Skip to main content

In-laws cannot be burdened with liability towards woman: Delhi court

In-laws cannot be burdened with any kind of liability towards a woman, whether directly or indirectly, and all such responsibilities should be of her husband, a Delhi court has said.

The court's observations came on an appeal filed by the father-in-law of a woman, in a domestic violence case, against a trial court order directing him to pay arrears of electricity dues and to continue paying electricity charges for the premises occupied by her.

"In-laws of a wife cannot be burdened directly or indirectly with any liability towards a wife. All such direct liabilities are to be directed against her husband and the estate of the husband," Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala said.

The court while setting aside the trial court order to make payment of all subsequent electricity bills in respect of premises occupied by the woman said keeping the legal position in mind it is not sustainable.

"As per law right to residence is not extended, against the self acquired property of in-laws of a wife. This right is to be exercised against husband and against a property, wherein husband of a wife has some sort of right or interest or title, which is referred as shared household," it said.

It said that the trial court shall take care that such burden is not put upon in-laws of respondent (woman) directly or indirectly and directed her to get separate electricity meter in her name and seek reimbursement from her husband.

The court noted that in compliance with the trial court order, father-in-law has already opted to make payment of arrears of electricity bills and the electricity connection was already restored.

While accepting the appeal, the court said that father- in-law of the woman shall not be further burdened with any liability to make payment of subsequent electricity bills.

Delhi resident Ramesh Kumar has filed an appeal against the trial court order on the ground that he has no liability to maintain his daughter-in-law. He contended that even his daughter-in-law had not sought any directions against further payment of electricity dues, still the trial court directed him to make the payment of electricity charges of the premises occupied by her.

However, the woman contested his appeal taking plea that her father-in-law was acting in connivance with her husband.

The woman had claimed that out of maintenance amount of Rs 3500, she cannot make payment of electricity charges and her husband was not making any payment as the electricity meter was installed in his father's name.

Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-in-laws-cannot-be-burdened-with-liability-towards-woman-delhi-court-2096754

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even