Best Divorce Lawyer In Delhi | Rajkumar Salanki

Is it feasible for a husband to request his wife’s income details via RTI to confirm proof in a maintenance case?

In many countries, including India, the Right to Information (RTI) Act is a powerful tool for citizens to access government records and information. However, using RTI to obtain private information about an individual, such as their income, is complex and sensitive. In the context of a maintenance case, where a husband seeks the income details of his wife, there are legal and ethical considerations to consider.

The RTI Act 2005 \in India is fundamental for promoting transparency and accountability within government organizations. It allows citizens to request information held by public authorities. While this Act enhances transparency and accountability, it has certain limitations, especially when accessing personal information. However, income details, especially in the context of a private individual, fall under personal information. Personal information, such as income details, is considered private and sensitive. It is protected under various laws and regulations to safeguard an individual’s privacy. This privacy extends to both spouses in a marriage.

A husband cannot seek the income details of his wife through the Right to Information (RTI) Act to verify evidence in a maintenance case.

According to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of personal information is exempt from the provisions of the Act. This is unless a larger public interest is involved, which, in this case, there is not. Furthermore, the income details of an individual are kept under confidentiality by the Income Tax Department, and the disclosure of such information would be an infringement of privacy.

In maintenance cases, the court may require both spouses to disclose their income and financial status. The purpose is to ensure that the spouse seeking maintenance receives a fair and just amount to meet their living expenses. Income details are crucial for making an accurate assessment of the financial needs and obligations of each party.

The courts can order parties to provide income and financial information in maintenance cases. They can issue directions for exchanging such information during the legal proceedings.

Attempting to use RTI to access private income information without proper legal authority or consent could result in legal consequences. It is essential to follow established legal procedures and respect the privacy rights of all parties involved. In many cases, cooperation between parties can simplify sharing of income details. If both the husband and wife are willing to cooperate, they can exchange relevant financial information voluntarily, which can help expedite the legal proceedings.

Alternative Legal Avenues:

If the husband needs his wife’s income details in a maintenance case, there are alternative legal avenues to pursue:

  1. Court Orders: The husband can request the court handling the maintenance case to order the wife to disclose her income and financial information.
  2. Interrogatories: The husband can use the legal process to submit interrogatories (written questions) to his wife, seeking information about her income and financial situation.
  3. Subpoenas: The husband can request the court to issue subpoenas to relevant financial institutions or employers to obtain his wife’s financial records.
  4. Financial Affidavits: Both parties must submit financial affidavits in which they disclose their income, assets, and expenses.

In conclusion, though the RTI Act promotes transparency and accountability, it also respects an individual’s right to privacy. It is therefore advised that in the case of disputes regarding income details in legal proceedings, the matter should be addressed legally through the court rather than trying to obtain the information through RTI.

Read More

Can a mother be denied custody of her child due to her relocating abroad for a better job opportunity?

Custody decisions are complex and highly individualized, typically determined by the child’s best interests. Factors considered may include the child’s relationship with each parent, age, health, and emotional ties, and each parent’s ability to provide a stable, loving environment. In cases where a mother is relocating abroad for a better job opportunity, custody could be impacted, but not solely based on relocation. The court will assess whether the move is in the child’s best interests, considering potential disruption to the child’s routine, education, and access to the other parent.

The primary consideration in child custody cases is the child’s best interests. This principle is universally recognized in family law and is intended to ensure that the child’s physical, emotional, and developmental needs are met. The court’s decision regarding custody will be guided by this fundamental principle.

The court will consider how the move will affect the child’s well-being, relationship with the non-custodial parent, and overall quality of life. The specific laws and regulations governing child custody vary from one jurisdiction to another. It is crucial to consider the relevant legal framework when discussing the impact of a mother relocating abroad. Different jurisdictions may have different approaches and standards for evaluating such situations.

The mother’s intentions behind relocating abroad are crucial. If the relocation is motivated by a sincere effort to improve her financial and living situation for the betterment of the child, the court may view it more favorably. On the other hand, if there are concerns that the move is primarily for personal or non-child-related reasons, it might affect the custody decision.

When a parent plans to relocate, they must present a well-thought-out parenting plan to the court. This plan should address how the child’s needs will be met, how the relationship with the non-custodial parent will be maintained, and how the child’s overall well-being will be protected.

