#B V Nagarathna

[seemabhatnagar]

The present Criminal Appeal challenges the order passed by the Telangana High Court, upholding the interim maintenance order passed by the Family Court in favor of the Respondent-Wife, however, the amount of interim maintenance was reduced.

Mohd. Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana

Crl Appeal 2842 of 2024

Before the Supreme Court of India

Heard by Hon'ble Madam Justice B V Nagarathna J and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih J

Fact

The Appellant is the husband of Respondent No. 02, who entered into a matrimonial alliance with her on November 15, 2012. However, as their relationship deteriorated, Respondent No. 02 left the matrimonial home on April 9, 2016. Subsequently, Respondent No. 02 initiated criminal proceedings against the appellant by lodging an FIR in 2017 for offenses punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC.

In response, the appellant (husband) pronounced a triple talaq on September 25, 2017, and sought a declaration of divorce from the office of Quzath, which was eventually granted ex parte in September 2017.

The appellant attempted to send INR 15,000 as maintenance for the iddat (three months) period, which Respondent No. 02 refused to accept. Instead, she moved a petition for interim maintenance under Section 125(1) of the CrPC before the Family Court, which was consequently allowed in June 2023.

Legal Issue

Does the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 take precedence over the General Law?

Points of Argument

Appellant’s argument

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 is a special law providing more comprehensive benefits than Section 125 CrPC, including provisions for mehr, dower, and return of property.

The Act, is a complete code, and it overrides Section 125 CrPC, since it includes lifelong maintenance provisions for divorced Muslim women.

It was also argued that special laws generally prevail over general laws, thus the Act should take precedence.

Sections 3 and 4 of the 1986 Act, empowers First Class Magistrates to decide matters of Maher (mandatory gift that the husband gives to his wife at the wedding) and subsistence allowances. 

The family courts lack jurisdiction as the Act mandates Magistrates to handle these issues.

The Respondent-wife didn't file an affidavit opting for CrPC provisions over the 1986 Act, as required by Section 5 of the Muslim Women Act, 1986.

The 1986 Act implicitly repealed Section 125 CrPC for Muslim women due to its specific provisions, thus barring them from seeking relief under Section 125 CrPC.

Argument by Amicus Curaie for the Respondent Wife

The 1986 Act only codifies Muslim personal law and does not negate the reliefs available under Section 125 CrPC.

He emphasized that the purpose of Section 125 is to provide quick relief to deserted or neglected women, irrespective of their religion.

Courts Observation

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 does not bar the applicability of Section 125 CrPC, granting Muslim women the option to seek maintenance under either provision.

Order

The Criminal Appeal was dismissed. In their separate but concurring judgments, the Hon'ble Madam Justice B V Nagarathna J and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih J have provided clear conclusions regarding the application of Section 125 CrPC and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 as well. A Muslim woman can choose both or either.

[fundamentalrights]

Private Property can Be Considered “material resources of the community” #article39(b)

#supremecourt #Article39(b) #dpsp  #SupremeCourtDebate #Article39bDebate #MaterialResources #privatepropertyrights

The Big debate

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (23 April) commenced hearing on the issue whether private property can be brought under “material resources of the community” which the state is called upon to distribute equally as per Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

BENCH:

The nine-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S Oka, B V Nagarathna, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih, is hearing the case.

Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India places an obligation on “The State” to create policy towards securing “that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good”.

This provision falls under Part IV of the Constitution titled “Directive Principles of State Policy”, which are meant to be guiding principles for the enactment of laws, but are not directly enforceable against citizens.

Bombay High Court, Constitution Bench, Directive Principles of State Policy, private property, Supreme Court #SupremeCourtDebate #Article39bDebate #MaterialResources #PrivatePropertyRights #ConstitutionalDebate #SCDirectivePrinciples #DPSP #EqualityBeforeLaw #LegalPrinciples #ConstitutionBench #directiveprinciples

Article 39(b),DPSP,Constitution,Constitutional bench,CJI,Supreme Court,Live,today,Constitution Bench,Article 39(b) Of DPSP,Indian constitution,Fundametal right,Material resources,Article39,Article 14,Article 19,Article 39(c),Article 39(c) of DPSP,directive principles of state policy,Aritcle 21

[wordexpress]

SC allows rape survivor to terminate pregnancy

“In the context of abortion, the right of dignity entails recognising the competence and authority of every woman to take reproductive decisions,” the SC said. 

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday allowed a 25-year-old rape survivor to abort her 27-week foetus, setting aside a Gujarat High Court order that rejected her plea to terminate the pregnancy. Noting that the woman is clinically fit for the procedure, a bench of judges B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said the HC was wrong in refusing to allow the procedure.

