Latest news with #ChhattisgarhHC
Deccan Herald
6 days ago
- Deccan Herald
Denying physical relationship to husband, suspecting him of affair is ground for divorce: HC
Mumbai: Denial of physical relationship to husband and suspecting him of an extra-marital affair amounts to cruelty and is hence a ground for divorce, the Bombay High Court held while refusing relief to a woman challenging a family court's divorce order.A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale on Thursday said the woman's conduct can be construed as "cruelty" against her court dismissed the woman's petition challenging a family court order allowing the man's plea for divorce. The woman had also sought direction to her husband to pay her a monthly maintenance of Rs 1 divorced on grounds of adultery not entitled to maintenance: Chhattisgarh HC. The couple got married in 2013, but started living separately in December 2014. In 2015, the man approached the family court in Pune seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty, which was woman, in her plea, stated that her in-laws had harassed her, but she still had love for her husband and hence, does not wish for the marriage to man, however, claimed cruelty on several grounds, including denial of physical intimacy, suspecting him of having extra-marital affairs and causing mental agony by embarrassing him in front of his family, friends and to consummate marriage, denial of physical intimacy amounts to mental cruelty: MP High Court. He further claimed that his wife deserted him when she left his house and went to her parents' home."The appellant's (woman) behaviour with the man's employees is sure to cause agony to him. Similarly, humiliating the man in front of his friends is also cruelty to him," the high court noted that the woman's apathetic and indifferent behaviour with the man's specially abled sister is also sure to cause pain to him and his family members, the court court, while dismissing the woman's plea, said the marriage between the couple is broken without any possibility of being mended.
Indian Express
6 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Supreme Court upholds equal inheritance rights for tribal women
The Supreme Court Thursday held that a tribal woman would be entitled to an equal share in ancestral property. The SC observed that denying a female heir right in the property unless otherwise prescribed in law only exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which the law should weed out. In the absence of a specific law governing intestate succession among Scheduled Tribes, Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi invoked the principle of 'justice, equity and good conscience', extending the provisions of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 to the case and set aside the July 1, 2022 judgement of the Chhattisgarh HC, which had upheld the lower court order denying her the inheritance rights. The appellants, who approached the SC challenging the HC order, were legal heirs of one Dhaiya, a woman from a Scheduled Tribe. Their mother was one of the six children — five sons and one daughter, of Bhajju alias Bhanjan Gond. They sought partition of a property belonging to their maternal grandfather, stating that their mother is entitled to an equal share in the scheduled property. The court noted that the parties not being covered by any other inheritance law, the 1875 Act would apply. Though an argument was raised that the 1875 Act has been repealed in 2018. the bench pointed out that it has a clause which protects transactions before the repeal date. 'So, the right having been accrued in favour of the appellant-plaintiffs' mother upon the death of her father, which was approximately 30 years before the filing of the plaint became crystallised and would not be affected by the fact that the Act was no longer in the statute book,' Justice Karol said writing for the Bench.
Time of India
7 days ago
- Time of India
Marriage doesn't override privacy: Chhattisgarh HC rejects plea for wife's call records
Chhattisgarh HC RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a petition seeking the call detail records (CDR) of a wife's cellphone, observing that privacy is a constitutionally protected right under Article 21, encompassing personal intimacies and the sanctity of marriage. The court stated, 'Marriage does not grant the husband automatic access to the wife's private information, communications, and personal belongings. The husband cannot compel the wife to share her passwords for the cellphone or bank account, and such an act would amount to a violation of privacy and potentially domestic violence. There should be a balance between marital privacy and the need for transparency, and at the same time, trust in the relationship. ' Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey upheld the order passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, which rejected the husband's application for his wife's CDR. The couple married on 4 July 2022, in Sankara, Rajnandgaon. The husband filed for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging a drastic change in his wife's behaviour soon after she visited her parents' house and that she misbehaved with his mother and brother. He also claimed she refused to return with him after going to her parental house again in September-October 2022. The husband initially sought restitution of conjugal rights. Subsequently, the wife filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC and also initiated domestic violence proceedings against her in-laws. A complaint was also lodged at Mahila Thana, Rajnandgaon, against her in-laws. The husband then filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty. The petitioner approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg, on 24 January 2024, and again on 30 November 2023, seeking the wife's CDR, citing doubts about her character. He then moved the Family Court on 12 October 2023, with a similar request. The husband's written arguments before the Family Court alleged that his wife frequently spoke to her brother-in-law (jija) for extended periods, suggesting a possible illicit relationship and stating that the CDR was necessary for the case. The Family Court rejected this application on 27 June 2024. The High Court noted that the divorce petition was filed solely on the ground of cruelty, with no initial allegation of adultery. Such allegations appeared for the first time in the application to the Senior Superintendent of Police and were reiterated in written arguments before the Family Court. Justice Pandey cited the Supreme Court's judgement in KS Puttaswamy and Another vs. Union of India and Others, which held privacy as a fundamental right, and People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, which established the right to privacy in telephone conversations. The court observed that allowing the application for CDR would violate the wife's right to privacy and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. It stated that marriage does not grant a husband automatic access to his wife's private information, communications, and personal belongings, and compelling her to share cellphone or bank account passwords would amount to a violation of privacy and potential domestic violence. The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Family Court's order and dismissed the petition.
