Relevant paragraphs: Learned Judge found that petitioner’s mother has established that respondent has willfully neglected and refused to maintain his child.
This is an interesting case to address the question whether a father can shirk his responsibility from maintaining his minor son under the garb of doing Coolie job.
It’s no secret that being a parent is one of the most challenging roles in the world. The relationship between a parent and their child is a unique bond that nurtures the holistic growth and development of a child. It lays the foundation for their behavior, personality, traits and values.
Strengthening the parent-child relationships requires work, mutual understanding and efforts.Parenting is a tough job, but by maintaining a close relationship and open communication with your children, parents can stay connected to them during all stages of life.
A Hindu is under a legal obligation to maintain his wife, his minor sons, his unmarried daughters and his aged parents, whether he possess any property or not. The obligation to maintain these relations is personal, legal and absolute in character and arises from the very existence of the relationship between the parties.
It is needless to observe that a father is under a personal obligation to maintain his minor child. Hence, factors like unemployment, earning a meager income can’t be an excuse for not maintaining wife and children. He cannot shirk his responsibility from maintaining the family, in particular, his minor son under the garb of doing a coolie job.
It is perhaps well to observe that the power to make an order under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is discretionary. This Court find it necessary to say only this much that High Court in exercising its revisional powers should not interfere with the discretion of a Judge acting within his jurisdiction unless the Court is clearly satisfied that he was wrong.
Relevant paragraphs: The real question to be answered is whether a son can contend that he is under no obligation to maintain his aged parents? This Court may venture to say that this is an interesting case to address the question as to what filial obligations are?
A continuing need for care for elderly, combined with loosely knit family structures prompt the question what filial obligations are. Do adult children of elderly have a duty to care?
The phrase “filial obligations” is generally understood to refer to special duties—specific kinds of actions, services, and attitudes—that children must provide to their parents simply because they are those parents’ offsprings. Filial responsibility refers to the sense of obligation experienced by adult children to meet their older parents’ physical and emotional needs.
Contemporary societies, both west and east, retain a significant interest in how filial responsibility is maintained and experienced as an attitudinal basis for action to care for and support older adults. In increasingly aging societies, where we have seen increased life span in majority of adults what with new lifestyle management including yoga are in practice and consequential addition of years to their other wise shorter life span, the burden of filial responsibility on the children has increased considerably. Nevertheless, relative disability and filial responsibility and how they are associated with filial care giving and filial support to aging parents, are of major public interest and importance.
A son is under a personal obligation to maintain his aged parents. It is a legal obligation not dependent on his possession of property but arising out of the mere relationship between the parties.
In conclusion, this Court is of the view that the object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can do so to support those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support.
Relevant portion. In the last resort, learned counsel argued that at present, respondent is unemployed due to Covid-19 Pandemic. Therefore, counsel submitted that respondent is not in a position to pay maintenance to petitioner No.2 as ordered by the Family Court.
I may venture to say that this is an interesting case to address the question whether a father can shirk his responsibility from maintaining his minor son under the guise of pandemic? It is true that the world is facing an unprecedented crisis.
No doubt, COVID-19 has brought several parts of the globe almost to the brink of extinction of mankind what with scientists, doctors et al, toiling day and night for not only the treatment of patients but also in search of vaccine for the effective treatment of the pandemic.
It is also true that the COVID-19 pandemic has left millions of people around the world jobless and are coping with trauma caused by the pandemic. Whether it’s temporary or permanent, unemployment can lead to stress, anxiety, depression and other mental health challenges. Uncertainty related to the COVID-19 pandemic only adds to the angst. But one must learn how to cope with the mental and emotional effects of unemployment during this pandemic.
It is perhaps well to observe that insofar as a family is concerned, the head of the family [particularly, if it is a male member], has the onus of maintaining his family. He cannot shirk his responsibility from maintaining the family under the garb of pandemic. Every person has to develop multi-tasking skills so that if he loses one vocation, he should be able to switch over to the other.
Alternatively, one option is that every person has to search for alternative mode of employment at least as a temporary measure [or till he is restored to his original vocation] and try to fill not only his stomach but also of those who are dependent on them, be it employees or family members.
