Maternity leave a basic human right; assault on woman’s dignity if denied: Orissa High Court
Maternity leave cannot be compared to or equated with any other leave and it cannot simply be denied on technical grounds, the Court said. The Orissa High Court recently emphasised that maternity leave is a basic human right and that its denial would amount to an assault on the dignity of woman employees [Swornalata Dash v. State of Odisha and ors]. Justice Sashikanta Mishra held that maternity leave cannot be compared to or equated with any other leave as it is an inherent right for every woman employee. Maternity leave cannot simply be denied on technical grounds, the Court said. “It would be preposterous to hold otherwise as it would militate against the very process designed by nature. If a woman employee is denied this basic human right it would be an assault on her dignity as an individual and thereby offend her fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article-21 of the Constitution,…
Section 498A IPC was enacted to punish cruelty by husband but now being misused: Jharkhand High Court
Courts have expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the increasing tendency to rope in relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, noted Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi. The Jharkhand High Court recently observed that while Section 498A (cruelty to woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was originally introduced with the laudable object of punishing cruelty inflicted by husbands or their relatives on married women, it is currently being misused [Umesh Kumar & Ors v State & Anr]. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi noted that several courts including the Supreme Court have flagged concern over such misuse. “Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives, however, nowadays, the said Section is being misused which has been observed by several High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court,” Justice Dwivedi observed. The judge…
Calcutta High Court orders suspension of police officers for disclosing identity of minor rape survivor and wrongfully arresting accused
The Court said the power to arrest is a dangerous one as it encroaches on the most precious right of an individual i.e. personal liberty and police must exercise this power with due care and circumspection. The Calcutta High Court Tuesday ordered the suspension of two police officers for disclosing the identity of a minor rape survivor by enclosing her photograph in the case diary, which was produced before the trial court [Anil Sardar vs State of West Bengal]. A division bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Ajay Kumar Gupta said the Supreme Court in the case ofNipun Saxena vs Union of India had insisted that the identity of the victim of sexual crime particularly a minor must be scrupulously protected. The said directive was flagrantly violated and photograph of the victim was made a part of the case diary produced in the judicial proceeding, the High Court noted. “Police officers are responsible public servants…
Madras High Court directs Armed Forces to constitute ICC for sexual harassment complaints
“If the women of the armed forces should not have courage to fight such violence, who else can have?” the Court said in its order. The Madras High Court recently directed the Union Ministry of Defence to ensure that the Armed Forces have in place an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to deal with sexual harassment complaints. [State v. Commandant, Air Force Administrative College] Justice RN Manjula directed that the Armed Forces must ensure that the ICC exists in accordance with the mandate of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013 (POSH Act). The judge also directed the Central government to “sensitise all armed personnel by imparting gender sensitive awareness trainings.” Further, the Court issued a set of guidelines for district courts to keep in mind while dealing with offences involving defence personnel. The order stated that the district judiciary must follow the dictum laid down in Som Datt Datta…
Section 498A IPC: Karnataka High Court rules second wife cannot file complaint against husband, in-laws for cruelty
Single-judge Justice S Rachaiah held that if the marriage between the husband and wife is null and void, the offence under Section 498A of IPC cannot be sustained. A second wife of a man is not entitled to file a complaint against her husband or in-laws for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) since she is not recognised as a legally wedded wife, the Karnataka High Court recently ruled [Kantharaju And State of Karnataka]. Single-judge Justice S Rachaiah held that if the marriage between the husband and wife is null and void, the offence under Section 498A of IPC cannot be sustained. “A complaint filed by the second wife against the husband and her in-laws is not maintainable,” the Court made it clear. Hence, it set aside the conviction of one Kantharaju (petitioner) after finding that the complainant was the second wife of the petitioner and the marriage was, therefore,…
Karnataka High Court rejects plea by sons to reduce maintenance granted to aged mother
As per Hindu scriptures, it is considered a heinous act if a person neglects and causes anguish to their aged parents when they become weak and dependent, Justice Dixit observed. We are living in an age when bread is costlier than blood and money is losing its purchasing power, the Karnataka High Court remarked recently while rejecting a plea by two men to reduce the amount payable by them to maintain their aged and ailing mother. [Sri Gopal and anr v. Deputy Commissioner and ors] Both sons (petitioners) had earlier been ordered to pay ₹10,000 in order to maintain their 84-year-old mother under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. In a plea before Justice Krishna S Dixit, both sons claimed that this amount of ₹10,000 was too high for them to afford. Justice Dixit, however, observed that in today’s day and age, ₹10,000 was not even enough to hold…
Supreme Court agrees to list Marital Rape case
The Court had heard the matter last in January this year, when the Central government informed the Court that it has asked the State governments to give their inputs on whether martial rape should be criminalised. The Supreme Court on Wednesday assured that it will list the case concerning whether marital rape should be treated as a criminal offence or remain an exception to the criminal offence of rape. The Court had heard the matter last in january.this year, when the Central government informed the Court that it has asked the State governments to give their inputs on whether martial rape should be criminalised. A related matter was mentioned this morning before bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising. Jaising informed the Court that her plea in the matter was meant to address a child sexual abuse case. CJI Chandrachud, in turn, noted that the…
Grabbing woman’s hand, threatening her without lustful intention does not outrage her modesty: Kerala Court
Although the accused was not convicted for outraging the woman’s modesty under Section 354 of the IPC, the court found him guilty of criminal intimidation and sentenced him to two months in jail. A Kerala court recently held that merely catching hold of a woman’s hands and threatening her without any lustful intention will not attract the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Mere assault or criminal force would not attract the offence under Section 354 IPC, observed Judicial First Class Magistrate-II judge at Aluva, Santosh TK. The court emphasised that there must be a culpable intention on the part of the accused to outrage the victim woman’s modesty in order to convict him under Section 354 IPC. “Mere assault or criminal force does not amount to an offence. The culpable intention to outrage the modesty of the victim is to be proved. Mere holding PW1’s hand and threatened…
Wife initiating litigation for vindication of her rights not mental cruelty: Madras High Court
When a woman files a case seeking custody of her child or to stake claim to her property right, the same is only for vindication of her rights and not to deliberately harass her estranged husband, the Court said. The Madras High Court recently held that when a woman initiates litigation to vindicate her rights, it can never be considered as mental cruelty to the husband. While setting aside a divorce decree that was granted by a lower court on the ground of mental cruelty, Justice R Vijaykumar of the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court said that when a woman files a case seeking custody of her child or to stake claim to her property right, the same is only for vindication of her rights and not to deliberately harass her estranged husband. “This Court is of the considered opinion that the divorce petition lacks pleadings with regard to the…
Bombay High Court grants relief to Russian woman with 6-month-old child who was directed to exit India after divorce from Indian husband
“Just be right, sensible and have a humane approach to the woman and her child. Don’t let nationalities come in the way of this,” the Court remarked. The Bombay High Court Monday took exception to the Central government ordering a Russian woman, married to an Indian man, to leave India after divorce from her previous husband (also an Indian). The woman was married to an Indian citizen and had an X1 visa with an Overseas Citizens India (OCI) status. Later she obtained divorce from the first husband and married another Indian citizen with whom she has a daughter who is presently 6 months old. The woman surrendered her OCI card and applied for X visa. In response, she was served an exit notice from the Ministry of Home Affairs through local police asking her to leave the country by March 24, 2023 as she lost her OCI status from earlier…