Latest news with #ManojMisra
News18
4 days ago
- News18
'Judicial Balance To Be Struck In Grant Of Alimony': SC Raises Settlement Amount From Rs 1 L To Rs 5 L
Last Updated: The Supreme Court observed that the fact that the husband is not earning does not absolve him of the obligation to maintain his wife The Supreme Court has said that the objective of granting permanent alimony is to ensure that, in a marriage that does not survive and has one of the two spouses dependent on the other, such a spouse is not left without any source of support. At the same time, it is clear that the grant of permanent alimony cannot be a method of punishing the spouse who is asked to pay the said amount. A judicious balance has to be struck between the interests of both parties, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra said. The court here enhanced the alimony awarded by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to an appellant wife from Rs one lakh to Rs five lakh. The High Court, by its judgement and order of June 2, 2022, confirmed the decree of divorce granted in favour of the respondent-husband, as originally granted by the Family Court, Faridabad, on December 14, 2018. The High Court further ordered that the respondent-husband would pay the appellant-wife a sum of Rs one lakh as alimony. The appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married on November 9, 2008. Soon thereafter, it was alleged that harassment of the former began at the hands of the latter's family. This culminated, according to the appellant-wife, with her being turned away from her matrimonial home on January 5, 2011, after being physically assaulted. A few months thereafter, litigation began inter se the parties in one form or another. The respondent-husband at first filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955; the appellant-wife thereafter filed an FIR on November 15, 2011, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. Prior thereto, she also filed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, on May 26, 2011. The divorce proceedings were initiated by the respondent-husband on March 25, 2013. In its pendency, protracted and acrimonious litigation ensued between the parties. In the proceedings under the DV Act, the concerned court awarded Rs 2,000 per month to the appellant-wife. On September 17, 2016, she filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which eventually resulted in an order in her favour granting Rs 6,000 per month as maintenance on September 5, 2019. The order of Rs 2,000 per month maintenance in the DV Act proceedings was also appealed against and was enhanced to Rs 5,000 per month by an order on January 20, 2018. The Additional Principal Family Judge, Faridabad, passed the judgment and decree on December 14, 2018, dissolving the marriage. The High Court confirmed the grant of dissolution of marriage and awarded Rs one lakh alimony to the appellant wife. Examining the matter limited to the quantum of alimony, the bench cited Parvin Kumar Jain Vs Anju Jain (2025), which, upon considering a host of pronouncements, culled out a non-exhaustive list of factors that a court must consider in granting permanent alimony, including status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife and children, individual qualifications and employment status, independent income and assets, standard of life enjoyed by the wife, etc. The court also referred to Rajnesh Vs Neha, in which the Supreme Court observed that in computing permanent alimony, the fact that the husband is not earning (as the respondent-husband has submitted in his counter affidavit) does not absolve him of the obligation to maintain his wife. It has also been held that if the wife has been awarded maintenance in any other proceeding, she must disclose the same, and a set-off must take place. Having considered the law, the bench said, 'We are of the view that the High Court's determination of permanent alimony at Rs one lakh is insufficient. As such, in the attending facts and circumstances of this case, and without interfering with the final conclusion reached by both the Family Court and the High Court regarding the grant of divorce, we enhance the permanent alimony to be paid by the respondent-husband to the appellant wife by a sum of Rs four lakhs, bringing the total thereof to Rs five lakh." The court clarified that this would be a full and final settlement of all claims. It also said the amount would be payable in 10 equal instalments, with the final instalment being payable in the month of March 2026. The bench further held that the effect of this order would be that all other proceedings regarding maintenance stand subsumed by this payment. Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 18, 2025, 04:15 IST News india 'Judicial Balance To Be Struck In Grant Of Alimony': SC Raises Settlement Amount From Rs 1 L To Rs 5 L
News18
30-05-2025
- Politics
- News18
'All Disabilities Must Get Equal Treatment': SC Strikes Down Discriminatory Retirement Policy
