RANJIT GIRI

== राज्य सरकार ने झारसेवा पोर्टल पर तत्काल सेवा प्रांरभ की है। जिसके तहत अब दायर होने वाले आवेदनों के विरुद्ध 10 कार्य दिवस के अन्दर जाति, स्थानीय निवास एवं आय प्रमाण पत्र निर्गत किये जायेगें। इस संबंध में श्रीमती निधि खरे, प्रधान सचिव कार्मिक ने कहा कि झारखण्ड सरकार द्वारा जाति, स्थानीय निवास एवं आय प्रमाण पत्रों आदि कि निर्गमन हेतु झारसेवा पोर्टल पर ‘तत्काल सेवा‘  प्रारंभ की गई है। इस संबंध में उन्होंने सभी उपायुक्तों को निदेष दिया है कि आवेदकों को तत्काल सेवा के तहत ही निर्धारित समयावधि में प्रमाण पत्र निर्गत किया जाना सुनिष्चित किया जाये। श्रीमती खरे ने कहा कि तत्काल सेवा को अत्यंत आकस्मिकता के मामलों को निष्पादित करने हेतु प्रारंभ किया गया है।अतः यह सुनिष्चित किया जाये कि छात्र-छात्राओं को यथा अर्हता प्रमाण पत्र सुलभ करा दिये जाये।   श्रीमती खरे ने कहा कि झारखण्ड राज्य सेवा गांरटी अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत जाति/स्थानीय निवासी/आय प्रमाण पत्र की सेवा उपलब्ध कराने हेतु अधिकत्तम समय सीमा 30 कार्य दिवस निर्धारित है।किंतु कई बार ऐसा देखा गया है नियोजन/नामाकंन/सरकारी योजनाओं के मामले में स

Sanju Devi v. State of Bihar– In this recent case taken up by the Supreme Court, the Court rejected High Court’s order whereby the Petitioner was disentitled from maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the husband and wife had already judicially separated. The Court also remarked that that if a divorced wife is entitled for maintenance then there is no reason why a wife who is judicially separated is not entitled for maintenance.

Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy– In this case, the Supreme Court seminally delved into the issue of enhancement of maintenance under Section 25 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This provision confers discretion on the Court to vary, modify or rescind maintenance order in such manner as the court deems fit. With refer ence to this provision, the Supreme Court remarked that it confers ample power on the Court to vary, modify or discharge any order for permanent alimony or permanent maintenance that may have been made in any proceeding having regard to the “change in the circumstances of the parties”. There must be some change in the circumstances of either party which may have to be taken into account when an application is made under Sub-section (2) of Section 25 for variation, modification or rescission of the order as the Court may deem just. In the case, the Respondent- wife filed review petition. In the earlier order the Court had awarded a maintenanc

Shailja & Anr. v. Khobanna –  In this case, the Supreme Court made a remarkable observation by stating that merely because the wife is capable of earning it is not a reason to reduce the maintenance awarded to her and said that whether a wife is capable of earning and is actually earning are two different factors. In the case, the Family Court had awarded the Appellant-wife an amount of Rs.25,000/-. However, the High Court reduced the amount to Rs.12,000/-. In appeal, the Supreme Court restored the Family Court’s order by opining that  whether the appellant is capable of earning or whether she is actually earning are two different requirements. Merely because the appellant is capable of earning is not, in our opinion, sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.

Manish Jain v. Akansha Jain – In this recent case, decided by the Supreme Court the Court was confronted with the issue of  grant of maintenance pendent lite  under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which provides for  maintenance pendent lite and expenses of proceedings. In context of award of maintenance under Section 24, the Bench made some noteworthy observations in the case which are enumerated below: That the Court exercises a wide discretion in the matter of granting alimony  pendente lite  but the discretion is judicial and neither arbitrary nor capricious. That the Court is to be guided, on sound principles of matrimonial law and to be exercised within the ambit of the provisions of the Act and having regard to the object of the Act. That the Court would not be in a position to judge the merits of the rival contentions of the parties when deciding an application for interim alimony and would not allow its discretion to be fettered by the nature of the allegation

Sukhjinder Singh Saini vs Harvinder Kaur – In this case, the Delhi High Court while deciding the issue of maintenance of child made the following observations: That it is a settled principle of law that both the parents have a legal, moral and social duty to provide to their child the best education and standard of living within their means. That the mere fact that the spouse with whom the child is living is having a source of income, even if sufficient, would in no way absolve the other spouse of his obligation to make his contributiontowards the maintenance and welfare of the child. That monetary relief can be granted to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and the child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence.

Prakash Babulal Dangi v. The State of Maharashtra – In this case, the wife had initially claimed maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and the Court had awarded maintenance of Rs. 6000 to the wife and Rs. 4000 to her minor daughter. While the case under Section 125 of CrPC was pending, a case was filed and an interim  maintenance was sought by the wife under Domestic Violence Act, whereby the husband was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 8000 and Rs. 5000 to wife and daughter respectively. In view of the aforesaid context, the Bombay High Court made reference to Section 36 of Domestic Violence Act, 2015 which entails that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law and held that that the amount of maintenance awarded under the Domestic Violence Act cannot be substituted to the order of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.

