0

Courts cannot entertain a petition once electoral process has begun as it obstructs the process: MP High Court

Blog, High Court of Madhya Pradesh , ,

Case Title : Moti Singh vs Election Commission Of India Through Chief Election Commissioner & Ors.

 Case no : Writ Petition No. 1039 of 2024

 Order no : 3rd May, 2024Moti Singh v. Election Commission of India Through Chief Election Commissioner & Ors.

 Quorum : Hon’ble Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Hon’ble Justice Gajendra Singh

 FACTS OF THE CASE

The Election commission of India on 16/03/2024 announced the General Elections for the House of People. Both the Petitioner and the Respondent filed their nominations before the said date in the prescribed format as required under Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Indian National Congress declared Respondent No.4 as ‘approved candidate’ and the Appellate as a ‘substitute candidate’

On 29/04/2024 the approved candidate (respondent no.4) withdrew his nomination, following the Appellant submitted a request to declare him as the ‘approved candidate’ of INC. Subsequently the same was declined by the Returning Officer and he was deprived of his Legal right. As stating that it was necessary according to Sec 33(1) of the Representation of Peoples Act the candidate is supposed to submit the nomination with 10 proposers signatures.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Article 226 of the Indian Constitution : Clearly states that every High Court has the powers throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue writ or any order to any person or authority.
  2. Sub-Section (1) of Section 33 of The Representation of People Act , 1951 : A candidate not set up by a recognised political Party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from the constituency unless the nomination paper is subscribed by 10 proposers being elector of the constituency. 
  3. Sub-Section(5) of Section 36 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 : The returning officer shall hold the scrutiny on the date appointed in this behalf under clause (b) of section 30 and shall not allow any adjournment of the proceedings except when such proceedings are interrupted or obstructed by riot or open violence or by causes beyond his control:

Provided that in case an objection is raised by the returning officer or is made by any other person the candidate concerned may be allowed time to rebut it not later than the next day but one following the date fixed for scrutiny, and the returning officer shall record his decision on the date to which the proceedings have been adjourned.

CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT

The counsel for the appellant argued that the Learned Judge had overlooked the Provisions of the Representation of the Peoples Act which mentioned that only one single signature was required. The appellant also submitted that according to Section 36(5) of the Act the candidate must be given one day’s time to collect the signatures yet the Returning Officer rejected the appellants claim.

As a result the Appellant claimed that he was entitled to contest in the parliamentary elections.

 CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT

The Respondent’s counsel requested the court to dismiss the Petition as the High Court cannot entertain a petition under article 226 of the constitution once the electoral process has begun as it would be obstructing the electoral process.

 COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case dismissed the Appeal as to finding force in the contentions put forth by the Learned counsel of the Respondent.

 “PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY – Nagashree N M

0

Pregnant women cannot be deprived of Maternity Benefit or be discharged from employment during pregnancy : High Court of Madhya Pradesh

Blog, High Court of Madhya Pradesh ,

Case Title : Smt. Priyanshi Garg w/o Shri Ankit v Union of India

Case no : Writ Petition No. 5487 of 2024

Order no : 10th April, 2024

Quorum : Hon’ble Justice Subodh Abhyankar 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner Smt.Priyanshi Garg was a contractual employee in Army Public School, Mhow, District Indore (M.P.) she filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution Invoking the Jurisdiction of High court of Madhya Pradesh challenging her termination from employment by invoking clause 4 of the contract.

Smt.Priyanshi was appointed on an ad hoc basis as Primary Teacher in the Army public School on 15/09/2021. The contract was for a period of 3 years.

The petitioner requested maternity leave benefit under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and sent an email on 03/02/2024 to respondent No.4 regarding the same.

The respondent later informed the petitioner that due to the insufficiency of funds she had an option to go on leave without pay.

The Respondents later served an impugned two month prior notice for termination of her service on 12/02/2024

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Article 226 of the Indian Constitution : Clearly states that every High Court has the powers throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue writ or any order to any person or authority.
  2. Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 : Any women deprived of maternity benefit or discharged during pregnancy can appeal to the prescribed authority.

CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONERS

The petitioner contended that the notice which was sent by the respondent was in retaliation to the email which was sent on 03/02/2024. The petitioner further states that she was compelled to submit the notice copy to the National Commission for Women as the notice given was just an arbitrary exercise of respondent no.4  to bypass the provisions of Maternity Benefit Act of 1961.

The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Full Bench Judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others reported as (1978) 1 SCC 405 and stated that even tho the respondents school is unaided they are still obligated to follow the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961

CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT

The Respondents stated their contention by bringing the court’s attention to the petitioner’s temperamental issues and discriminatory behaviors which were brought to the schools notice by the parents.The respondents even mentioned the petitioners shortcomings as a teacher.

The counsel for the respondents stated that despite her willingness to give the Maternity Benefit to the petitioner, they terminated her from employment due to the complaints and her shortcomings.

The respondents even stated that the termination will not affect the petitioner negatively.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

Smt. Priyanshi Garg Vs Union Of India And Ors.Smt. Priyanshi Garg Vs Union Of India And Ors. The High Court looking at the contentions of both the petitioner and the respondent stated that as the management was willing to pay the maternity benefit but maintained its decision to terminate the employment because of the petitioners behavior. 

The High court referring to section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, highlighted the appeal mechanism to women who have been deprived maternity benefit or discharge during pregnancy.

As the respondents were willing to pay the maternity benefits the remedy for the petitioner under Article 226 was deemed to be granted. In such circumstances no other relief can be granted and the petitioner can take the recourse of the alternative remedy provided under Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 if necessary.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full- service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY – Nagashree N M

0

Assistant Labour Commissioner is not the Competent Authority to decide matters on Workmen’s compensation Act : Madhya Pradesh High Court

Blog, High Court of Madhya Pradesh , , ,

Case Title : The Factory Manager Rccpl Through Uttam … vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh 

Case no : Writ Petition  No. 16946 of 2021

Order no : 2nd April, 2024

Quorum : Justice GurpFactory Manager Rccpl And Anr vs. the State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others.Factory Manager Rccpl And Anr vs. the State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others.Factory Manager Rccpl And Anr vs. the State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others.al Singh Ahluwalia 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madya Pradesh, challenging the order which was given in the case  No.36/2020 which was passed on 6th August 2021 by the Assistant Commissioner, Rewa Division Santa. The order states that a compensation of amount Rs.70,46,638/- was supposed to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of impugned order as it was held that the petitioners had paid less overtime to 142 employees. 

ISSUES

Whether the factum of payment of less overtime than the minimum rates of wages was the specific dispute or not ? 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Article 226 of the Indian Constitution : Clearly states that every High Court has the powers throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue writ or any order to any person or authority.
  2. Section 20 of  Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONERS

The Petitioners contended that the order was passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, who is not the competent authority to do so under the Minimum Wages Act. The Petitioners further submitted that the complaint which was filed was regarding non- payment of minimum wages and not less payment of overtime.They contended that the impugned order was unlawful.  

CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT

In contrast to the Petitioners arguments the State contends that all the commissioners appointed under the Workmen’s Compensation Act have all the powers under Minimum Wages Act and further stated that the notice which was issued to the petitioners regarding less payment of overtime to the workers include non-payment of minimum wages also hence there was no prejudice caused

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

 The court after looking at the contentions of both the parties ruled that the Assistant Labour Commissioner was not the competent person to pass the order regarding compensating the workers for less payment of overtime. 

The court further stated that as the complaint was filed in a vague manner and the order passed was without proper authority, so the court set aside the said order and stated the competent authority to take up the issue.

The court further ordered the petitioners to appear before court without any further notice and directed the Workmen Compensation to decide the matter by conducting the proceedings de novo without relying upon any evidence by the Assistant Labour Commissioner.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full- service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY – Nagashree N M

0

“Single instance of Adultery does not disentitle the Wife to Maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C: HC of MP while Interpreting Adultery”

Blog, High Court of Madhya Pradesh , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Case title: Vijendra v. Rekhabai & Anr.