Under the law, the upper limit for termination of pregnancy is 24 weeks.

“In the context of abortion, the right of dignity entails recognising the competence and authority of every woman to take reproductive decisions,” the SC said.

“Sexual assault is itself distressing and sexual abuse resulting in pregnancy compounds the injury… such a pregnancy is not voluntary or mindful,” the bench said.

The apex court also castigated the HC single-bench for passing a clarificatory order on Saturday, after the SC had taken up the matter for urgent hearing. “We do not appreciate the High Court passing an order as a counterblast to SC order… What is happening in High Court of Gujarat?” it said.

The SC said if the foetus is found to be alive, the hospital shall extend all necessary medical assistance including incubation. If it survives, the State shall take steps to ensure the child is adopted in accordance with the law, it added.

[blogynews]

"Groundbreaking Verdict: Supreme Court Grants Rape Survivor's Right to Terminate Pregnancy, Revealing Startling Connection to Conception Outside Marriage | India News"

The Supreme Court of India has granted permission to a rape survivor to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy. The decision was made by a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, who criticized the Gujarat High Court for rejecting the survivor’s request for termination. The Supreme Court highlighted that pregnancy outside marriage, especially in cases of sexual assault, can be…

[blogynewz]

"Groundbreaking Verdict: Supreme Court Grants Rape Survivor's Right to Terminate Pregnancy, Revealing Startling Connection to Conception Outside Marriage | India News"

The Supreme Court of India has granted permission to a rape survivor to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy. The decision was made by a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, who criticized the Gujarat High Court for rejecting the survivor’s request for termination. The Supreme Court highlighted that pregnancy outside marriage, especially in cases of sexual assault, can be…

[blogynewsz]

"Groundbreaking Verdict: Supreme Court Grants Rape Survivor's Right to Terminate Pregnancy, Revealing Startling Connection to Conception Outside Marriage | India News"

The Supreme Court of India has granted permission to a rape survivor to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy. The decision was made by a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, who criticized the Gujarat High Court for rejecting the survivor’s request for termination. The Supreme Court highlighted that pregnancy outside marriage, especially in cases of sexual assault, can be…

[12blogmk]

SC rejects Bengal plea against central forces in rural polls | India News

NEW DELHI: In a blow to the Mamata government, the Supreme Court Tuesday allowed deployment of central forces during the July 8 panchayat polls to 75,000 posts across West Bengal, reports Amit Anand Choudhary.A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Manoj Misra rejected the plea of the Trinamool government and state election commission, which had approached the SC, challenging the Calcutta HC order…

[newsdaynight]

5 में से एक जज की नोटबंदी के विरोध में, जानिए जस्टिस बी वी नागरत्ना का क्या था वो फैसला

Delhi: Justice B V nagarathna News: नोटबंदी पर आज सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने 4: 1 से नोटबंदी की प्रक्रिया को सही ठहराया। हालांकि, जस्टिस बी वी नागरत्ना ने अपनी अलग राय रखी और फैसले में कहा कि नोटबंदी को कानून के जरिए लाना चाहिए था। http://dlvr.it/SgGStj

[arun-pratap-singh]

Demonetisation had to be done through legislation: Justice Nagarathna

Demonetisation had to be done through legislation: Justice Nagarathna

New Delhi: Justice B V Nagarathna of the Supreme Court, who gave a dissenting verdict on demonetisation on Monday, said the scrapping of the whole series of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes had to be done through a legislation and not through a gazette notification as Parliament cannot be left aloof in a matter of such critical importance. Justice Nagarathna, who was the juniormost judge in the…

[rickztalk]

Demonetisation had to be done through legislation: Justice Nagarathna

Demonetisation had to be done through legislation: Justice Nagarathna

Observing that there was no independent application of mind by the RBI, Justice said the entire exercise was carried out in 24 hours New Delhi: Justice B V Nagarathna of the Supreme Court, who gave a dissenting verdict on demonetisation on Monday, said the scrapping of the whole series of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes had to be done through a legislation and not through a gazette…

[seemabhatnagar]

This is a case where the criminal appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Supreme Court upholding the right of a Muslim woman to seek legal remedy of maintenance under the General (Secular) Law as provided under Section 125 Cr P C.

The remedy of maintenance on divorce as provided under the Muslim Women(Protection of Rights on Divorce)Act 1986 is in addition to Section 125 Cr PC. undoubtedly, if a “reasonable substitute” has been provided for by the husband as per their personal or customary laws at the time of their divorce, the maintenance provided for by a Magistrate or a Family Court, as the case may be, under Section 125 of CrPC 1973, can be reduced to the extent of deemed double benefit being given to a divorced wife.

