Sunday, 26 October 2014

HC nullifies man's third marriage under Hindu Act

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has come to the rescue of a Pune resident who claimed that he was forcibly married to his third wife.

A division bench of Justice Vijaya Kapse Tahilramani and Justice A R Joshi declared that the 2009 marriage of Dilip Patil to Seema Patil (names changed) was "null and void" as his second wife was alive at the time of the marriage.

The court cited provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, which says that the marriage was "void if any of the parties has a spouse living at the time of the marriage."When Dilip got married to Seema on July 16, 2009, his earlier marriage with Sheetal was still in existence. Thus he had a spouse living on (the day of his third marriage). Hence, their marriage is clearly a void marriage," observed the judges.

Dilip married Sheetal in 2003 after his first wife died in 2000. He has a son from each of his two marriages.
Print Page

Remedy to person who is affected due to violation of guidelines of supreme court 66A of IT Act, 2000

Jaswinder Singh Obhan, a businessman, is a bitter man today. He spent 21 days in the Central prison at Parappana Agrahara after being arrested in April this year before being released on bail.
He was arrested by Ulsoor police under Section 66A of Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, acting on a complaint that he spread canards about the complainant on online forums.
He may have been saved the ordeal if the police had implemented a May 2013 Supreme Court order that mandates prior approval of a senior officer before any arrest under Section 66A of the IT Act.
Mr. Obhan has written to Chief Secretary Kaushik Mukherjee demanding an inquiry into his arrest, which he claims was in violation of the Supreme Court order. He has also demanded suspension of all officers responsible for his arrest.
“The State police woke up to the Supreme Court order only after I sought papers regarding my arrest. Who is responsible for the ordeal that my family and I went through? This is contempt of court,” he stated.
He has lodged a complaint with National Human Rights Commission.
On October 9, 2014, Director General and Inspector General of Police Lalrukhoma Pachau issued a circular directing implementation of the order. He attributed the delay to the time taken to communicate the order to the State government and in turn to the police. He promised to look into Mr. Obhan’s case.
What does Section 66A of IT Act, 2000, say?
Print Page

HC issues guidelines for preserving electronic records

The Delhi High Court has issued guidelines to the subordinate criminal courts, where evidence, including that obtained through video conference, and statements of parties are recorded electronically during the trial, to preserve the digital records after uploading their copies to a central server.
Justice S. Muralidhar laid down the principles for preserving the electronic records over the weekend while setting aside a trial court’s order convicting an employee of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in a corruption case.
The judge observed that the trial court had overlooked the discrepancies in the evidence produced before it.
The counsel for the DDA employee, Surender Singh, who appealed against the trial court’s verdict of 2008, pointed out during the hearing in the High Court that the soft copy of Mr. Singh’s statement was not available on the hard disk of the trial court’s computer on which it was typed.
When counsel Sunil Mittal approached the trial court, he was informed that Mr. Singh’s statement, recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was not available.
Important document
Print Page

Whether Husband can be denied custody of child merely because husband was seen with a lady?

Don’t poison kids’ minds, HC says, allows dad access to girls

MUMBAI: The Family court in Bandra made Diwali doubly bright for a city industrialist this year after granting him a seven-day overnight access to his two little daughters but not before admonishing the "elite class" south Mumbai couple, battling a divorce case for three years, for having "no value for justice at their doorstep" and wondering if their case could be transferred to "remote Nagpur" to teach a lesson. 

Judge I M Bohari who granted the access, observed that the couple, both highly qualified—he has a management degree from Jamnalal Bajaj and a US university, she has a masters in dental surgery from Nair hospital—were "indulging in mud slinging not just against each other but also against judges". The judge wondered "if Chief Justice of the Bombay high court could be requested to transfer the case to a remote place like Nagpur so that the husband and wife will learn the value of justice from the suffering." 
Print Page