Relevant paragraphs:7. Skimmer is used for collecting the data stored in an ATM card and the camera, for capturing the password, when the account holder operates the teller machine using his card. The data then collected is used for forging the cards to be used for withdrawing the money from the accounts of the customers of the bank without their knowledge. Perpetration of crime in this manner fits into ingredients of Section 468 of IPC, for the genuine card holder operates the machine under the belief that his transaction is fully secured; but without his knowledge, the data in the card is captured by the skimmer; this modus operandi is nothing but dishonestly inducing the ATM card holder to operate a teller machine which is tampered.
9. Bail is not a licence for committing any number of crimes. Though bail is related to liberty of a person, misuse of liberty is not justifiable. And crimes which are not targeted against an individual, but perpetrated against society must be viewed quite differently. It is held by the Supreme Court in that cancellation of bail by the High Court under its inherent power does not deprive the personal liberty of an individual; and likely so, denial of bail to an accused who frequently commits bailable offences, does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
10. As a concomitant to this analysis, it may be stated that a person being on bail in relation to bailable offence and applies for bail having again committed a bailable offence cannot as a matter of right claim bail. Any attempt to liberally interpret the right in this manner without having idea of far-reaching consequences will have disastrous effect on the society or a system, as for instance how the case on hand may adversely affect the banking system. Therefore, the right to claim bail under section 436 of Cr.P.C becomes circumscribed when an accused repeatedly commits bailable offence/s.
Relevant paragraphs. 5. ….By the impugned order dated 11-11-2016 the Commission directed the State Government to accord retrospective seniority to the fifth respondent with effect from 17-09-2012 and also grant him all consequential monetary benefits and also effect correction of date of entry into service of Superintendent in the seniority list inter se between the petitioner and the fifth respondent.
9. “whether the Commission was well within its jurisdiction to give a positive direction to the State Government upon adjudication of rights of the parties?”
10…it is germane to notice the genesis of the Commission. With the objective of replacing the Special Officer created under Article 338 when the Constitution was adopted, with a high level Five Member Commission for more effective management of constitutional safeguards for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes the Constitution (65th amendment) Act, 1990 was enacted.
Provisions of Article 338 of the Constitution of India and Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 noticed.
13..A reading of the afore-extracted Sections 8 and 10 of the said Act, makes it abundantly clear that the Commission is not empowered to adjudicate upon the rights of parties. The power vested with the Commission of Inquiry and submission of a report cannot be extended to adjudicate all disputes between individual and a State or a statutory authority. The powers conferred do not contemplate that the Commission can examine matters like a civil Court and adjudicate dispute and pronounce its decision either interim or final or issue a direction of the kind that is issued in the case on hand.
14 & 17 The Commission cannot be construed to be a Tribunal or a forum discharging the functions of a judicial character or Court. Article 338 of the Constitution itself does not entrust the Commission with the power to take up the role of a Court or an adjudicatory Tribunal and determine the rights of parties inter se.. …Commission is not empowered to adjudicate and decide disputes between the parties and pronounce its orders either interim or final.
Relevant paragraphs: II (b)…the subject Regulations which wear both a right situation- reason and a clear scope-criterion on their face yield reckonability and justice; one has to bear in mind that what is being construed are the Campus Regulations and not the Cattle Trespass Act; true it is that, law speaks through language and not music; the rules which are promulgated to regulate & discipline the young minds in educational institutions should sing justice; this happens if a purposive construction based on language, purpose and discretion, is placed on these Regulations that admit a range of possibilities; they also vest some discretion since their purpose does not point to a single, unique legal meaning regardless of myriad circumstances; respondents ought to have used discretion to formulate, as objectively as possible, the purpose at the core of the legal text; however, they have been unjustifiably swayed away by the Rule of Textualism, to the prejudice of the poor student.
Regulation II (5) & (6) provide for condonation of shortage of attendance on non-medical grounds upto a maximum of 20% of the total classes conducted; the condonable range of attendance shortage on medical grounds between 75% & 67% is less than 20% of the total classes; the extent of condonable shortage cannot differ depending upon the varying grounds availing therefor; in other words, if a maximum condonable shortage of 20% on non-medical grounds does not compromise educational excellence, the same shortage on medical grounds too logically does not; if that be so, a Regulation prescribing less than 20% as the condonable limit of shortage cannot be treated as mandatory; it hardly needs to be stated that petitioner’s shortage of attendance by simple arithmetic works out to be far below the maximum condonable extent.