Mohd. Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana,

Crl Appeal 2842 of 2024.

Before the Supreme Court of India

Heard by Hon'ble Madam Justice B V Nagarathna J and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih J

The present Criminal Appeal challenges the Order dated 13.12.2023 passed in Criminal Petition No. 12222 of 2023 moved before the High Court of Telangana. The High Court modified the Order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the Family Court by decreasing the quantum of interim maintenance payable by the Appellant herein from INR 20,000/- to INR 10,000/- per month but didn't set aside the order of maintenance to the Respondent Wife. Aggrieved with the order, appellant approached the Apex Court.

Fact

The Appellant is the husband of the Respondent No. 02 and they entered into the matrimonial consortium on 15.11.2012. However, as their relationship deteriorated, Respondent No. 02 left the matrimonial home on 09.04.2016. Subsequently, Respondent No. 02 initiated criminal proceedings against the Appellant by lodging FIR in the year 2017 for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.

In response, the Appellant herein pronounced a triple talaq on 25.09.2017 and moved for divorce before the office of Quzath seeking a declaration of divorce, which was eventually granted ex parte, in September, 2017. Appellant attempted to send INR 15,000/- apropos maintenance for the iddat (03 months) period, which Respondent No. 02 is said to have refused. Instead, she moved a petition for interim maintenance under Section 125(1) of CrPC before the Family Court which was consequently allowed in June.2023.

Point of Argument

Appelant's argument

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 is a special law providing more comprehensive benefits than Section 125 CrPC, including provisions for mehr, dower, and return of property. The Act, is a complete code, and it overrides Section 125 CrPC, since it includes lifelong maintenance provisions for divorced Muslim women.

He also argued that special laws generally prevail over general laws, thus the Act should take precedence.

Sections 3 and 4 of the 1986 Act, empowers First Class Magistrates to decide matters of Maher (mandatory gift that the husband gives to his wife at the wedding) and subsistence allowances. 

The family courts lack jurisdiction as the Act mandates Magistrates to handle these issues.

The Respondent-wife didn't file an affidavit opting for CrPC provisions over the 1986 Act, as required by Section 5 of the Muslim Women Act, 1986.

The 1986 Act implicitly repealed Section 125 CrPC for Muslim women due to its specific provisions, thus barring them from seeking relief under Section 125 CrPC.

Argument by Amicus Curaie for the Respondent Wife

The 1986 Act only codifies Muslim personal law and does not negate the reliefs available under Section 125 CrPC.

He emphasized that the purpose of Section 125 is to provide quick relief to deserted or neglected women, irrespective of their religion.

Legal Issue

Whether the The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 should take precedence over the General Law ?

Courts Observation

Section 3 of the 1986 Act, which begins with a non-obstante clause, provides an additional remedy rather than derogating from Section from Section 125 CrPC.

Justice Masih remarked that the 1986 Act does not bar the applicability of Section 125, allowing women the choice to seek relief under either provision.

This right of a Muslim woman is in addition to the right under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986.

[squarwell-breakingnews]

Raj Kundra, Poonam Pandey and Sherlyn Chopra granted anticipatory bail in pornography case - Times of India ►

Raj Kundra, Poonam Pandey and Sherlyn Chopra granted anticipatory bail in pornography case – Times of India��►

Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to Raj Kundra, Poonam Pandey and Sherlyn Chopra pornography case. Their bail is in connection to an FIR which was filed against them for allegedly distributing pornographic videos. “Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail,” a bench of Justices K M Joseph and B V Nagarathna stated.…

[newsaza]

Raj Kundra, Poonam Pandey and Sherlyn Chopra granted anticipatory bail in pornography case | Hindi Movie News

Raj Kundra, Poonam Pandey and Sherlyn Chopra granted anticipatory bail in pornography case | Hindi Movie News

Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to Raj Kundra, Poonam Pandey and Sherlyn Chopra pornography case. Their bail is in connection to an FIR which was filed against them for allegedly distributing pornographic videos. “Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail,” a bench of Justices K M Joseph and B V Nagarathna stated.…

[newslobster]

Activist Gautam Navlakha's House Arrest Extended In Maoist Links Case

Activist Gautam Navlakha’s House Arrest Extended In Maoist Links Case

Activist Gautam Navlakha was released from jail in November 2022. (File) New Delhi: The Supreme Court Tuesday extended till second week of January its interim order placing social activist Gautam Navlakha, accused of having links to Maoists and Pakistan’s spy agency ISI, under house arrest. A bench of Justices K M Joseph and B V Nagarathna passed the order extending the social activist’s house…