Latest news with #MoushumiBhattacharya
New Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Telangana HC quashes SC/ST case against CM Revanth
HYDERABAD: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of the Telangana High Court on Thursday quashed proceedings in Crime No. 15/2015 registered against Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy under the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case was pending before the Special Sessions Judge at LB Nagar. The high court allowed Revanth's petition, finding no factual or legal basis for the allegations. Justice Bhattacharya observed that Revanth, listed as Accused No. 3, was not present at the alleged scene. The complainant disputed this, but the judge found the charges were not supported by evidence. The judge noted that the case, filed in 2019, did not reflect facts stated in the chargesheet. The complaint involved allegations of caste abuse against N Peddi Raju, director of the SC Housing Society in Razole. Revanth's brother Kodanda Reddy and another person were also named. Before the ruling, the complainant's counsel informed the court about a plea in the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the case. The judge stated the court was bound to deliver its order regardless.
India Today
05-07-2025
- General
- India Today
Muslim woman's divorce victory in Telangana HC rekindles marital-equality debate
Holding a Muslim woman's right to unilateral divorce through the Khula form of divorce under the Muslim Personal Law as absolute, the Telangana High Court has reignited conversations on marital equality and personal laws in its June 25 judgment. A bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and BR Madhusudhan Rao delivered the landmark verdict in 'Mohammed Arif Ali v. Smt. Afsarunnisa and Another' a wife-initiated divorce, is one of the four kinds of divorce in a Muslim marriage, as recognised by The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. In Khula, a Muslim woman has the right to seek the dissolution of her marriage, and it typically involves compensation to the husband, often by returning the mehr (dower), or as may be other three types of divorce are Talaq-e-Ahsan, Talaq-e-Hasan, and Talaq-e-Biddat or instantaneous Triple Talaq was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2017 in the Shayara Bano v. Union of India the verdict, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, outlawed the practice, criminalising it with penalties, including imprisonment, to protect Muslim women's Talaq-e-Ahsan and Talaq-e-Hasan are exclusively initiated by men, Mubarat can be initiated by either spouse, but requires mutual consent. Khula is the only divorce form exclusively initiated by women in the four types of divorce in a Muslim breakthrough for Khula came in 2022, when a Kerala High Court division bench overruled a 1972 single-bench decision, declaring Khula as an absolute right, equivalent to Talaq, ensuring equality in divorce rights under Muslim Personal divergent opinions exist regarding Khula among Muslim scholars. An appeal against the Kerala HC order is pending in the Supreme Court and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board has argued that Khula is dependent upon the consent of both the husband and the wife after the woman initiates debate over marital equality in Muslim marriages, particularly a Muslim woman's right to extrajudicial divorce through Khula, seemingly requires comprehensive evaluation to align personal laws with constitutional principles of gender TELANGANA HIGH COURT'S VERDICT ON KHULAIn Mohammed Arif Ali v. Smt. Afsarunnisa and Another, the Telangana HC bench was hearing an appeal filed by the husband against a family court's order that upheld his wife's Khula as granted by the Sada-e-Haq Sharai Council (a religious advisory body).The husband was seeking a declaration that rendered the Khulanama (divorce certificate) ineffective. The couple got married in 2012. But on allegedly being assaulted by the husband in 2017, which led to her hospitalisation, the woman moved to her parental home and sought a Khula Khula was denied by the wife then approached the religious advisory council, which made reconciliation efforts, including issuing three notices to the husband, but he refused to Khula Nama was issued in 2020, following which a petition in the family court was filed where he contended that the council had no statutory or legal authority and only a recognised Qazi could issue a the HC bench held the wife's right to Khula as independent of the husband's approval requiring no judicial decree unless KHULA IS DIFFERENT FROM TALAQThe Quran gives equal rights to men and women to seek divorce but as an option of last resort. Khula is the wife's right to divorce and has been expressly mentioned in the religious Muslim Personal Law, Khula is granted to the wife upon her returning the Mehr and the court may advise reconciliation, but the last word remains that of the both spouses become desirous of divorce, then it is called is different from Talaq (of two kinds), which is divorce initiated by the husband. The husband is bound to pay the wife her Mehr, and return any property belonging to delivering the June 25 judgment, the Telangana High Court reviewed legal and theological frameworks to substantiate how Khula is distinct from key differences between Khula and Talaq are:While the wife has to file a suit in court, the husband has to pronounce the word "Talaq" in the presence of two male adults, under Shia law or, he may pronounce it either orally or in writing under Sunni is to be noted that the three forms of Talaq follow different procedures and only instantaneous Triple Talaq or Talaq-e-Biddat is the wife has to offer consideration to the husband in Khula, the husband is not bound to do so in a wife wishes to remarry her husband, she cannot do so until she marries another man and obtains a divorce from him under Talaq. In Khula, if they mutually consent, they can RIGHT TO KHULA IS ABSOLUTEIn 1972, a single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court negated a Muslim woman's right to Khula by holding it illegal. This was effectively overruled 50 years later by a two-judge bench judgement of the same court in bench held, "the right to terminate the marriage at the instance of a Muslim wife is an absolute right, conferred on her by the Holy Quran and is not subject to the acceptance or the will of her husband".However, a Muslim wife initiating divorce through Khula cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC from her was held in a 2023 Kerala High Court case because Khula was interpreted as a refusal of the wife to cohabitate with her husband and as per Section 125 (4), this is a ground which disqualifies the wife from claiming the present case, the bench referred to Chapter II, Verse 229 of the Quran, and clarified that a Muslim wife's right to seek Khula is absolute and not dependent upon the husband's consent or any other bench clarified that religious bodies cannot issue valid divorce certificates and clerics have no role in effecting only the courts can grant divorce after ascertaining if the Khula is valid and the husband has the right to challenge such a the role of the court was limited to assigning a judicial stamp on the termination of the marriage to make it binding on both parties after the demand for Khula is made and reconciliation efforts new judgment reasserts the principle of the rule of law and supremacy of civil courts in matters concerning personal laws. It has also upheld the religious and legal characteristics of a divorce while balancing religious freedom with equality.- Ends
