Blog

Case: Smriti Madan Kansagra v Perry Kansagra (Civil Appeal No. 3559/2020)

Section 17(3) of the Guardian & Wards Act 1890

17(3), the preferences and inclinations of the child are of vital importance for determining the issue of custody of the minor child. Section 17(5) further provides that the court shall not appoint or declare any person to be a guardian against his will".

Smriti Madan Kansagra v Perry Kansagra (Civil Appeal No. 3559/2020) केस जहाँ Guardian & Wards Act 1890  की धारा 17(3) को समक्ष रखते हुए माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने ये माना की चाइल्ड कस्टडी की मामले में नाबालिग की इच्छा भी सामान रूप से महत्वपूर्ण है तथा उसकी वरीयताओं पर भी विचार किया जाना चाहिए खास कर जब वो एक ऐसे उम्र में हो जहां उसमे अपनी पसंद और नापसंद की बारे में पर्याप्त जानकारी हो तथा वो भी अपनी वरीयता की अनुसार चुनाव करने योग्य हो.

सुप्रीम कोर्ट की तीन जज की बेंच जिसमे न्यायमूर्ति यु यु ललित, न्यायमूर्ति इंदु मल्होत्रा तथा न्यायमूर्ति हेमंत गुप्ता थे उन्होंने एक अत्यंत महत्वपूर्ण फैसले में एक नाबालिग बालक की कस्टडी उसके पिता को प्रदान की जो की नैरोबी, केन्या  में रहते है।

यह क़ानूनी लड़ाई लगभग दस साल चली जिसमे आदित्य (वह नाबालिग बालक जिसकी कस्टडी की लिए ये केस था) की कस्टडी की लिए उसके माता पिता ने परिवार कोर्ट से ले कर सुप्रीम कोर्ट तक ये कठिन कनूनी राह तय की तथा अंततः सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने आदित्य की सम्पूर्ण कस्टडी उसके पिता को प्रदत्त की।

यह जानना भी बेहद रोचक है की इस लम्बी और कठिन क़ानूनी लड़ाई की दौरान माननीय न्यायमूर्ति आदित्य से व्यक्तिगत रूप से अपने चैम्बर में कई बार मिले और यह जानने की कोशिश करी की आदित्य की व्यक्तिगत राय क्या है तथा उसकी वरीयता में उसके माता या पिता में उसकी अधिक नज़दीकी किसके साथ है। इस प्रकार की अनौपचारिक बातचीत से माननीय न्यायमूर्ति संतुष्ट हुए की बालक की समझ और वरीयता में वो अपने पिता से ज्यादा करीब था तथा उसकी इच्छा अपने पिता के साथ रहने की थी।

माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने अपने फैसले में स्पष्ट तौर Guardian & Wards Act 1890 अधिनियम की धारा १७(३)  का उल्लेख किया तथा स्पष्ट किया की इस केस में बालक की भविष्य का फैसला इस प्रकार से होना चाहिए जो उसके भले के लिए सर्वोपरि हो तथा उसके सभी हितों की सम्पूर्ण रक्षा भी हो।

माननीय सुप्रीम को ने परिवार कोर्ट, हाई कोर्ट के फैसले तथा कौंसिलर की रिपोर्ट को भी बहुत गौर से परखा और पाया की बालक आदित्य ने अपने पिता की अधिक झुकाव दिखाया था। अपने फैसले को अंतिम रूप देते हुए माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने बालक की हितों को सर्वोपरि मानते हुए उसकी संगरक्षण की ज़िम्मेदारी उसके पिता को सौंप दी। सुप्रीम कोर्ट का पूरा फैसला यहाँ से पढ़े।:

With this Judgement now Daughter can have equal social status at par the son in the family and they are equal claimant in the paternal property.

Case:  CIVIL APPEAL NO.   DIARY NO.32601 OF 2018, VINEETA SHARMA  versus  RAKESH SHARMA & ORS.

Bench:             Hon’ble Justice Arun Mishra, S Abdul Nazeer & M R Shah

Key section:    Section 6 Hindu Succession Act 1956/ Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005,

Key Cases referred:    Prakash & Ors. v. Phulavati & Ors. (2016) 2 SCC 36 (2016), Lokmani &  Ors. v. Mahadevamma & Ors., [S.L.P.(C) No.6840 of 2016], Balchandra v. Smt. Poonam & Ors. [SLP [C] No.35994/2015], Sistia Sarada Devi v. Uppaluri Hari Narayana & Ors. [SLP [C] No.38542/2016]

Summery of the Judgement:     

Supreme Court held that daughters will have equal coparcenary rights in Hindu Undivided Family properties, irrespective of whether the father was alive or not on 9 September 2005, when an amendment came into force.

The bench decided that The provisions contained in substituted section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities.”

Supreme Court also acknowledged the fact that due to the ambiguous legal interpretations & conflicting decision there are many cases pending before different high courts and lower courts & daughters should not be deprived of their rights of equality conferred upon them by section 6; directed that all such pending cases should be decided as far as possible within a time frame of six months.

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 730 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9503/2018)

Referred Acts in the Judgement:

• The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973
• The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DVA), 2005
• Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955
• Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954
• Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956

Summary of the Case:

The Wife (Neha) filed an interim application u/s 125 CrPC claiming maintenance for herself and their son by her husband (Rajnesh). Family Court granted her a favourable Order of Rs.15,0000/- p.m. and Rs.5,000/-p.m. to their child to be paid by the Husband (Rajnesh). This Order was challenged by the Husband by way of a Criminal Writ Petition in Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) wherein the Court affirmed the Order of the Family Court and dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition. Husband lastly appealed to the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Court awarded additional costs and relevant Order in maintenance of the Wife and their son by the Husband and also provided detailed guidelines on the fourth issue amongst the five (5) problems mentioned in the judgment that is issue of date from which maintenance to be awarded. 

In this Judgement Hon’ble Supreme Court observed and analysed all the precedents and regulatory frameworks used to decide a date from which maintenance can be awarded.

What should be the date from which Maintenance to be Awarded?

Hon’ble court observed that since there is no uniform regime and there are multiple practices adopted by the family courts across the country to decide the date from which the maintenance can be awarded. Hon’ble court also observed that there are three possibilities mostly adopted as the maintenance date:

a) Date on which the application for maintenance was filed;

b) Date of the order granting maintenance;

c) Date on which the summons was served upon the respondent.

Hon’ble court observed various precedent & judgements from different family courts and reached to the conclusion that family matters take a lot of time for their disposal and this delay is not in favour of justice and against the human rights & basic dignity of the individual.

Hon’ble court also provided the rationale for the above direction that it will enable the wife to survive  the financial tough time because if a dependent spouse loses its financial strength then it became very challenging to represent themselves before the court.  

To bring uniformity and consistency in the orders passed by all the Courts Hon’ble Supreme Court’s direction is very clear that the date on which  the maintenance application is filed will be considered as the date from which Maintenance can be awarded.  Hon’ble court also observed that the right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant.  

Citation of the matter: CRIMINAL APPEA L NO. 730 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9503/2018).

Referred Sections in the Judgement:

 Section 125 and 128 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973