Latest news with #RenuBhatnagar
News18
a day ago
- News18
Derogatory remarks in complaints to spouse's employer cruelty: Delhi HC
New Delhi, Jul 24 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has said derogatory and defamatory remarks in complaints to the estranged spouse's employer amounts to cruelty and upheld the divorce granted to a man. A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar in its July 1 verdict said marriage entails mutual respect and adjustment and some parties take less time to adjust with each other while the others take longer time. The order, however, highlighted both parties were expected to show due respect to each other. 'Irrespective of the merits of these complaints, and regardless of whether the allegations made therein were false or true, we find that making such derogatory and defamatory remarks in the form of complaints to the employer of the spouse are nothing but cruelty," the bench said. The order termed 'tolerance, adjustment and mutual respect" to be the foundations of a 'sound and healthy marriage". Dismissing the woman's appeal, the court upheld a family court order of divorce to the husband on the ground of cruelty by the wife. The couple married in 1989 and had two children before separating in 2010-11. The wife moved the high court against the divorce decree and claimed her estranged husband resorted to various illegal measures to forcibly evict her and their children from the matrimonial home. The high court observed the allegations of adultery levelled by the parties against each other. Both the woman and the man accused each other of adultery. The court said the woman's complaints to her husband's employer, particulary about the unfounded allegation of adultery, can't be used to address the issues of any wrong done to her for his employer had no role. The order noted that the woman's complaints were made to harass the husband and humiliate him before his colleagues at workplace. The bench said the family court rightly dissolved the marriage between the parties by upholding the allegations of cruelty based on the man's evidence. 'The fact that the parties have been living separately for a long time period of time, that is, around fifteen years now, without any resumption of marital cohabitation between the parties, can also be considered as an added ground while deciding the divorce petition," the court said. PTI SKV SKV AMK AMK view comments First Published: July 24, 2025, 20:00 IST 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.
Hindustan Times
03-07-2025
- Health
- Hindustan Times
Delhi HC rules in favour of disability pension for soldiers, says ‘such denial is unacceptable'
Disability pension for armed forces personnel cannot be denied solely because the disability occurred while they were posted in a peace station, the Delhi high court has ruled, while emphasising that such denial is unacceptable as it 'not only undermines their service towards the nation, but also fails to acknowledge the effect of their demanding careers'. Representational image. A bench of justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar, in a judgment on Wednesday, noted that the demanding nature of military life at peace stations, even in the absence of active conflict or challenges of hard area postings, can significantly impact the overall well-being of personnel and result in hypertension. 'Disability pension cannot be denied solely on the ground that the onset of the disability occurred while the personnel were posted at peace stations. It is disheartening that members of our armed forces are being denied disability pension solely on the aforementioned ground. This overlooks the continuous physical and mental stress faced by soldiers, regardless of their location,' the bench ruled in a verdict delivered on Tuesday. The 85-page ruling came in response to a batch of approximately 300 pleas filed by the Centre challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal's order holding them eligible for grant of disability pension on account of primary hypertension, ischaemic heart disease (IHD). In its petition, the Centre represented by Attorney General R Venkataramani asserted that none of the soldiers was eligible to be considered for disability pension since the review medical board had opined that the disease was noticed in a non field (peace) station and could thus neither be attributed to or aggravated by military service. The soldiers asserted that the medical board had failed to assign any specific or cogent reason for not considering the disability/disease as attributable to or aggravated by service. It was also argued that peace stations have their own constraints and disability is a cumulative effect of prolonged service related stress. In its ruling, the court also held that disability pension is not an act of generosity but a soldier's rightful acknowledgement of the sacrifice endured and is a measure upholding state's responsibility towards the soldiers. 'Disability pension is not an act of generosity, but a rightful and just acknowledgement of the sacrifices endured by them, which manifest in the form of disabilities/disorders suffered during the course of their military service. It is a measure that upholds the State's responsibility towards its soldiers, who have served the nation with courage and devotion,' the court maintained. Laying emphasis on the harsh and inhuman weather and conditions in which the armed forces personnel defend the nation, the bench held that it was the bounden duty of medical boards to assign well reasoned justification before concluding that the disability suffered cannot be said attributed to or aggravated by service conditions. 'It must always be kept in view that the Armed Forces personnel, in defending this great nation from external threats, have to perform their duties in the most harsh and inhuman weather and conditions, be it on far-flung corner of land, in terrains and atmosphere where limits of man's survival are tested, or in air or water, where again surviving each day is a challenge, away from the luxury of family life and comforts. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the RMB to furnish cogent and well-reasoned justification for their conclusions that the disease/disability suffered by the personnel cannot be said to be attributable to or aggravated by such service conditions,' the judgement emphasised. The high court ultimately dismissed the petitions, noting that the RMB failed to take note of their medical record, family history or identify the cause of disease, prior to arriving at the conclusion.