In cases where a parent is relocating abroad, international aspects and agreements may come into play. Some countries are signatories to international conventions, such as the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which can impact child custody and abduction issues. The specific international treaties and the relationship between the two countries will influence the legal process and enforcement of custody orders.

Both parents are encouraged to seek legal counsel when facing a situation where relocation may affect child custody. An experienced family law attorney can guide the relevant laws and assist in making a strong case for the child’s best interests.

In conclusion, whether a mother can be denied child custody when she is relocating abroad for a better job depends on various factors, with the child’s best interests taking precedence. The specific circumstances, applicable laws, and the intentions of the relocating parent all play a crucial role in the court’s determination. Both parents need to engage in open and honest communication, possibly with the assistance of legal counsel, to reach an agreement that prioritizes the child’s well-being and maintains a meaningful relationship with both parents, even in the face of relocation. Ultimately, the court will decide to serve the child’s best interests and welfare.

Read More

Is it possible for same-sex couples to legally wed?

Yes, same-sex couples can legally wed in many countries across the world. The recognition of same-sex marriage is a civil right, political, social, and religious issue in many nations, and debates continue to arise over whether same-sex couples should be allowed marriage or instead be allowed to hold a different status (a civil union) or be denied recognition of such rights. Allowing same-gender couples to marry legally is considered one of the most important rights among LGBT activists.

The Netherlands was the first country to extend marriage laws to include same-sex couples, following the recommendation of a special commission appointed to investigate the issue in 1995. So, a same-sex marriage bill passed the Dutch parliament in late 2000. Since then, numerous other nations have followed suit, including Canada, Spain, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Belgium, and others.

In the United States, the legality of same-sex marriage has varied from state to state, with some banning it and others allowing it until 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. The ruling established a precedent that all state laws must recognize same-sex marriages.

However, it’s important to note that while these advances represent significant progress for LGBT rights, same-sex couples in many parts of the world still face legal challenges and discrimination. For instance, in some countries in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, homosexuality is still criminalized, making the prospect of legal marriage for same-sex couples a remote possibility.

In India, same-sex marriage is an ongoing subject of intense debate. Even though the Indian Supreme Court decriminalized homosexuality in 2018, effectively overturning a colonial-era law that had previously made same-sex unions illegal, legalizing same-sex marriages in India remains uncertain.

The current legal framework in India does not recognize marriages between individuals of the same sex. The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, which applies to most of India’s majority Hindu population, clearly stipulates that a marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus if neither party is an “idiot” or “lunatic”, the bridegroom has completed the age of 21 years and the bride the age of 18 years. Neither party is in a subsisting marriage. The Special Marriage Act, which governs non-religious marriages, similarly upholds that marriages may be solemnized between any two individuals without any religious restriction.

However, in recent years, various activist groups and individuals have begun to challenge this norm. They advocate for recognizing and legalizing same-sex marriage, arguing that these restrictions violate basic human rights. They believe the current legal standing is inconsistent with the 2018 Supreme Court ruling that decriminalized homosexuality, which was hailed as a landmark victory for human rights in the country.

Despite these advocacy efforts, the Indian government’s stance on the issue of same-sex marriage remains largely conservative, with many politicians expressing their opposition to such unions. In 2020, the Indian government responded to a legal petition to recognize same-sex marriages, stating that such marriages are “incompatible with the norms of our society”. They further argued that marriage in India is not just a matter of individual rights but also a union between a man and a woman intended for procreation, a key societal value.

However, the conversation surrounding the issue continues to evolve. A growing number of Indian citizens, particularly among younger generations, are openly expressing their support for same-sex marriage. Moreover, with the increasing visibility and acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community in Indian society, there is hope that the country may see legal reform.

In conclusion, while same-sex couples cannot legally marry in India, the landscape is continually shifting. The ongoing debates and activism around this issue are a testament to the progress towards equal rights for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. As more countries legalize same-sex marriage, India will likely follow suit and grant LGBTQ+ individuals the right to marry their partners legally.

Read More

A Positive Separation: Reflecting on the Verdict by India’s Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India’s ruling on divorce is a welcome step towards making divorce more accessible and humane for couples. The Court’s decision to grant a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even when one of the spouses opposes it, is a significant recognition of the reality of many marriages that have broken down beyond repair.

The Court’s judgment also acknowledges the importance of doing “complete justice” to both parties in divorce. This includes considering factors such as the welfare of any minor children involved and both spouses’ financial and emotional needs.