Time of India
30-06-2025
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh HC commutes father's life term to 20 years for raping minor daughter; cites victim's consistent testimony
RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh HC has commuted the life imprisonment of a man convicted of raping his minor daughter to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. The court, while upholding the conviction, found the original sentence too harsh considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 'While dealing with the said case, where the victim all throughout maintained her allegation against her father to be the person who committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and thus robbed her chastity. Version of the minor victim, in the facts and circumstances of the case, merits acceptance, inasmuch as, the evidence of rape victim is more reliable than even that of an injured witness. The minor contradictions and discrepancies in her testimony are insignificant and immaterial and are liable to be ignored,' the court observed. A division bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput pronounced the order, in an appeal filed by the 38-year-old father. He had challenged the judgment dated September 19, 2019, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Baikunthpur. The lower court had convicted the father under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 1 lakh. The incident dates back to December 5, 2018, when the then 13-year-old victim reported to the police that her father had sexually assaulted her while she was asleep. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like ¿Padece una enfermedad renal crónica (ERC)? Trialbee Más información Undo The victim disclosed the incident to a relative five days later, leading to the lodging of an FIR on December 20, 2018. During the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. The victim testified that she had pain and bleeding following the rape by her father. She also stated that her father had threatened her not to disclose the incident. Dr. Ayushree Rai, who medically examined the victim, found signs of recent hymen rupture, supporting the prosecution's case. The defence argued that there was an unexplained delay of 15 days in lodging the FIR and that medical evidence did not support the prosecution's claims as no external injuries were found. The High Court, after reviewing the evidence, noted that while there was a delay in reporting the incident, such delays are common in cases involving sexual assault on minors due to social stigma. The court emphasized that the victim's testimony remained consistent and trustworthy across all stages, from the FIR to the cross-examination. The court cited a Supreme Court ruling which states that conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence and is reliable. The bench concluded that the prosecution successfully established its case beyond all reasonable doubt and found no fault in the trial court's decision to hold the accused guilty. However, on the matter of sentencing, the High Court referred to a similar case, Khemchand Rohra v. State of CG, and deemed the life imprisonment sentence to be excessively harsh. The court, therefore, reduced the sentence to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the fine of Rs 1 lakh. (The victim's identity has not been revealed to protect her privacy as per Supreme court directives on cases related to sexual assault)
Time of India
30-06-2025
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh HC reduces father's life term to 20 years for raping minor daughter; cites victim's consistent testimony
RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh HC has commuted the life imprisonment of a man convicted of raping his minor daughter to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. The court, while upholding the conviction, found the original sentence too harsh considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now 'While dealing with the said case, where the victim all throughout maintained her allegation against her father to be the person who committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and thus robbed her chastity. Version of the minor victim, in the facts and circumstances of the case, merits acceptance, inasmuch as, the evidence of rape victim is more reliable than even that of an injured witness. The minor contradictions and discrepancies in her testimony are insignificant and immaterial and are liable to be ignored,' the court observed. A division bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput pronounced the order, in an appeal filed by the 38-year-old father. He had challenged the judgment dated September 19, 2019, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Baikunthpur. The lower court had convicted the father under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 1 lakh. The incident dates back to December 5, 2018, when the then 13-year-old victim reported to the police that her father had sexually assaulted her while she was asleep. The victim disclosed the incident to a relative five days later, leading to the lodging of an FIR on December 20, 2018. During the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. The victim testified that she had pain and bleeding following the rape by her father. She also stated that her father had threatened her not to disclose the incident. Dr. Ayushree Rai, who medically examined the victim, found signs of recent hymen rupture, supporting the prosecution's case. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The defence argued that there was an unexplained delay of 15 days in lodging the FIR and that medical evidence did not support the prosecution's claims as no external injuries were found. The High Court, after reviewing the evidence, noted that while there was a delay in reporting the incident, such delays are common in cases involving sexual assault on minors due to social stigma. The court emphasized that the victim's testimony remained consistent and trustworthy across all stages, from the FIR to the cross-examination. The court cited a Supreme Court ruling which states that conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence and is reliable. The bench concluded that the prosecution successfully established its case beyond all reasonable doubt and found no fault in the trial court's decision to hold the accused guilty. However, on the matter of sentencing, the High Court referred to a similar case, Khemchand Rohra v. State of CG, and deemed the life imprisonment sentence to be excessively harsh. The court, therefore, reduced the sentence to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the fine of Rs 1 lakh. (The victim's identity has not been revealed to protect her privacy as per Supreme court directives on cases related to sexual assault)
