Married Woman Not Automatically Entitled to Maintenance: Telangana HC

Hyderabad: Justice Renuka Yara of the Telangana High Court held that a married woman is not automatically entitled to maintenance if educated and unwilling to be employed. The judge set aside the order of the Family Court at Karimnagar that directed a husband to pay ₹12,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, holding that she voluntarily left the matrimonial home and was capable of maintaining herself. The judge was hearing a criminal revision case filed by a husband challenging the Family Court’s order in a maintenance case filed by his wife. The wife alleged physical and mental cruelty and claimed that her husband and in-laws demanded additional dowry and insisted on purchasing a flat in his name. The petitioner contended that the allegations were false, that the respondent was a BTech graduate who previously worked as a teacher, and that she left the matrimonial home on her own accord after a minor quarrel. He argued that he made attempts for reconciliation, which she refused. On examining the evidence, the judge noted that the wife admitted in her cross-examination that she left the matrimonial home voluntarily and did not contact her husband thereafter. Justice Renuka Yara observed that there was no material to show that the wife was neglected or unable to earn her livelihood. Holding that a qualified woman who is capable of working cannot remain idle and seek maintenance without just cause, the judge concluded that the Family Court erred in granting maintenance solely based on uncorroborated statements. Accordingly, the judge allowed the revision and set aside the maintenance order passed by the Family Court.

Court refuses habeas plea in marital dispute

A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ of habeas corpus filed by a woman seeking production of her 19-year-old daughter alleged to be illegally detained by relatives of her father. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar was hearing a writ plea filed a woman who claimed to be the mother of the alleged detenue and sought her production as well as a direction for a DNA test. Her husband and his relatives, represented by senior counsel Pattabhi Vemulapati, disputed the claim of the petitioner, contending that the petitioner and the husband were in a live-in relationship and not legally married. They stated that the couple had three children, and that the petitioner had voluntarily given custody of the first two children, a son and the daughter in question, to the husband and his family about 17 years ago, while the youngest child remained with her. It was stated that the son was raised by the husband and his mother, and the daughter by his relatives, who have looked after her since infancy. The panel was informed that the alleged detenue was now 19, a major, and pursuing higher education at a university in New York, USA. The panel observed that since the alleged detenue was an adult capable of making her own decisions and residing abroad, the court could not compel her to appear or return to India merely at the petitioner’s insistence. The panel held that the petitioner’s request for a DNA test was irrelevant in a habeas corpus proceeding and noted that the exchange of emails and letters between the petitioner and her daughter indicated that she had other avenues to communicate with her. Concluding that the case was a private dispute between the petitioner and her husband and that the petition did not meet the legal requirements for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution, the panel dismissed the petition.

Don’t sleep on pleas of ex-staff, RTC told

Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of the Telangana High Court nudged Telangana Road Transport Corporation (TGRTC) not to sleep over representations of its former employee. He said that it was incumbent of the employer to respond to employee grievances. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by V.S. Rao, who joined TGRTC as a conductor in 1989 and was removed from service in 1991. The Labour Court declared his removal illegal and ordered reinstatement in 1995 with continuity of service but without back wages. The petitioner complained that despite reinstatement, the corporation failed to grant notional increments for the suspension period from April 1990 to June 1995, and that his representations in 2014 were not acted upon. The judge noted that the corporation did not file a response in the writ petition for more than a decade and observed that authorities “cannot drag on the matter for counter.” The judge directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation within four weeks and directed the corporation to consider it and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks thereafter in accordance with law.