India Gazette
27-06-2025
- India Gazette
Delhi HC grants 90-day interim bail to woman accused in POCSO case to care for her newborn
New Delhi [India], June 27 (ANI): The Delhi High Court granted 90 days' interim bail to a woman to enable her to take care of her barely two-month-old baby born in judicial custody. She has two minor children living with her in jail. She is an accused in a POCSO case lodged in 2019 at the Burari Police Station. Justice Renu Bhatnagar granted interim bail to the accused Kushi after considering the facts that charges have been framed and the case is at the stage of prosecution evidence. 'The applicant is unable to properly take care of her new born child while being in judicial custody, the applicant is granted interim bail for a period of 90 days from the date of her release, on furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 25,000 with one surety in the like amount,' Justice Bhatnagar ordered on June 25. The applicant was re-arrested on December 12, 2024. Earlier, she was granted regular bail by the trial court, but a non-bailable warrant was issued against her on September 24, 2024, due to her non-appearance before the court. Thereafter, she was declared a proclaimed offender. She was sent to judicial custody after her re-arrest. She gave birth to a child on May 12, 2025. While granting interim bail, the High Court also considered the medical report, which stated that the applicant, along with her two children, is currently lodged in Central Jail No. 6 of Tihar Jail complex. The medical status report states that at the time of her admission to jail, she was pregnant and delivered a child on 12.05.2025. Advocate Indrapal Khokhar, counsel for the accused, submitted that the applicant has two minor children; one aged around two years and the other is a newborn, while being in judicial custody. He further submitted that the applicant is unable to look after her minor children while being in judicial custody. The trial will take considerable time, and therefore, during the pendency of the trial, the applicant be released on bail to take care of her minor sons or, in the alternative, the applicant be granted interim bail for 90 days, the counsel prayed. Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) and Advocate Bahuli Sharma, counsel for the prosecutrix, opposed the plea of the accused. The APP contended that the charges have already been framed and the trial is at the stage of prosecution evidence. He further submitted that there is high apprehension that the applicant may again try to jump bail if released on interim bail. (ANI)
Time of India
04-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Personal Loans and EMIs Do Not Override Maintenance Obligations: Delhi High Court
New Delhi: While dismissing an appeal filed by a husband challenging a family court order that allowed the wife's application for maintenance, recently said that personal loans or EMIs were voluntary obligations. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now These cannot override the obligation of an earning spouse to maintain the other spouse or the child, it added. A division bench of justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar noted that deductions such as house rent, electricity charges, repayment of personal loans, premiums towards life insurance, or EMIs for voluntary borrowings do not qualify as legitimate deductions for the purpose of maintenance. The court stated, "A person cannot wriggle out of his/her statutory liability to maintain his/her spouse and dependents by artificially reducing his/her disposable income through personal borrowings or long-term financial commitments undertaken unilaterally. " The court was hearing an appeal filed by the husband challenging a family court order of April 19, which allowed the wife's application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The husband was directed to pay a monthly payment of Rs 15,000 towards the maintenance of the wife and the child. In his plea, the husband argued that the family court failed to consider the fact that he was consistently paying EMIs towards a property loan. He also mentioned that he was paying for a mediclaim policy in which the wife and their child were also covered. The bench rejected the husband's contention that EMIs and other loan obligations eroded his take-home income. It noted that the wife was suffering from a medical condition and was simultaneously responsible for the care and upbringing of the minor child born out of the wedlock. "These are considered to be voluntary financial obligations undertaken by the earning spouse, which cannot override the primary obligation to maintain a dependent spouse or child," the bench said. The bench emphasised that maintenance is not to be assessed based on the net income after such personal deductions, but rather on the free income that reflects the actual earning capacity and standard of living of the party concerned.