Case no.: Criminal Revision No.790 of 2019

Dated on: 15th April 2024

Quorum: Justice Prem Narayan Singh

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the realm of family law, the issue of maintenance often stands at the forefront, especially in cases where divorce has been granted on grounds such as adultery. The case in question, brought before the court as a criminal revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act read with Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., revolves around the award of maintenance to the respondent and her daughter by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhar M.P. The petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment, seeks a reduction in the maintenance amount.

The petitioner, having obtained a divorce decree on the grounds of adultery, contends that the respondent, his former wife, is disqualified from claiming maintenance. The learned trial Court had awarded Rs. 3000/- per month each to the respondent and their daughter. The petitioner bases his argument on the findings of adultery by the family court and cites precedents from the Madras and Karnataka High Courts to support his claim.

On the other hand, the respondent, while acknowledging her subsequent marriage, denies the accusations of adultery, asserting that mere allegations without substantial evidence cannot disqualify her from receiving maintenance. She relies on a judgment of the Delhi High Court to argue that only continuous and repeated acts of adultery warrant the disqualification from maintenance.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The petitioner’s counsel argues that the decree of divorce, based on the finding of adultery, is conclusive evidence of the respondent’s disqualification from maintenance. He cites precedents from the Madras and Karnataka High Courts to reinforce this argument.

M.Chinna Karuppasamy vs. Kanimozhi wherein, the Court has observed that “A divorced wife, who lives in adultery, is disqualified from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.”

Shanthakumari vs. Thimmegowda wherein the Court has observed that “the oral and documentary evidence produced clearly establish that the petitioner is not honest towards husband and she has got extramarital affairs with neighbour Mahesh and all along, she asserted that she used to stay with him. When the petitioner is staying in adultery, the question of she claiming maintenance does not arise at all. the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is a legally wedded wife and entitled for maintenance cannot be accepted in view of the conduct of petitioner, who is not honest and is leading adulterous life.”

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The respondent’s counsel refutes the allegations of adultery, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence to support such claims. She contends that even if adultery occurred, it does not automatically disqualify the respondent from receiving maintenance, as per precedents set by the Delhi High Court.

Sh. Pradeep Kumar Sharma vs. Smt. Deepika Sharma, wherein the Court observed that “only continuous and repeated acts of adultery or cohabitation in adultery would attract the rigours of the provisions under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C.”

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act: This provision allows for the filing of revision petitions against judgments passed by Family Courts.

Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. (Code of Criminal Procedure): This provision grants the power of revision to higher courts over proceedings in subordinate courts.

Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C.: This provision deals with the disqualification of a wife from receiving maintenance if she is “living in adultery.”

Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act: This provision states that a judgment or decree on a particular matter, having attained finality, is relevant evidence for deciding similar matters in subsequent cases.

ISSUE –

  • Whether the finding of adultery, leading to divorce, disqualifies the respondent from claiming maintenance.
  • What constitutes “living in adultery” as per the relevant legal provisions.
  • Whether the maintenance awarded by the trial court is excessive or justified.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court delves into the legal precedents cited by both parties to ascertain the definition and implications of adultery in maintenance cases. It emphasizes the distinction between isolated acts of adultery and continuous, repeated conduct, which is necessary to disqualify a spouse from maintenance.

In Ashok v. Anita, the HC of Madhya Pradesh interpreting the said provision and observed as reproduced –

A perusal of the provisions of section 125(4) of Cr. P.C. makes it clear that a stray act of adultery on the part of the wife does not amount to adultery within the meaning of section 125(4) and further does not disentitle the wife to maintenance.

Relying on the principles laid down by various High Courts, including the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the court concludes that mere allegations or isolated acts of adultery are insufficient to deny maintenance. It reaffirms that the term “living in adultery” implies a continuous adulterous conduct rather than occasional lapses.

In light of the evidence and legal precedents, the court finds no grounds to interfere with the trial court’s judgment. It upholds the maintenance awarded to the respondent and her daughter, considering the prevailing circumstances and the principles of justice.

The case serves as a significant interpretation of the legal provisions surrounding maintenance in cases of adultery. It underscores the importance of continuous, repeated conduct in establishing disqualification from maintenance, while also emphasizing the need for substantial evidence to support such claims. In upholding the trial court’s decision, the judgment ensures fair treatment and support for the dependent parties involved.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A

Click here to View full Judgement