Last Updated: The Court observed that such arbitrary distinctions among differently-abled individuals violate the principles enshrined in disability rights legislation. The Supreme Court has recently held that prescribing different retirement ages based on the nature of disability amounts to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court observed that such arbitrary distinctions among differently-abled individuals violate the principles enshrined in disability rights legislation and entitle all benchmark disabilities to equal service benefits, including retirement age. The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice KV Viswanathan made the observation in the case of a 60 per cent locomotor-disabled electrician who was compulsorily retired at the age of 58 by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, even though visually impaired employees were allowed to serve until 60 years under an Office Memorandum (OM) dated March 29, 2013. The Appellant challenged the policy as discriminatory and violative of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and its successor, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). His representations before the State Administrative Tribunal and the Himachal Pradesh High Court were dismissed, prompting an Appeal to the Supreme Court. In a detailed order, the Court set aside the impugned policy, holding that all benchmark disabilities under the RPwD Act, 2016 form a single homogenous class for the purpose of service-related benefits and must be treated uniformly. 'Prescribing different retirement ages for employees based solely on the nature of their disability is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. There appeared no intelligible basis to confer the benefit of age extension to one disabled category and deny it to the other when both are specified under the 1995 and 2016 Acts," the Court observed. It added that while the visually impaired were granted a two-year extension under the 2013 OM, the same benefit should have been extended to all employees suffering from any benchmark disability, including locomotor disability, as listed under the applicable disability laws. The Court relied on its previous affirmation of the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), where it was held that parity in service benefits must be maintained across all disability categories covered by the PwD and RPwD Acts. While the Court upheld the state's subsequent withdrawal of the OM on November 4, 2019, under the General Clauses Act, it recognized the appellant's legitimate expectation to continue employment until the withdrawal date. Therefore, the appellant was held entitled to the benefit of the extension in retirement age up to that point. 'Such discrimination offends not only Article 14 but also undermines the very spirit of the disability rights framework that envisions equal opportunity and full participation of persons with disabilities," the Court remarked. Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the appeal. 'The impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2021 of the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition of the appellant is set aside. The appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of continuance in service until 04.11.2019. In consequence, he shall be entitled to full wages from 01.10.2018 to 04.11.2019, with all consequential benefits that may impact his pension," it ordered. Sukriti Mishra, a Lawbeat correspondent, graduated in 2022 and worked as a trainee journalist for 4 months, after which she picked up on the nuances of reporting well. She extensively covers courts in Delhi. First Published: May 30, 2025, 15:58 IST
Hindustan Times
16-05-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
SC asks West Bengal govt to pay 25% outstanding DA owed to state employees
The Supreme Court on Friday directed the West Bengal government to pay 25 percent of the outstanding dearness allowance (DA) owed to state employees within three months. A division bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra had earlier suggested releasing 50 percent of the pending DA. It however, reconsidered and directed the state to release 25 percent of such dues after senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the state, submitted the government did not have the capacity to disburse such a large amount at once. The Supreme Court passed the interim order while hearing the West Bengal government's appeal against a May 2022 Calcutta high court judgment. Also Read:How did the collegium system change Supreme Court appointments? | Number Theory The high court had directed the state to clear long pending DA arrears and align payments with central government rates. The state challenged this order in the Supreme Court in November 2022, arguing that it lacked the financial capacity to fully comply. While the government has since announced incremental DA hikes, the increases have fallen short of central rates, with a 37 percent gap still remaining. A detailed order from the court is awaited.
