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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more