Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: J.R. Midha, J., while addressing a motor accidents claim application decided on the issue whether it would be fair to deny compensation for loss of dependency to a parent, who may not be dependent on his/her child at the time of accident per se but would become dependent at his/her later age?

In the instant application, the appellants challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal and sought enhancement of the award amount.

The deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident and was survived by his parents who claimed compensation. Deceased was self-employed as a Contractor earning Rs 55,000 to Rs 60,000 per month.

Claims Tribunal held that since the deceased’s father was working with the Delhi Police as Sub-Inspector, hence was not dependent upon the deceased. Also, the deceased’s mother could not be said to be dependent upon the deceased as her husband was employed with the Delhi Police.

Therefore the Claim Tribunal had concluded that the deceased’s parents were not entitled to compensation for loss of dependency but only to compensation for loss of the estate in terms of the principles laid down in Keith Rowe v. Prashant Sagar, 2011 ACJ 1734.

Analysis, Decision and Law

  • Whether the mother of the deceased is entitled to compensation for the death of her son?

Court opined that the parents of the deceased were considered in law as dependent on their children, considering that the children are bound to support their parents in their old age, when the parents would be unable to maintain themselves and the law imposes a responsibility on the children to maintain their parents.

Further, the Bench added that

Even if the parents are not dependent on their children at the time of the accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon their children at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.

With regard to loss of dependency, the Court held that it would be unfair as well as inequitable to deny compensation for loss of dependency to a parent, who may not be dependent on his/her child at the time of accident per se but would become dependent at his/her later age.

Following are legislations that recognize the legal rights of parents to be maintained by their children:

♦ Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

♦ Section 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

Bench referred to the following decisions:

Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai, (1987) 2 SCC 278.

In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 Supreme Court had reaffirmed the with respect to the rights of parents to compensation in case of accidental death of a child.

Mahendrakumar Ramrao Gaikwad v. Gulabbai Ramrao Gaikwad, 2001 CriLJ 2111

In Sarla Verma v. D.T.C., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Supreme Court held that the mother of the deceased bachelor is entitled to compensation by taking 50% of his income as loss of dependency on the premise that the deceased would not contribute more than 50% to his mother after marriage. The Supreme Court further observed that the mother would be considered as a dependent even if the father was employed and earning.

In light of the above decisions, the High Court held that the parents of the deceased child are considered as dependents for computation of compensation. Further, the Bench also highlighted that the principles relating to the loss to the estate shall apply only to claimants other than parents, children and spouse.

Hence, the deceased’s mother in the instant case is entitled to compensation for loss of dependency.

Compensation

Taking the income of the deceased as Rs 4,131 per month, adding 40% towards future prospects, deducting 50% towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs 6,24,607.20.

Court directed the appellant 1 to remain present in Court before the next date of hearing along with the passbook of her savings bank account near the place of her residence as well as PAN card and Aadhaar card.

Appellant 1 shall produce the original passbook of her individual savings bank account with the necessary endorsement on the next date of hearing. However, the bank concerned shall permit appellant 1 to withdraw money from her savings bank account by means of a withdrawal form.

While concluding in light of the above-stated, Court asked for the copy of this Judgment to be sent to Delhi Judicial Academy to sensitize the Claims Tribunals about the principles laid down by this Court in the present Judgment. [Indrawati v. Ranbir Singh, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 114, decided on 08-01-2021]


Advocates for the parties:

For the Appellants: Santosh Kumar Chauriha, Advocate

For the Respondents: Atul Nigam, Advocate along with Anubhav Tyagi and Randhir Kumar, Advocates for R-3

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Vivek Kumar Birla, J., while addressing a matter with regard to “shared household”, held that,

“daughter-in-law can be evicted without seeking decree of eviction against son with whom she had moved on the suit property after the marriage of the son of the plaintiff with the appellant.”

Appellant was married to the plaintiff’s son — Vijay Gandhi. In the year 2013, Vijay Gandhi deserted the appellant and filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Further, it has been noted that an FIR was lodged against the appellant by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff is the owner of the property wherein he permitted his son and the defendant to live on the first floor of his house. Defendant started harassing the plaintiff who is old and handicapped along with his wife.

Suit for Eviction

In view of the above incident, the plaintiff asked his son to vacate the house with the defendant, who later came back and refused to vacate the house. Hence suit for eviction was filed against the defendant.

