again been caught red handed once again . She did not purchase a sweater .She purchased Men’s Tshirt in XL size . The receipt from UNITED COLORS OF BENNETON from T1D airport store along with an explanation of email is furnished herewith. Once again respondent Megha has lied on oath

h. Basis the explanation in point 5 and point 7 stated above ;it appears that respondent  had

• “Wilful departure + Pre-planned exit + peace of mind to indulge in shopping at the airport”-cumulatively point out that this cannot be the behavior of a married woman who had a narrow escape on her life on the unfateful day of 24.08.2018 at the hands of her husband and inlaws ,on account of dowry harassment and domestic violence.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Discuss the case law of Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174 for maintenance of wife?

Ans: According to Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174, an able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court. Conclusion: So, if the husband has liabilities like loans and other legal obligations, he will not be entitled to provide maintenance to earning wife.  Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it was obligatory on the part of the Petitioner-wife to allege and prove that she was unable to maintain herself. According to Shri Rege the expression used in t...
Read more

Q: Discuss the citation of Madras High Court on Hari Har Raj Kalingarayar V. Aarti on 22 June, 2018 ?

Ans: On the misuse of the provisions for claim maintenance, it is opined by Madras High Court on Hari Har Raj Kalingarayar vs Aarti on 22 June, 2018 that it is a matter of deep concern that though the law for maintenance is a valuable and beneficial legislation safeguarding helpless wife, who is unable to maintain herself, but there are some instances where the wife focus her husband as like that of an ATM and the beneficial provisions of law are considered to be utilized as a tool of harassment. 
Read more

Question of law:

1. Whether the honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh has not ignored to consider the guidelines of Deb Narayan Halder vs Smt. Anushree Halder on 26 August, 2003 , it which it is clearly mentioned that the wife can not claim maintenance if she is unable to prove cruelty. The court can not grant maintenance on the basis of conjecture and surmise and the respondent, Smt Megha Khare has made false allegations on petitioner after receiving the notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, restitution of conjugal rights and she has not proved any allegation on petitioner.  2. Where the honourable high court of Madhya Pradesh has erred in not considering the legal maxim ' Salus populi est suprema lex or Suprema lex salus populi which means that the welfare of the people is the supreme law. In other words, it means public welfare is the highest law. The Honorable High Court of Madhya Pradesh neither ordered the respondent, Smt. Megha Khare to prove the cruelty on herself nor considered that...
Read more