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

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more