Mint
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Mint
How many Supreme Court judges are related to former judges? Here's a closer look
Justice Sanjiv Khanna retired as Chief Justice of India on May 13. His father Justice Hans Raj Khanna, was a Supreme Court judge during the Emergency. Khanna has been replaced by Justice BR Gavai as the new CJI. Justice Gavai took the oath of office on May 14. Gavai's father was a politician. Currently, there are 32 judges in the Supreme Court, including CJI Gavai. Of these at least 11 Judges are closely related to former judges. About 10 SC judges had fathers who were lawyers. Among the existing SC judges, Justice Manoj Misra's grandfather and father were both prominent lawyers in the Allahabad High Court, according to a recent report in The Print. Justice Misra was elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on February 06, 2023. Justice Misra's two sons Raghuvansh Misra and Devansh Misra are advocates. Raghuvansh is married to Kalpana Sinha, the daughter of former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Vipin Sinha, whose father Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha delivered the famous Allahabad High Court judgment that invalidated the election of then prime minister Indira Gandhi in 1975. There are other examples. Justice BV Nagarathna is in line to become the CJI in 2027. Her father was former Chief Justice of India Justice ES Venkataramiah. -Justice Bela M Trivedi retires this week from Supreme Court of India. Her father was in judicial services too. -Justice PS Narasimha's father Justice Kodanda Ramaiah was a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. -Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia's father was a judge of the Allahabad High Court. -Justice Dipankar Datta's father was former Calcutta HC Judge, Late Justice SK Datta. -Justice Pankaj Mithal's father Justice Narendra Nath Mithal was judge of Allahabad High Court -Justice Sandeep Mehta is related to former SC judge Justice GS Singhvi. -Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale's father was also a judge at Bombay High Court -Justice N Koitiswar Singh's father, Late Justice N Ibotombi Singh worked at the Gauhati High Court. -Justice Abhay S Oka's father Shreeniwas W Oka was a layer in Thane -Justice Vikram Nath began his career as a third -generation lawyer while Justice MM Sindresh's father VK Muthusumy was a senior advocate in Madras -Justice JB Pardiwala's great grand-father Navrojji Bhikhaji practiced in 1894 at Valsad. -Just Sanjay Kumar's father P Ramachandra Reddy, is a former Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh. -Justice Manoj Misra started as a third-generation lawyer while Justice PK Mishra's father was also a lawyer. -Justice KV Viswanathan's father has been a public prosecutor in Coimbatore while Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's father SN Bhuyan was a senior advocate in Assam. -Justice Joymalya Bagchi's father was also an advocate. -CJI Justice BR Gavai comes from a non-legal background. His father was a politician. Justice Gavai's father Ramakrishna Suryabhan Gavai was a well-known Ambedkarite leader and founder of the Republican Party of India. His followers and admirers fondly called him Dadasaheb. A Lok Sabha MP from Amravati, Ramakrishna Gavai served as Governor of Bihar, Sikkim, and Kerala between 2006 and 2011, when the Congress-led UPA was in power at the Centre. -Justice SC Sharma's father, Dr BN Sharma was a veteran agriculturalist who taught at Jabalpur University. Justice Gavai comes from a non-legal background, yet has risen to prominence in the judiciary. -Justice R Mahadevan's father was a Tamil writer. -Justice Manmohan's father was a bureaucrat-turned-politician Jagmogan. After working with the Congress party, Jagmohan joined the Bharatiya Janata Party in 1995. He served as Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Goa, as the 5th Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, and for three terms as Member of Parliament for New Delhi. In the cabinet, he served as Union Minister for Urban Development and Tourism.
Time of India
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court recognizes implied consent in live-in relationships, dismisses rape charges
Recognising the growing trend of live-in relationships , the Supreme Court has noted that when two consenting adults live together for an extended period, it can be presumed that they have willingly entered into such an arrangement with full understanding of its implications. As a result, claims that the relationship was based solely on a promise of marriage may not hold merit. #Operation Sindoor India-Pakistan Clash Live Updates| Missiles, shelling, and attacks — here's all that's happening Pakistani Air Force jet shot down in Pathankot by Indian Air Defence: Sources India on high alert: What's shut, who's on leave, and state-wise emergency measures While dismissing rape charges against a man filed by his live-in partner, a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra observed that since the physical relationship lasted for over two years without any interim complaint, it can be presumed that the consent for both initiating and continuing the relationship was valid. 'A decade or two earlier, live-in relationships might not have been common. But now more and more women are financially independent and have the capacity to take conscious decision of charting their life on their own terms. This financial freedom, inter alia, has led to proliferation of such live-in relationships. Therefore, when a matter of this nature comes to a court, it must not adopt a pedantic approach rather the court may, based on the length of such relationship and conduct of the parties, presume implied consent of the parties to be in such a relationship regardless of their desire or a wish to convert it into a marital bond,' the court said. [With TOI inputs]
