23 March, 2012

Legal Alert::: After the order of restitution of conjugal rights was passed against the wife, she had two options: (i) either to challenge the same or (ii) to comply with the same. If the wife chooses neither then she cannot be allowed to take the plea that the husband is committing domestic violence on her—Rajasthan High Court


The present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner wife who was awarded maintenance under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Protection of Women, Act, 2005 by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bassi vide order dated 11.10.2007. The appeal preferred by the respondent husband against the order passed by the learned Magistrate came to heard and decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 8th January 2008 set aside the order dated 11.10.2007 granting maintenance to the petitioner wife on the ground that respondent husband had filed a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights which was accepted and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed. Despite the decree, the petitioner wife did not go to live with her husband and thereupon, an application for divorce was filed, which was accepted and a decree of divorce was granted in favour of the husband, on the ground that the petitioner wife had deserted her husband without any reasonable cause.
After the order of restitution of conjugal rights was passed against the wife, she had two options: (i) either to challenge the same or (ii) to comply with the same.
If the wife chooses neither then she cannot be allowed to take the plea that the husband is committing domestic violence on her. If the wife does not perform her matrimonial duties without any justifiable cause, then she can not be permitted to say that the husband is committing domestic violence on her.
The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in the present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
If you want to read the full judgment , please contact us at legalbuddy@gmail.com
Regards
Team Legal Point Foundation
Legal Point Foundation
Deepak Miglani [President]
Dinesh Miglani [Treasurer]
Kamal Jeet [Secretary]
Contact Number:- 9215514435[Haryana],9958086337[Delhi]
Email:- legalbuddy@gmail.com
Website www.legalpoint.in, www.deepakmiglani.com

Do you know that if any part of a single consideration for one or more objects, or any one or any part of any one of several considerations for  single object, is unlawful, the agreement is void-Indian Contract Act.


08 March, 2012

Legal Knowledge::: Law relating to Downloading of Obscene Material by Customer in Internet Cafe


Contributed by Deepak Miglani
If a customer who visits an Internet Cafe downloads any obscene material for personal viewing on the terminal that is assigned to him and the Internet Cafe owner is aware of this, it is a serious offence that the owner can be held liable for under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code(I.P.C.), read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.
For an offence under Section 292 of I.P.C., it is usually imprisonment (simple or rigorous) on the first conviction for a term that may comprise up to two years, and with fine which may extend up to two thousand rupees. If this is a second conviction or more than that, it will be most likely imprisonment (simple or rigorous) for about five years, with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.
For an offence under Section 67 of the I.T. Act on first conviction, the punishment is imprisonment (simple or rigorous) for up to five years, with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. In second or other convictions, the imprisonment (simple or rigorous) can extend up to ten years, also with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees.
It is advisable for Internet Cafe owners to set up some effective hardware or software that prevents customers from accessing or viewing any obscene websites. Further, display clear disclaimers that inform customers about this policy. Customers should be made aware that obscenity is an offence which is taken seriously and is punishable with imprisonment under Indian cyber laws. If customers persist in viewing and downloading obscene materials despite adequate warning, they will be personally responsible and the cafe owner will not be considered liable.
Regards
Team, Legal Point Foundation  
For any Legal query :
Deepak Miglani Advocate(09958086337, 09215514435)
Legal India –A Group in Face book
Our main aim is to remove legal ignorance from our country because legal ignorance is one of the main hurdle in the path of our development. The Legal Tip/Legal News/Legal Alert are tools to spread legal awareness among literates. Approximately 50,000 peoples are receiving this message. Please forward this message to  your friends as a contribution to this holy cause. 

01 March, 2012

Legal Alert::: Non Delivery of Postal Article amounts –Postal Department are liable to pay compensation amount


Non Delivery of Postal Article-District Forum Allowed Complaint –Department went in appeal in State Commission-Held that officials are being negligent are liable to pay the amount-Compensation of Rs. 3,000 granted.
On 16.10.2007 a speed post envelope containing two drafts of the value of Rs. 1, 60,000 were entrusted to the post office speed post. This envelope was not delivered and when enquiry was made, it revealed that the envelope was not sent at all and it was returned to the sender on 31.10.2007. It was in back drop that the claim for compensation was made.
The post office has denied any liability for no delivery of postal article and referred to the exemption granted by Section 6 of the Indian Post Office, 1898 and Rule  66 B of the Post Office Speed Post Rules.
The District Forum has directed to refund charged Rs 25 and has awarded compensation for mental agony a sum of Rs. 25,000. A sum of Rs. 1,000 has been awarded as costs and the judgment directs that if within 30 days amount is not paid, 8% p.a. interest would be chargeable.
The Post office went in appeal in State Commission.
In the present case the case falls within four corners of the exception and displays a glaring example of willful negligence. Under these circumstances, the official being negligent is liable to pay the amount.
From the above we are clear that respondent is entitled to compensation for negligence. Accordingly, award of Rs. 25 as postal charges is just and proper. However, Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the District Forum is quite high in view of the Legal Position restricting the liability of the Central Government and we therefore award costs of Rs.  3000/- and the amount awarded by the District Forum is set aside. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Regards
Team, Legal Point Foundation  
For any Legal query :
Deepak Miglani Advocate(09958086337, 09215514435)
Legal India –A Group in Face book
Our main aim is to remove legal ignorance from our country because legal ignorance is one of the main hurdle in the path of our development. The Legal Tip/Legal News/Legal Alert are tools to spread legal awareness among literates. Approximately 50,000 peoples are receiving this message. Please forward this message to  your friends as a contribution to this holy cause.