The ruling is also likely to impact the stigma associated with divorce in India positively. In a society where marriage is still often seen as a sacred bond, divorce can be a difficult and isolating experience. The Court’s ruling conveys that divorce is a normal part of life and not a sign of failure.

Invoking the “guiding spirit” of Article 142(1) of the Constitution, the Constitution Bench declared its ability to grant divorce by mutual consent to couples trapped in bitter marriages. This article empowers the Court to “do complete justice” in any “cause or matter,” it is this discretionary power that the Bench has determined to use to grant such divorces. This decision, a manifestation of extraordinary judicial discretion, signifies the Court’s commitment to upholding the rights and well-being of individuals, even when societal norms or individual opposition might suggest otherwise. It further emphasizes the importance of justice and humanity in the face of personal strife and discord. 

The Supreme Court of India, led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, has made a significant ruling to make the divorce process easier and faster for couples. Currently, Indian law requires couples to wait for six to 18 months for a local court to grant them a divorce, following the rules of the Hindu Marriage Act from 1955.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, criticized the existing divorce laws, which often focus on assigning blame to failed marriages. Instead, the Court argued that when a marriage is beyond repair, and both parties agree, everyone should acknowledge this reality rather than insist on maintaining the ‘married’ status. The Court believes that if a marriage is broken and there’s no hope of fixing it, it’s in the public’s best interest to let the couple divorce quickly.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court stated that it could use Article 142, a legal provision, to stop ongoing criminal or legal cases related to issues like domestic violence or dowry against the husband or the wife. This means the Court can intervene and resolve these legal problems to ensure a smoother divorce process.

Continuing with this line of thinking, the Court also mentioned that it could grant divorces based on the idea of an “irretrievable breakdown of marriage.” In simple terms, if a couple can no longer live together as a married couple and the damage to their relationship is beyond repair, the Court can cause them a divorce. This is an important change because, under the Hindu Marriage Act, the concept of an “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” wasn’t previously accepted as a valid reason for divorce.

Read More

Supreme Court Rules: Maintaining Union Despite Irreparable Marital Damage Inflicts Cruelty; Dissolves Marriage

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that forcing a married couple to stay together despite the irretrievable breakdown of their marriage constitutes cruelty. The court further stated that under such circumstances, keeping the legal marriage bond intact served no meaningful purpose, instead causing undue harm and distress to both parties involved. This revolutionary verdict paves the way for individuals trapped in dysfunctional marriages to seek and attain legal dissolution, thus ensuring their right to personal happiness and mental well-being.

 

The core of this ruling lies in recognizing the concept of an “irretrievable breakdown of marriage.” This refers to a situation where a married couple’s relationship has deteriorated to a point where it cannot be mended, and there is no realistic chance of reconciliation. While this concept has been accepted in various legal systems worldwide, the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, which governs marriage and divorce for Hindus in India, did not initially recognize this as a valid ground for divorce.

The Prevailing Law with The Supreme Court’s Perspective:

Under the existing legal framework in India, including the Hindu Marriage Act, the grounds for divorce often revolve around assigning fault or blame to one party or the other. These traditional fault-based grounds can include cruelty, adultery, desertion, and more. In practice, this means that one spouse has to prove that the other is at fault for the breakdown of the marriage, which can lead to acrimonious legal battles and further emotional distress for both parties.

The Supreme Court’s ruling acknowledges the limitations of the existing legal framework in handling divorce cases. It recognizes that the traditional fault-based approach often exacerbates the agony and misery experienced by the parties involved. In such cases, both the husband and the wife may be subjected to legal proceedings that can be emotionally draining and financially burdensome.

The court emphasized that continuing to keep spouses together when the marriage has irretrievably broken down can be cruel to both parties. This perspective considers the emotional and psychological toll a dead-end marriage can have on individuals. Staying in a broken marriage can lead to prolonged suffering and hinder the personal growth and happiness of the individuals involved.

The court stated that it could use Article 142, a provision of the Indian Constitution, to quash pending criminal or legal proceedings related to issues such as domestic violence or dowry against either party. This means the court can intervene and resolve these legal problems to ensure a smoother divorce process. By doing so, it aims to protect the rights and interests of both parties. The Supreme Court’s decision balances legal formalities and humanitarian considerations. It acknowledges that while the legal system must have procedures and regulations, it must also be compassionate and just. In cases of irretrievable breakdown, it is more humane to allow the parties to separate legally, acknowledging the reality of their situation.

