court can creat charge on movables under special circumstances - their lordships created charge on retirement benefits of husband for permanent alimony claims of wife and daughter under sec.25 of Hinu Marriage Act

court can creat charge on movables under special circumstances - their lordships created charge on retirement benefits of husband for permanent alimony claims of wife and daughter under sec.25 of Hinu Marriage Act
Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act)
for grant of Rs.25,00,000/- towards her permanent alimony and
Rs.20,00,000/- to Kumari K. Navya, (the daughter of the
petitioner and the respondent), towards her maintenance,
education and marriage expenses.
The petitioner requests this
Court to create a charge over the G.P.F. and other retiral
benefits of the respondent,
While Section 25 of the Act provides for creation of a
charge on immovable property for securing payment of
permanent alimony, the respondent denies having any
immovable property and, despite alleging that he has a house
and a plot at Vanasthalipuram and Desaipet, the petitioner has
been unable to produce any evidence in this regard.  In the
absence of any evidence in support of the petitioners plea, this
Court must proceed on the premise that the respondent does
not have any immovable property.
 Should this Court then fold
its hands, and express its inability to come to the aid of a single
mother who has been struggling for the past seventeen years not
only to make both ends meet, but also to provide for the
education of their daughter for the past several years?
 The
answer can only be in the negative.  It cannot be lost sight of
that the law does not remain static, and does not operate in a
vacuum. As social norms and values change, laws too have to be
reinterpreted, and recast. Law is really a dynamic instrument
fashioned by society for the purposes of achieving harmonious
adjustment, human relations by elimination of social tensions
and conflicts. Law does not stand still; it moves continuously.
Once this is recognised, then the task of a judge is put on a
higher plane. He must consciously seek to mould the law so as
to serve the needs of the time


we direct that the permanent alimony, payable
by the respondent to the petitioner in terms of the order now
passed by this Court, shall be secured by way of a charge over
the retiral/terminal benefits of the respondent.  The charge
shall, however, be limited only to such of those retiral benefits
for which there is no statutory prohibition for creation of a
charge or attachment.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)