#Section25(v)

[seemabhatnagar]

Solemnizing Marriage with a person having child can't deny later his/her responsibility

"Rajiv Kumar Yadav v. Manju Devi" When a person solemnizes a #marriage with a person who already has a child, said person shall be presumed to have undertaken the #responsibility of the #child and also cannot later be permitted to contend that the child is not his/her responsibility, this was held by Delhi High Court vide it's order dt. 01.03.2023.

A #Matrimonial Appeal has been filed by the husband/Appellant before the #DelhiHighCourt. Appellant had sought modification in the final order passed by Family Court.

The husband had filed a #Divorce petition seeking divorce from respondent-wife on the ground of desertion. Divorce was allowed between the parties. With regard to permanent alimony, the appellant was directed to pay a sum of ₹2,500 to each of the children for first five years and, thereafter, ₹3,500 for another five years and, thereafter, ₹5,000 each till both the children got married or became financially independent. The elder daughter is the daughter of the respondent from her first marriage. The younger daughter is the daughter of the parties born out of this wedlock.

The application under #Section25(2) of the #HinduMarriageAct was filed contending before the Family Court contended by the Appellant that he got to know that the elder daughter has been shown as a dependent  in Part II Order passed by the Army Authorities whereas in the Family Details, the daughter is shown as the daughter of the late first husband of the respondent as a dependent family member. (First husband of the respondent happened to be Army Personnel and had expired).The said application was dismissed by the #FamilyCourt holding that there is no change in circumstances which may entitle appellant for  modification of order.

#Law:- Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that, If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may at the instance of either party, vary,  modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.

The Court observed that if the Respondent-wife had known that the appellant was not going to maintain her first daughter, she would not even have married him.

Seema Bhatnagar

.

.

[thetaxtalk]

The compensation received for the loss of agency is a revenue receipt whereas the compensation attributable to a negative/ restrictive covenant is a capital receipt: Supreme Court

The compensation received for the loss of agency is a revenue receipt whereas the compensation attributable to a negative/ restrictive covenant is a capital receipt: Supreme Court An important principle of taxation was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Raj Gupta vs. CIT wherein it has held as under: There is a dichotomy between receipt of compensation by an assessee for the loss of agency and receipt of compensation attributable to the negative/restrictive covenant. The compensation received for the loss of agency is a revenue receipt whereas the compensation attributable to a negative/ restrictive covenant is a capital receipt. Payment received as non-competition fee under a negative covenant was always treated as a capital receipt till AY 2003-2004. The law thereafter was amended & it is only w.e.f. 1-4-2003 that the said capital receipt is now made taxable u/s 28(v-a). It is well settled that a liability cannot be created retrospectively The complete order of the said judgment which has far reaching impact is produced hereunder: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12044 OF 2016 SHIV RAJ GUPTA …Appellant Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI-IV …Respondent JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J. The present appeal relating to assessment year 1995-96 is by one Shri Shiv Raj Gupta, who was the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Central Distillery and Breweries Ltd. Read the full article