Nivya V.M. v. Shivaprasad N.K.– In this case, the Kerala High Court dismissed husband’s claim for maintenance from his wife holding that maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is to be paid to the husband only when he is able to prove any incapability or handicap. The Court also observed that in absence of such circumstances as enumerated above , endowing maintenance on the husband would only promote idleness. The Court also remarked that a husband seeking maintenance from the wife can be treated only as exceptional case as normally he has got the liability or obligation to maintain the wife and vice versa is only exceptional.

Manoj Kumar v. Champa Devi – In this case, the Supreme Court in appeal upheld the order passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, whereby the Court had ordered the husband in the case to grant maintenance to his deserted and divorced wife. In the case, the husband had contended that as the decree of divorce had been passed he was under no obligation to pay maintenance to the wife as contemplated under Section 125(4) of CrPC. However, the High Court held that a divorced woman continues to enjoy the status of ‘wife’ for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.

Anil v. Mrs. Sunita – In this case, the wife left her husband’s home and resided at her matrimonial home. In the case, the husband also claimed that he went to bring her wife back but she refused. The wife in the case had claimed maintenance from her husband of Rs. 5000. The husband in the case claimed that the wife without any suff icient reason was refusing to stay with him and also that she was an advocate and capable of earning and still was demanding maintenance. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Madhya Pradesh High Court denied maintenance to the wife and observed that in view of the facts of the case, wife resided in her matrimonial home for the first time for 7 days and second time for 12 days and it is alleged that in these 12 days she was harassed. It is practically impossible that she could have been so harassed that it is impossible for her to live in her matrimonial home. After 12 days she had voluntarily gone with her brother with a view to select a girl fo

बोकारोः धनबाद में एक अधिवक्ता पर हुए हमला कि इंडियन एसोसिएसन आॅफ लाॅयर्स, पीपुल्स फाॅर जस्टिस, बोकारो एडभोकेट कल्ब, महिला एडभोकेट कल्ब संयुक्त रूप से बैठक कर निंदा कि है। अधिवक्ताओं को संबोधित करते हुए इंडियन एसोसिएसन आॅफ लाॅयर्स, के नेशनल काउसिंल मेंबर अधिवक्ता रणजीत गिरि ने कहा कि धनबाद में झरीया विधायक संजीव सिंह का न्यायालय में पैरवी करेन वाले अधिवक्ता मो. जावेद उर्फ़ शाहीद अली पर सोमवार कि शाम  कोर्ट से घर लौटते समय झरिया-धनबाद मुख्य मार्ग पर हमला किया गया जिसमें वे बाल बाल बच गये। गिरि ने सरकार से अधिवक्ताओं को सुरक्षा कि गारंटी देने कि मांग कि साथ ही साथ यह भी मांग कि कि झारखंड सरकार विधान सभा में एडभोकेट प्रोटेकसन बिल लाये ताकि अधिवक्तागण अपना काम बिना कोई भय एवं दवाब के कर सके और मुव्वकिलों का न्याय दिला सके। यदि सरकार हमारी मांगो पर विचार नहीं करेगा तो अधिवक्तागण अपने मांगों पर दवाब बानाने के लिए आंदोलन करने पर बाध्य हो जाएगें। सभा कि अध्यक्षता अधिवक्ता संजय कुमार प्रसाद ने किया और धन्यवाद ज्ञापन रंजन कुमार मिश्रा ने किया। इस अवसर पर अधिवक्ता विजय कुमार, प्रवीण कुमार, फटिक

SC: Superior Court cannot Direct Subordinate Court to Pass an Order ============================================= Madan Mohan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. December 14, 2017 In this recent judgment passed by the Supreme Court, the Court recognizes the principle of judicial independence of Courts and categorically states that the same cannot be interfered with by any Court including the Superior Court. Background- In the case, the Appellant initially filed an application before the Session Judge to take cognizance of offence alleged to be committed by Respondent no. 2 and 3. The Appellant’s contention was that Respondent no. 2 and 3 figured prominently in all material documents filed alongwith the charge sheet and without any justifiable reason their names were deleted from the charge sheet. The Sessions Judge, by order allowed the application finding prima facie case against respondent Nos.2 and 3 and accordingly summoned both by issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest agains

SC: Set up 12 Special Courts to Take Cases against Politicians ================================================ Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India Date of Judgement: December 14, 2017 In this case, taken up the Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court yesterday the Court has directed setting up of Special Courts i.e. 12 Fast Track Courts to take up cases presently pending against the elected MPs/MLAs in respect of which jurisdiction will be exercised by one Special Court. In this case, the Petitioner sought life time ban on convicted politicians from contesting Elections. While passing the aforesaid verdict, the Supreme Court Bench has clarified that the aforesaid set up is a tentative measure and is subject to modification on the further information collected by the Union of India in the case. The Supreme Court remarked that setting up of Special Courts, a scheme, though, rudimentary at this stage, has been placed before the Court the essence of which is that based on c

-------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court today held that a claim for fee made by an advocate based on the percentage of decretal amount is an act against public policy and amounts to professional misconduct. A Bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit also held that such a claim cannot form the basis of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment was rendered in an appeal filed against a decision of the Andhra Pradesh & Telangana High Court. Advocate K Parameshwar appeared for the appellant B Sunitha while Senior Advocate Rakesh Kumar Khanna appeared for the respondents. The appellant’s husband had died in a motor accident in 1998. She had filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) through the respondent advocate T Sharath. The MACT awarded compensation to the appellant. The appellant had paid a sum of Rs.10 lakhs towards fee to the respondent on various dates. However, the respondent forced the app