Skip to main content

Married daughter part of parents’ family: Bombay HC

A married daughter does not stop being a part of her parents' family, the Bombay high court has ruled in a landmark order.

The state's rules that discriminate against a married daughter and exclude her from the purview of the expression "family" were unconstitutional and infringed on fundamental rights, ruled a division bench of Justices Abhay Oka and A S Chandurkar in a case of transfer of a kerosene retail licence.

Ranjana Anerao had challenged a government decision in 2007 rejecting her claim to the retail licence held by her deceased mother. The minister for food and civil supplies had said that as a married daughter, she could not be considered a part of her mother's family.

"Gender discrimination is prohibited (by) the Constitution," said the judges. "The government resolution of 2004 to the extent it excludes a married daughter from being considered a member of the family of a retail licence holder is discriminatory and violative of the Constitution."

The state government rules say "family" includes the husband, wife, major son, major unmarried daughter, daughter-in-law, dependent parents, legal heir and adopted son.

A divorced daughter could be considered part of the family, but any licence granted would be revoked if she remarried.

The state's lawyers defended the rule, saying that when a daughter gets married, she moves out of her family and could not be included in the expression "family" of her parents.

The high court pointed out that according to the state's rules, a major daughter before her marriage would be eligible to be treated as a member of the family of her parents who have been granted a retail licence. Similarly, a divorced daughter, too, would fall within the definition of family. But even if a married daughter is supporting her parents in their old age, she would be excluded from being considered for a retail licence held by them when they pass away.

"This exclusion of a married daughter does not appear to be based on any logic or other justifiable criteria. Marriage of a daughter who is otherwise a legal representative of a licence holder cannot be held to her disadvantage in the matter of seeking transfer of licence in her name on the death of the licence holder," said the judges.

The high court struck down the discriminatory rules and asked the state to reconsider Anerao's application for grant of the kerosene retail licence. The court's order is likely to have an impact on other rules which discriminate against a married daughter, and her entitlement to benefits that come from her parents' family.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Mumbai/Married-daughter-part-of-parents-family-HC/articleshow/40429259.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more