Time of India
04-07-2025
- Time of India
Telangana HC grants divorce: Wife failed to prove claims; 42-year-old marriage ends
HYDERABAD : The Telangana high court has granted divorce to a 70-year-old retired govt teacher from his 62-year-old wife. The couple had married over 40 years ago, but had been living separately since 1991. The woman also lodged a couple of criminal cases, including a dowry harassment case, against him. An attempt to murder case was lodged against him in 1996. However, the retired govt teacher was eventually acquitted by the trial courts. He initially filed a divorce petition in the family court, but it was dismissed. Challenging the family court order, he approached the high court in 2015. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad Considering his acquittals in criminal cases filed by the wife and other evidence, a bench of the high court, comprising Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and BR Madhusudhan Rao, noted that false criminal allegations constituted mental cruelty and granted him divorce on June 23, 2025. Though they were married for 42 years, the couple stayed together for just eight years. The couple was also involved in prolonged litigation that included property disputes initiated by their son. The 70-year-old, arguing his case in the family court, claimed that his wife had filed multiple dowry harassment cases against him and his family, forcing him to live apart and causing prolonged mental trauma. However, the family court dismissed his petition, observing that he did not take adequate steps to reconcile with her or seek restitution of conjugal rights. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Is it legal? How to get Internet without paying a subscription? Techno Mag Learn More Undo When it was challenged in the HC, the judges noted that his wife failed to provide convincing evidence of her willingness to reunite, and her claims were not supported beyond her testimony. The HC held that the husband's acquittals in two separate dowry harassment cases — including one as recent as 2016 — weakened the credibility of her accusations and established a pattern of harassment by the wife. Referring to the acquittals, the bench observed that acquittal assumes significance in light of the allegations made by her, and it casts a shadow on the truth of her allegations. His mother's evidence was also sufficient to conclude they made efforts to bring her back.
Time of India
27-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Telangana HC upholds Rs 26 crore arbitral award in favor of Visaka Industries, dismisses Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) appeal
HYDERABAD: Brushing aside allegations of undue influence and coercion against Visaka Industries, a division bench of Telangana high court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) challenging an arbitral award in their (Visaka) favour. A bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B R Madhusudhan Rao upheld the Commercial Court's order of July 2024 refusing to set aside the arbitral award of nearly Rs 26 crore in favour of Visaka Industries. The bench also found fault with HCA for being unfair towards Visaka Industries. The dispute arose in 2011 when HCA terminated its agreement of Oct 16, 2004, under which Visaka Industries was granted exclusive in-stadia advertisement rights at the Uppal International Cricket Stadium in Hyderabad. The 2004 agreement had allowed it to name the stadium as 'Visaka International Cricket Stadium' and display its branding during matches. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad H by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trading CFD dengan Teknologi dan Kecepatan Lebih Baik IC Markets Mendaftar Undo CA terminated the agreement citing helplessness in light of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) restrictions during Indian Premier League (IPL) matches. This led Visaka to initiate arbitration, leading to an award in its favour in 2016. This was challenged by HCA. On Thursday, the HC bench said there was no evidence to support the allegation that the agreement was signed under pressure from two individuals - G Vinod and Dr G. Vivekanand - who held positions in both HCA and Visaka. The court rejected this claim noting that HCA had honoured the agreement for seven years before raising objections and failed to provide any evidence of coercion. HCA challenged the appointment of MR Vikram as an arbitrator, claiming a conflict of interest since he was a partner at a firm that audited Visaka. The court found that full disclosure was made in 2011, and HCA had waived objections by participating in arbitration without protest. The court upheld the Rs 26 crore compensation, calculated as six times the consideration paid by Visaka, as a genuine pre-estimate of damages under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The bench said the actual loss was difficult to quantify, given the massive visibility Visaka lost due to HCA's breach.
The Hindu
26-06-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
HC dismisses HCA's appeal over arbitral award to Visaka Industries
Telangana High Court had dismissed an appeal filed by Hyderabad Cricket Association challenging an arbitral award of ₹25.92 crore passed by local Commercial Court in favour of Vishaka Industries. A bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and B.R. Madhusudhan Rao said that the HCA failed to make out any grounds for interference in the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court in 2024. 'In short, the HCA exposed its unsportsmanlike colours and whatever game it may have played, it was certainly not ticket in the fairest sense of the term', the two judges said in the order. The dispute between HCA and M/s Visaka Industries arose over an agreement they had entered in 2004. As per the agreement, Visaka Industries rights for in-stadia advertisement rights for the construction of an international cricket stadium at Uppal Kancha in Hyderabad. Before conducting IPL matches in 2008, the HCA wrote to Visaka expressing its inability to honour its obligations as per the 2004 agreement, stating that it was not binding on the BCCI-IPL arrangement. Visaka moved the lower court to restrain HCA from denying in-stadia ad rights to it during IPL matches. While the litigation prolonged, the HCA wrote a letter to Visaka in 2011 stating that it had terminated the 2004 agreement on the ground of impossibility of performance. Finally, an arbitral award of ₹25.92 crore was made to Visaka in 2016. The same was challenged by HCA in the Commercial Court, which dismissed it. The HCA filed the present appeal against the Commercial Court order. The bench held that even in the present appeal, the HCA never inclined to provide statutory security for stay of the award but tested its luck at all levels only get an unfair and short-lived edge over Visaka', the verdict said. (eom)