Substantial question in the present appeal

(I) Whether as per definition of shared household provided under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 appellant daughter-in-law can be evicted without seeking a decree of eviction against son with whom she had admittedly moved on the first floor of the suit property after the marriage of the son of the plaintiff with appellant?

Supreme Court in its decision, S.R. Batra v. Tarun Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169, while considering the aspect of “shared household” held that where the plaintiff is the exclusive owner, it cannot be called a “shared household”. The wife’s claim for alternative accommodation against the plaintiff was rejected and was held that it can be claimed only against the husband and not against the in-laws or other relatives.

S.R. Batra v. Tarun Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169: a shared household would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member.

Hence, in the Court’s opinion, no substantial question of law arose or can be raised in the present second appeal.

Order 1 Rule 3 and Rule 9 CPC

Further, the Court added that, it is not in dispute that the husband was not residing in the suit property and left the house. It is also not being questioned that if parents permit his son to live in their house he would be a licensee. If his wife is also living with him, she would also be a licensee.

Where the son has left and is not residing in the suit property, no relief is being or is claimed against him. Since he is not living in the suit property, question of filing a separate suit or which may attract any common question of law or fact would also not arise.

Lastly, answering the substantial question of law in the negative, bench once again cited the Supreme Court decision in S.R. Batra with regard to the shared household and the argument for counsel for the respondent (wife) that definition of the shared household includes a house where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship was specifically considered and rejected.

Court added that a reading of the said judgment, subject to correction, prima facie, reflects that husband was not a party to the suit and it was held that the claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the in-laws or other relatives.

Therefore, in view of the definition of the shared house, as provided under Section 2 (s) of the Act, 2005 daughter-in-law can be evicted without seeking a decree of eviction against the son with whom she had admittedly moved in the suit property after the marriage of the son of the plaintiff.

In view of the above observations, petition was dismissed. [Sujata Gandhi v. S.B. Gandhi, 2020 SCC OnLine All 763, decided on 12-06-2020]

Hot Off The PressNews

Karnataka High Court directs the State officials to conduct Karnataka Common Entrance Test (CET) exam as per the schedule. No student should be prevented for appearing the exam.

Bench denied to grant interim relief in terms of postponing or cancelling the exam, scheduled to be held on July 30, 31 and August 1, 2020.

Court in it’s yesterday’s Order had directed the Karnataka State government to reconsider the advisability of conducting the Karnataka Common Entrance Test (KCET) 2020 on July 30th, 31st and 1st August in light of the rising number of Covid-19 cases.

High Court has stated  that no Covid positive student should be denied opportunity of writing the examination just because documents are not provided. Authorities shall make sure that conditions in the SOP issued by the Union Ministry of Health and the SOP of state from time to time are scrupulously followed by all.

Authorities to provide transportation to needy students and all logistical support, especially to students and parents from containment zones.

Yesterday’s Decision

The Court passed the order after considering the pleas in three different petitions, all of which sought to have directions issued by the Court ordering the state government to postpone the CET. It was contended that considering the onslaught of the ongoing pandemic, conducting a physical examination was arbitrary and would jeopardize the health of the students, and conducting the same under these circumstances would amount to a violation of their fundamental rights under Article 14, since students in containment zones would not have equal opportunities of attending the exam resulting in a violation of their right to equality, and Article 21.

The Bench observed that more than 5000 new cases had been reported daily in the state in the past fortnight, with 1500 cases emerging daily in Bangalore alone, which has over 5000 containment zones. Since the government SOP prohibits the inhabitants of containment areas from travelling outside and considering that public transport would not be readily available either, the Bench duly noted that there would be a probability of students missing out on the exams.

*The above report has been prepared based on news reports.


Read the detailed Case brief, here:

KCET 2020 | Kar HC | No candidate shall be prevented from attending examination scheduled to be held from 30th July, 2020 [Detailed Brief]

 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Our country has always been proud of progeny like Shravan Kumar, who to fulfill the wish of his poor, blind and ageing parents, took them on a pilgrimage by carrying them on his shoulder in two baskets put on either side of the bamboo stick, and whilst trying to collect water on his way from a stream, to quench the thirst of his parents, became a target of King Dashrath’s arrow.”

–Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of S.J. Kathawalla and N.R. Borkar, JJ., while addressing a matter wherein a 70 year old mother was physically and mentally harassed by one of her daughters,  noted that,

“…it is unfortunate that in the last several years courts are repeatedly witnessing, old parents knocking at its doors, in the twilight years of their lives seeking redressal of their grievances against their children.”

A 70-Year old mother had approached the High Court alleging that she was subjected to mental and physical torture by her daughter (respondent 1).

Court while addressing the said matter stated that, the welfare of the parents / senior citizens is of paramount importance, ascertain the seriousness and correctness of the allegations made, pass appropriate order/s ensuring that no injustice or inconvenience is caused to either party.

Bench in it’s earlier order, when the mother approached the court for relief, had laid down the following order:

Bench assured the petitioner that if she lives in her own flat and face any harassment from respondent 1 or her son, she will be provided all assistance, both by the Court and police authorities.

Installation of CCTV cameras inside the flat has been directed.

Respondent 1 and her son, both have been sternly warned . Senior Inspector of local police station under who jurisdiction the flat come has been directed to give all assistance to the petitioner.

Respondent 1 and her son will not obstruct entry of any of the relatives whom petitioner wants to meet. Also respondent 1 and her son are not allowed to invite or bring any of their guests to the flat without prior permission of petitioner through her advocate.

What is the present situation in the above matter?

Respondent 1 daughter has filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner mother was reacting/over-reacting at the instance of her other sibling namely her sister – Vaishali, who has admittedly temporarily come down with her family from Singapore.

Petitioner refusing the above made an offer to allow respondent 1 and her son to reside in one of her flats at Nalasopara on and from 15th July, 2020 and only on her agreement petitioner would be able to come back to her flat for the remainder of her life and stay in peace.

Court was happy to note that respondent 1 daughter and her son have undertaken to vacate the said flat with a period of 8 weeks.

Keeping the interest of the family and their rights, in mind, Court passed the following order:

  • Undertaking given by the respondent 1 and her son that they will vacate the flat with 8 weeks — is accepted.
  • If the Respondent 1 along with her son, are unable to find premises on leave and license basis within a period of 08 weeks from today, the Petitioner shall allow them to reside in her fat at Nalasopara, until they find a premises of their choice on leave and license basis.
  • Respondent 1 shall pay maintenance charges, electricity, telephone, etc. for the period that she and her son occupy the flat at Nalasopara.
  • Petitioner shall move to her flat once respondent 1 and her son vacate the flat.
  • Since the share certificate issued by the Society admittedly stands in the sole name of the husband of the Petitioner, who passed away intestate on 26th January, 2011, the Petitioner shall not sell, alienate, encumber and part with possession or create third party rights in respect of the said fat during her lifetime, without seeking permission of this Court and without giving notice to all the legal heirs of her husband. However, the Petitioner will be entitled to execute her Will and bequeath her share in the said fat to person/s of her choice.
  • If any of the daughters of the Petitioner and / or any other relatives or any person starts residing in the said fat along with the Petitioner as a Caretaker, such person shall vacate the said fat immediately upon the demise of the Petitioner and shall not make any claim on the said fat, on the ground that he / she / they were residing therein along with the Petitioner.
  • Since Curt has not finally determined any allegations made by either parties, it is made clear that non on the allegations stand established. Petitioner or their family members/ or any other persons hall not publicise any allegations against each other in any manner whatsoever .

Matter was disposed off in the above terms. [Rajani B. Somkuwar v. Sarita Somkuwar, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 722  , decided on 19-06-2020]


Also Read:

Bom HC | “If children cannot take care of their parents and allow them to live in peace, they atleast ought not to make their life a living hell”; Court sternly warns daughter to not harass mother physically & mentally

Hot Off The PressNews

As reported by PTI, the Supreme Court Bench comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph, JJ., allowed the CBI’s appeal challenging the acquittal of dentist couple in the 2008 Aarushi Talwar’s murder case and domestic help Hemraj.

ASG Maninder Singh, on behalf of CBI, had referred the plea filed by domestic help Hemraj’s wife for which the Supreme Court bench stated that CBI’s appeal would be heard along with it.

The Allahabad High Court had acquitted Talwars from all the charges on the basis that conviction cannot be based on suspicion and further adding that CBI had failed to prove “guilt beyond reasonable doubt”. [CBI v. Nupur Talwar, Order dated 10-08-2018]