III (a) The precedents & practice of the University show that the subject Regulations have been treated only as directory, and not mandatory; pursuant to Court’s direction dated 11.11.2020, the Registrar of the University has filed an affidavit admitting that in a case of one particular student, condonation has been granted even when the he had less than prescribed minimum of 67% attendance; in a serious matter like this involving the career of a student, the argument of the kind that “one sparrow makes not the summer” (Shakespeare’s) would not come to the rescue of respondents; it is more so when it is not their case that this condonation was legally inadmissible; for the same reason, the principle that there is no estoppel against law, is not invocable.
It is noteworthy that this assertion of the petitioner on oath is not disputed by the respondents nor they have produced any record to discount its veracity; in fact, the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents arguably borders perjury, since information relating to condonation of attendance in respect of above three more students has been withheld from the Writ Court with no justification whatsoever despite a specific direction; ideally speaking the respondent law University ought to have stated about the fact in the very beginning when it had filed its Statement of Objections; this is unjust & unfair, to say the least; however, it is not desirable that on this ground per se, the defence of the respondents be struck off.
V. As already mentioned above, in several cases the University had granted condonation of shortage of attendance under the very same Regulations; however, in the case of the petitioner, a step-motherly treatment is meted out to his detriment; this is not a happy thing to happen at the hands of the University which enjoys a great academic reputation in the country; the Apex Court in PRINCIPAL, KING GEORGE’S MEDICAL COLLEGE,“16. Whether the Regulations contained in the Ordinance governing admission to the post-graduate course of studies are mandatory or directory is a matter which the University shall have to consider after taking all relevant factors into account like the nature of the requirement, its purpose and the consequences of its relaxation on educational excellence.…One thing, however, must be made clear that if the University considers that any provision is not mandatory, its relaxation in particular cases has to be governed by objective considerations. No public authority, least of all a University which is entrusted with the future of the student community, can pick and choose persons for receiving the benefit of relaxation of the Regulations. In the first place, the rigour of a rule can be relaxed provided such relaxation is permissible under the Regulations or if the rule is directory and not mandatory. …”
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned endorsements dated 31.7.2020 & 17.8.2020 respectively at Annexures-H & M; a Writ of Mandamus issues directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the 4th year B.A. LL.B (Hons) for the academic year 2020-21, forthwith.
Relevant Paragraphs: Case law discussed. 43. In the backdrop of the analysis made by the various High Courts in the country and the interpretation placed on the crucial terms and expressions found in the PML Act, let me now proceed to deal with the issues raised by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners. The first and foremost question that need to be answered is, whether in the context of the provisions of the PML Act, prosecution initiated against the petitioners under section 3 of the PML Act and the confiscation proceedings resorted by the respondent under sections 5 and 8 of the PML Act are based on expost facto law and hit by the prohibition contained under Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India?
44. Petitioners appear to have put forward the plea of post facto law on the premise that the acts constituting the offences alleged against them were perpetrated prior to the amendment of the schedule to the PML Act and therefore, the action initiated against them falls within the mischief of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. This contention, in my view, in the factual setting of the case, is totally misplaced and misconceived and appears to have been canvassed by misconstruing the provisions of sections 3, 2(1)(u) and the Schedule appended to the PML Act. No-doubt, it is true that the Schedule to the PML Act was amended by Act 21 of 2009 and the various offences specified therein came to be included therein with effect from 1.06.2009. Nonetheless, in the instant cases, as on the date of initiation of action against petitioners, be it under section 3 or under section 5 of the PML Act, these provisions were very much there in the statute book. As already stated above, in all the cases, the prosecution under section 3 of the PML Act and adjudication proceedings under section 5 of the PML Act have been initiated against the petitioners subsequent to 1.06.2009. Therefore, the contention urged by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted on the basis of ex post facto laws is factually incorrect.
