Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: While deciding a criminal writ petition, a Single Judge Bench comprising of Vinit Kumar Mathur, CJ, discussed the consideration before releasing a prisoner on parole.

The petitioner was serving life sentence for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 of IPC. He had already undergone a sentence of about 21 years. His application for being released on permanent parole was rejected by the Committee concerned on the reasoning that he had absconded from custody on two earlier occasions.

The Court found that the said two misdemeanours relate to the year 2007 and 2012. The entitlement to be released on parole was granted under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. It was observed that the only consideration contemplated by the Rule is to see whether the prisoner’s conduct has been such that he is not likely to relapse into the crime. Further, a person who is serving a sentence has obviously committed a brush with the law. During the period of incarceration there may be acts of misdemeanor and the same would certainly be a valid reason. But merely looking at the said acts and nothing more would be a case of wrong application of mind. On the basis of the discussion, the Court held that the Committee concerned had misdirected the enquiry. The petition was disposed of by directing the competent authority to reconsider petitioner’s entitlement to be released on permanent parole in light of the discussion as mentioned hereinabove. [Bhuri Singh v. State, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 1096, dated 1-5-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Bharati H. Dangre, J., decided a writ petition filed by the petitioner-mother, wherein maintenance was allowed to the unmarried adult daughter holding that such a child was entitled to maintenance from her father under Section 125 CrPC.

The petitioner and husband were married to each other but were living separately. The petitioner-mother filed the present petition on behalf of their unmarried major daughter (19 years of age), claiming maintenance for her. The question before the Court, inter alia, was whether an unmarried major daughter was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC?

The High Court perused the section as well as decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Court observed that under Section 125 of the CrPC it is only the minor child who is entitled to claim maintenance if such child is not able to maintain itself. A child who has attained majority is held entitled for claiming maintenance, if on account of physical or mental abnormality or injury he is unable to maintain himself. There is not any specific provision contained in Section 125 for grant of maintenance to a daughter who is major. However, considering decisions of the Supreme Court, the High Court held that the father cannot be extricated from his liability to maintain his unmarried daughter who is staying with his wife and he would be bound not only to maintain his unmarried daughter until her marriage. It was held that an unmarried daughter, though attained majority, is entitled to claim maintenance from the father under Section 125 of CrPC.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the application preferred by the petitioner was remanded to the family court for proper adjudication. [Agnes Lily Irudaya v.Irudaya Kani Arsan, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 617, order dated 6.4.2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

High Court of Uttaranchal: The Court while hearing a petition relating to the issue of maternity leave not been granted to the petitioner since she was a contractual employee working under the respondent, the Bench comprising of Rajiv Sharma and Alok Singh, JJ., observed that even though the petitioner is appointed on a contractual basis she is entitled to maternity leave with full pay as per Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act read in conjunction with Rule 153 of U.P. Fundamental Rules. The petitioner has moved the court as her maternity leave was not sanctioned. However, the case of the respondents is that since, the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis, and working as a Lecturer (Sociology) hence, she was not entitled for maternity leave.

The Court rejecting the contentions of the respondent observed that in a welfare State it is the obligation of the State to ensure the creation and sustaining of the conditions congenial to good health therefore maternity leave, being social insurance benefit, is a key for maternal and child health and family support hence a employer should be considerate and sympathetic toward a working women and grant maternity leave with full pay for 180 days, even if she is working on contractual basis, ad hoc/tenure or temporary basis under the mandate of under Article 21 of the Constitution read with Article 42. The Court further stated that a female government employee is also entitled to Child Care Leave (CCL) for a child below 18 years of age, as per the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission, of 730 days during the entire service. The Court also highlighted the provisions of paternity leave for a male government servant for a period of at least three weeks to enable the father to look after the mother and child. [Dr. Deepa Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand, 2016 SCC OnLine Utt 2015, decided on 15th December, 2016]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

High Court of Madhya Pradesh: While examining the revision petition filed by the applicant against the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam whereby it directed the applicant/husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 4000 per month to the non-applicant/wife from the date of order, the Bench comprising of Jarat Kumar Jain, J., held that the finding of the trial court that the non-applicant/wife has sufficient reason to live separately is not sustainable in law and since she is residing separately from applicant husband without any reason hence, she is not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC .

The applicant husband moved the court submitting that the non-applicant/wife is not entitled for maintenance and the erroneous order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside as the court gave a finding that applicant/husband earns Rs.50,000 per year and to pay Rs. 4000 per month to the non-applicant/wife, is against the evidence on record. The counsel for the husband submitted that the wife had left the matrimonial home voluntarily and is living in her parental home without any reason even though the applicant went to Ratlam to bring her back with him; however, she refused to come with him further, the non-applicant/wife being an advocate, had sufficient income to maintain herself and was not entitled to maintenance.

The Court on examining the findings of trial court as to whether non-applicant/wife has sufficient reason to live separately and whether she is unable to maintain herself observed, that since the non-applicant left matrimonial home voluntarily with her brother with a view to select a girl for his marriage and without lodging any report at the  Police Station or making any complaint to anybody even though she had a mobile phone and used to talk with her brother, but never made any complaint about her harassment to her brother therefore, it is practically impossible to believe that the non-applicant/wife could have been so harassed in 12 days and that it was impossible for her to live in her matrimonial home.

The Court relying on Savita Bai v. Prahlad , 2013 (3) MPWN 77, held that since the  non-applicant wife is unable to prove the prove the charge of harassment it cannot be held that she was forced to leave her matrimonial home. Therefore, as the non-applicant/wife is residing separately without any reason,  she is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Thus, the Court set aside the order of the trial court and allowed the revision petition. [Anil v. Sunita, 2016 SCC OnLine MP 6368, decided on 11.11. 2016]