Latest news with #FamilyCourt
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- General
- NZ Herald
High Court judge criticises Oranga Tamariki, awards $108,000 to former foster parents
However, in 2021 Oranga Tamariki decided Moana should be removed from the Smiths and placed with a Māori mother and daughter in Wellington. The pair, the elderly 'Mrs Taipa' and her adult daughter 'Ms Taipa', were already caring for Moana's younger brother. Oranga Tamariki has been criticsed by more than one judge over the case. Photo / RNZ The Smiths successfully contested the bid in the Family Court, with Judge Peter Callinicos ruling in their favour and taking aim at Oranga Tamariki, its chief executive and members of its staff for putting ideology ahead of Moana's best interests, Stuff reported at the time. The girl's iwi also wanted her removed, telling Stuff they didn't think the Smiths could meet her cultural needs, but the couple claimed Oranga Tamariki had scuttled their attempts to provide cultural support. Moana had bonded with the Smiths and a new placement risked further psychological trauma, Judge Callinicos said at the time, outlining a plan where all parties could have input into the then 6-year-old's upbringing, including meeting her educational, cultural and health needs. An appeal to the High Court – made by Moana's mother with the support of Oranga Tamariki – was dismissed in November 2022. The Smiths subsequently applied for just over $108,000 indemnity costs against Oranga Tamariki. In a recently released High Court ruling Justice Helen Cull found in the couple's favour. Although it was Moana's mother who appealed the Family Court decision, Oranga Tamariki had supported her, Cull said. Fresh allegations were also made that the couple wasn't providing for Moana's cultural needs. 'I accept the Smiths' submission that there was a campaign by OT [Oranga Tamariki] against them to discredit them and this was pursued on appeal. 'The egregious aspect of this approach is that [Oranga Tamariki] continued to discredit and undermine the Smiths on appeal … the Smiths had no other option than to defend themselves in order to continue to care for Moana, to whom they were committed.' The case was also the principal case on which the amended provisions of the OT Act were considered and interpreted, Cull said. 'It drew significant public attention because a Pākehā couple, who had cared for a Māori child, were under scrutiny for their lack of cultural background and connection.' It was clear there'd been a policy change within the agency after Moana's placement with the Smiths, which was being driven by the organisation's senior management, she said. 'This led the frontline social workers to prioritise kinship placement over other considerations, such as the psychological attachment of Moana to the caregivers.' The Smiths stopped being Moana's foster parents after the appeal because 'ongoing personal attacks' made their living situation 'untenable', Mrs Smith told Stuff. 'I do hope she's safe and happy wherever she is, because that's all we ever wanted for her.' It 'spoke volumes' that indemnity costs were awarded, given they were done so only in 'exceptional circumstances', Smith told Stuff. Cherie Howie is an Auckland-based reporter who joined the Herald in 2011. She has been a journalist for more than 20 years and specialises in general news and features.
News18
21-07-2025
- News18
No Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act After Marriage Declared Void: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court (HC) noted that the declaratory decree annulling the marriage had attained finality The Allahabad High Court recently set aside interim maintenance granted to a woman whose marriage was judicially declared void ab initio. A bench of Justice Rajeev Misra allowed a criminal revision filed by a man, challenging two orders passed by the courts below in Ghaziabad that had directed him to pay Rs 10,000 per month as interim maintenance to his estranged wife. The court held that once the marriage itself was declared void, no domestic relationship survived to support a claim under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The couple married in 2015, but the relationship soon soured, leading to multiple FIRs filed by the wife against the man and his relatives. However, in a twist, it came to light during the anticipatory bail hearing in one of these cases that the wife was already married at the time of her wedding with the man. This fact, initially concealed, was later admitted in court. Subsequently, the man initiated proceedings under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a declaration that the marriage was void. The Family Court in Karkardooma, Delhi, granted the relief in 2021, and the wife's appeal against it was dismissed as withdrawn by the Delhi High Court in 2022. Despite this, the wife continued pursuing a domestic violence complaint filed in 2016, and in 2022, the Ghaziabad trial court granted her interim maintenance, which was upheld by the appellate court in 2023. The man approached the high court challenging both orders. Setting aside the decision of both the courts below, Justice Misra ruled that, 'Once the marriage of the parties itself has been declared void-ab-initio, the subsequent relationship between the parties is of no consequence. As such, the factual position, which has emerged on record is that there is no relationship between the parties in terms of Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005". The court noted that the declaratory decree annulling the marriage had attained finality and would relate back to the date of the marriage, effectively erasing its legal existence from inception. Without such a foundational relationship, the court held, the woman could not be deemed an 'aggrieved person" under the DV Act. The judge also cited the Supreme Court's rulings in D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal and Deoki Panjhiyara vs. Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad, reiterating that a void marriage does not give rise to rights under the Domestic Violence Act, unless there is a valid finding of a relationship in the nature of marriage. Accordingly, the high court quashed the trial and appellate court orders, concluding that the woman had no legal entitlement to interim maintenance. The parties were directed to bear their own costs. view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
NZ Herald
20-07-2025
- Business
- NZ Herald
Can I stop my ex from running down his business? – The Ex-Files