48. From the plain reading of section 3 read with section 2(1)(u) of the PML Act, it is clear that what is made punishable under section 3 is the activity connected with the proceeds of crime either by getting oneself involved in the process or activity connected thereto or directly or indirectly attempting to indulge or knowingly assist or knowingly be a party to the alleged activities and projecting it as untainted property, whereas the components of the offences under section 13 of the PC Act and Sections 120B, 419, 420 and other IPC offences are entirely different. The prosecution under section 3 of the PML Act, by no stretch of imagination, could be equated with the prosecution under section 13 of the PC Act or other offences specified in the Schedule namely IPC or other laws. They are distinct and separate offences. Prosecution under section 3 of PML Act is not based on the outcome of the trial of the offenders under section 13 of the PC Act. A reading of section 3 of PML Act in unamended form would clearly indicate that even without there being any conviction of the accused in a predicate offence and even if the offender under section 3 of the PML Act is not a party to the predicate offence, still the prosecution could be launched against him if the offender is found involved in any process or activity connected with the ‘proceeds of crime’.
The Notice dated 18 December 2020 issued by the Karnataka High Court shows increase in working days in 2021. The High Court will function on 11 Saturdays. However summer holidays remain intact.
Relevant paragraphs: 11. In Chapter 2.0 of the Zonal Regulations, various land uses permissible within each zone are listed. There are five main categories under which the land uses are grouped. They are Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Transportation, Public and Semi-Public. In the Tables enumerated under each category, there are sub classifications. But, most importantly, before the Tables could commence, a Clause which reads as follows, is provided: Though the various uses are listed, the corresponding Space Standards for buildings/uses are to be referred. The two main parameters are minimum size of Plot and the minimum width of Road.
12. What is noticeable is even at Sl.No.10, in C2 category of Commercial uses, where fuel stations and pumps are provided, it is clearly written in the brackets, “as per Table 7”. It is also noticeable that at Sl.No.11, which provides for Kalyana Mantaps, again it says, as per Table 7. Going by Clause 4.6.2 which regulates Commercial Axes, a Kalyan Mantap could be constructed if the plot size is more than 240 sq. mtrs.
15. In Union of India Vs. Tata Chemicals Limited (2014)6 SCC 335, it was held that it is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to the contrary. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of a statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law giver. The courts have adhered to the principle that efforts should be made to give meaning to each and every word used by the legislature and it is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surpluses, if they can have proper application in the circumstances conceivable within the contemplation of the statute.
16 &17…It is rather unfortunate that the opinion/advise of the Commissioner, BDA, was not heeded to. If the contesting respondents have proceeded inspite of such opinion expressed by the authorities of BDA, the respondents have taken the risk and they are to blame themselves. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the NOCs granted by the Health Officer, BBMP and the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, cannot be sustained.
Relevant paragraphs: 9. It is not in dispute that on 11.08.2020 about two thousand to three thousand miscreants gathered at about 8.00 pm by holding deadly weapons and have barged into the house of respondent No.2. They have not only destroyed all the household articles but have also looted gold and silver ornaments, as well as cash property documents. Thereafter they set the entire house on fire including the vehicles, two police stations, 86 private vehicles and 57 police vehicles. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for petitioner-accused that the gravity of the offences cannot be a ground to deny bail and grant or refuse to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court and it will be related to a larger extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In that light he has relied upon the decision in the case of Sanjay Chandra V.s Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 ““40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.”
15…..The primary purpose of bail in criminal cases is to relieve the accused of imprisonment and also to relieve the said burden of keeping him in jail during a pending trial. At the same time to keep the accused in the custody of the Court whether before or after the conviction to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and will be in attendance there on whenever his presence is required. It is also noticed from the said decisions quoted supra, that while granting or refusing bail the Court has to take into consideration certain aspects. So in that light, I want to rely upon decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sidramappa Sathalingam Methri V.s State of Maharashtra reported in (2011)1 SCC 684 and subsequently Hon’ble Apex Court has re-visited the said decision in the case of Susheel Agarwal V.s State reported in (2020) Volume 5 SCC 1. Ultimately, the Court has laid down certain guidelines on the basis of which a bail application has could be considered with reference to the
facts of each of the cases at hand. It is brought to the notice of this Court in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda V.s State of Karnataka and another reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406 that Sanjay Chandra case, cannot be made applicable in each and every case for grant of bail.
18. Be that as it may as could be seen from the records, accused persons not only barged into the house of respondent No.2 and looted, destroyed house hold articles, they have burnt public properties i.e., two police stations, 86 private vehicles and 57 police vehicles. It shows that accused persons have taken law into their hands and have damaged the property and have created commotion in the society. Such act should not be encouraged. Bail petitions dismissed.
Daksha Legal 