The Supreme Court’s decision to dissolve a marriage despite the irretrievable breakdown of the relationship represents a compassionate and pragmatic approach to divorce cases in India. It acknowledges that forcing spouses to stay together in a broken marriage is cruel to both parties. This ruling will likely lead to positive changes in divorce laws, reducing the emotional and financial toll on individuals seeking to move on from failed marriages while emphasizing the importance of the best interests of the parties involved and the public at large.

Read More

2020 coronavirus pandemic in India /fight against corona

The first case of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in India was reported on 30 January 2020, originating from China. As of 11 April 2020, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare have confirmed a total of 6,761 cases, 516 recoveries (including 1 migration) and 206 deaths in the country. Experts suggest the number of infections could be much higher as India’s testing rates are among the lowest in the world.The infection rate of COVID-19 in India is reported to be 1.7, significantly lower than in the worst affected countries.

The outbreak has been declared an epidemic in more than a dozen states and union territories, where provisions of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 have been invoked, and educational institutions and many commercial establishments have been shut down. India has suspended all tourist visas, as a majority of the confirmed cases were linked to other countries.

On 22 March 2020, India observed a 14-hour voluntary public curfew at the instance of the prime minister Narendra Modi. The government followed it up with lockdowns in 75 districts where COVID cases had occurred as well as all major cities. Further, on 24 March, the prime minister ordered a nationwide lockdown for 21 days, affecting the entire 1.3 billion population of India.

The W.H.O  chief executive director of health emergencies programme Michael Ryan said that India had “tremendous capacity” to deal with the coronavirus outbreak and, as the second most populous country, will have enormous impact on the world’s ability to deal with it. Other commentators worried about the economic devastation caused by the lockdown, which has huge effects on informal workers, micro and small enterprises, farmers and the self-employed, who are left with no livelihood in the absence of transportation and access to markets.[ The lockdown was justified by the government and other agencies for being preemptive to prevent India from entering a higher stage which could make handling very difficult and cause even more losses thereafter.

Read More

NIRBHAYA RAPE CASE 2012

The 2012 Delhi gang rape case involved a rape and fatal assault that occurred on 16 December 2012 in Munirka, a neighbourhood in South Delhi. The incident happened when a 23-year-old female physiotherapy intern, was beaten, gang raped, and tortured during a private bus during which she was travelling together with her male friend. there have been six others within the bus, including the driving force , all of whom raped the lady and beat her friend. Eleven days after the assault she was transferred to a hospital in Singapore for emergency treatment but died two days later.[3][4] The incident generated widespread national and international coverage and was widely condemned, both in India and abroad. Subsequently, public protests against the state and central governments for failing to supply adequate security for ladies happened in New Delhi , where thousands of protesters clashed with security forces. Similar protests happened in major cities throughout the country. Since Indian law doesn’t allow the press to publish a rape victim’s name, the victim was widely referred to as Nirbhaya, meaning “fearless”, and her struggle and death became a logo of women’s resistance to rape round the world.[5]

All the accused were arrested and charged with sexual abuse and murder. one among the accused, Ram Singh, died in police custody from possible suicide on 11 March 2013 within the Tihar Jail.[6] consistent with some published reports, the police say Ram Singh hanged himself, but defense lawyers and his family allege he was murdered.[7] the remainder of the accused went unproved during a fast-track court; the prosecution finished presenting its evidence on 8 July 2013.[8] The juvenile was convicted of rape and murder and given the utmost sentence of three years’ imprisonment during a reform facility, as per the Juvenile justice Act 2000.[9] On 10 September 2013, the four remaining adult defendants were found guilty of rape and murder and three days later were sentenced to death by hanging.[10][11][12] within the death reference case and hearing appeals on 13 March 2014, Delhi supreme court upheld the guilty verdict and therefore the death sentences.[13] On 18 December 2019, the Supreme Court of India rejected the ultimate appeals of the condemned perpetrators of the attack.[14] On 7 January 2020, a judge in New Delhi issued death warrants for all four men, scheduling their executions for 7:00 am on 3 March 2020.[15] The authorities alleged that the four adult convicts were “intentionally delaying” and “frustrating” the legal process during this case by filing their pleas piecemeal in order that their execution might be postponed. On 17 January 2020, after the convicts exhausted their mercy pleas, a Delhi court issued a second warrant for the convicts to be hanged on 1 February 2020 at 6 am.

Read More
CALL NOW