Q: What can I do about the company's value and my share of the watches? A: I am very sorry about your separation and the problems you are having with your ex. You will need to engage a family lawyer and likely receive advice from an accountant to resolve these matters. Company value Generally, the date at which the value of any relationship property is determined is the date of any hearing or settlement. However, the court has discretion in section 2G(2) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 to decide that the value should be determined as at another date. Further, you can apply under the act for compensation when relationship property has been materially diminished in value by the deliberate action or inaction of one party during the period between separation and the date of any hearing. You must get expert advice on the company and what has occurred during the relationship and post-separation. You will also need to gather as much information as possible to demonstrate your ex has deliberately caused the value of the shares to become worthless or at least to reduce in value. This may include correspondence between you and your ex or with another party, financial statements and other documents. If you are unable to obtain these documents, you may need to seek disclosure from your ex or pursue disclosure through the court process. Another option would be to take over the business yourself. Watches If the watches have been acquired during your relationship then they will be relationship property to which you are entitled a share. First, it will be necessary to understand the total amount, make, condition and age of the watches. Once you have all these details, we would strongly suggest obtaining a valuation of the collection. You should also look through recent bank statements, say three years, to determine the amount spent on watches during that period. If you cannot obtain those bank statements because they are in the other party's name and not joint names, then a request would need to be made to the opposing lawyer or even by filing for discovery in the Family Court. Summary These matters require valuation evidence, which in most cases will require the involvement of an accountant or other expert. You will generally need to move quickly to preserve any asset and discover its value.
Khaleej Times
18-07-2025
- Khaleej Times
UAE: Woman ordered to pay Dh30,000 for insulting another woman on social media
A woman has been ordered to pay Dh30,000 in compensation after insulting another woman on social media, according to a ruling by the Abu Dhabi Family, Civil, and Administrative Claims Court, as reported by Emarat Al Youm. The court also directed the defendant to bear all legal costs and associated expenses. The case began when the plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit, claiming that the defendant insulted her by posting offensive comments on her photos, as well as sending private messages via a social networking app. The incident triggered a separate criminal case, which resulted in a conviction. The victim stated that the defendant's actions caused her emotional and psychological harm, prompting her to seek Dh150,000 in damages for both moral and material losses. She also requested that the defendant pay court costs and attorney fees. In its ruling, the court emphasised that evaluating the facts, assessing the evidence, and determining whether a wrongful act occurred are all within its authority, as long as the conclusions are reasonable and based on the case documents. The court confirmed that the criminal case files proved the defendant had used "insulting language through an electronic means of communication," according to Emarat Al Youm. In its ruling, the court clarified that moral harm includes damage to a person's dignity, emotions, reputation, or sense of honuor. Citing the UAE Civil Transactions Law, the court stated: 'Anyone who causes harm to another must compensate for the damage.' As a result, the court awarded the plaintiff Dh30,000 for moral damages, recognising the emotional suffering caused by the defendant's actions. However, it dismissed the claim for material damages, noting that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence of financial loss.
India Today
18-07-2025
- India Today
Court backs divorce after wife fails to respond to husband's reconciliation efforts
The Bombay High Court has upheld a divorce decree granted by the Pune Family Court, observing that the wife made no sincere effort to resume cohabitation despite the husband's attempts to reconcile, including moving out of his family home and renting a separate apartment for couple, who married on December 12, 2013, separated just a year later in December 2014. Matrimonial proceedings began in wife had approached the High Court, challenging the Family Court's 2019 judgment which dismissed her petition for restitution of conjugal rights and allowed the husband's counterclaim for divorce. The bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale noted that repeated mediation attempts had failed. The court also took note of the husband's unchallenged testimony that he had rented a flat and invited his wife to live there, but she never showed wife's allegations included harassment by in-laws, being forced to do housework and pressure to agree to mutual divorce. She also claimed her jewellery was taken and that her consent to the divorce was obtained by the court found contradictions in her statements, including her own admission that the household had multiple husband, on the other hand, sought divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. He alleged that the wife left without notice, mistreated his specially-abled sister, refused physical intimacy and made false accusations of extra-marital High Court held that the wife's conduct amounted to cruelty, noting her humiliating behavior in front of others and indifference towards the husband's family. The court said, 'The husband's unrefuted evidence clearly shows he suffered mental cruelty.'The bench concluded that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. It also rejected the wife's claim that she was deserted, noting that the husband had taken steps to live separately from his family and offered her a chance to rebuild the court also denied her plea for Rs 1,00,000 monthly maintenance and said that no such application was filed before the Family judgment affirms the Family Court's findings and highlights the wife's lack of genuine interest in reconciliation.- EndsTune InMust Watch
