26 August 2024 - Legal Updates

1. Can Alimony be Granted When Marriage is Declared Void Under Hindu Marriage Act | Supreme Court to Consider

The Supreme Court is set due to consider the issue whether alimony can be granted where the marriage has been declared void.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale noted that there have been conflicting views by the decisions of various division benched in interpreting the applicability of sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 (HMA) and a bench comprising 3 judges be set up to resolve the issue.

Notably section 24 provides for the interim maintenance during a pending litigation under the HMA between the spouses. Section 25 provides for permanent alimony and maintenance.

As per section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act a marriage is declared void if there is an element of bigamy, spouses are within the prohibited degrees of relationship or the parties are sapinda of each other under section 5 of the act.

The court noted the following decisions to be favoring the grant if alimony in the event marriage is declared void-

1. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav & Another (1988)
2. Abbayolla Reddy vs. Padmamma (1999)
3. Navdeep Kaur vs. Dilraj Singh (2003)
4. Bhausaheb Sandhu s/o Raguji Magar vs. Leelabai w/o Bhausaheb Magar (2004)
5. Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat & Others (2005)

On the contrary the following decisions rules against alimony in a marriage declared to be void-

1. Chand Dhawan vs. Jawaharlal Dhawan (1933)
2. Rameshchandra rampratapji Daga vs. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga (2005)

The court directed the records to be placed before the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud to accordingly set up a 3 Judge bench to examine the issue.

Case- Sukhdev Singh vs. Sukhbir Kaur

2. Hit-And-Run Cases | Supreme Court to Consider Cashless Treatment For Road Accident Victims & Online Transfer of Compensation Amounts

In a plea raising concerns about road safety, the Supreme Court is set to consider the issue of cashless treatment to victims of road accidents as well as formulation of a mechanism so that the General Insurance Corporation of India can make online transfers of compensation to the accounts of persons held entitled.

The order has been passed by a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih, stating,

"Directions will have to be issued regarding accompaniments of Form III appended to the Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022 so that the General Insurance Corporation of India is able to make online transfer to the account of the persons held entitled to the compensation. The other issue which we have to consider is about cashless treatment to the victims of the road accidents."

The matter is next listed for consideration on August 27. However, the issue of implementation of Section 136A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (electronic monitoring and enforcement of road safety) will be considered by the Court on September 2.

Background

As per the mandate of Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Central Government has framed the Compensation of Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022 which is effective from April 1, 2022. As per this scheme, compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs. 50,000 is payable for deaths and injuries respectively arising out of road accidents where the offending vehicle is not identified.

However, the number of people who avail the compensation under the scheme is very low. For instance, although there were 67,387 hit and run accidents in the year 2022, the number of claims raised under the hit-and-run scheme during the financial year 2022-23 were only 205, out of which 95 were settled.

A document from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways showed that in the last five years, there were 660 deaths in hit and run cases, and 113 injury cases, for which compensation of Rs.184.60 lakhs was disbursed.

On January 12, the Court took note of the dismal rate of grant of compensation to hit and run accident victims and issued a slew of directions, including that in a hit-and-run case, the police must inform the victims about the scheme. Further, it suggested revision of the compensation amount for death and grievous injuries arising out of hit and run cases. The concerned Standing Committee was also directed to take steps to increase public awareness about the scheme and to effectively implement the same.

Case- S Rajaseekaran vs. Union of India and ors.

3. When Non-Renewal of Employees Contract is for Disciplinary Reasons, Formal Enquiry is Necessary: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court emphasized that mere non mention of background situation in a termination order does not make if non-stigmatic and the court can look into the context to determine the true nature of the termination order.

The form of an order is not its final determinant and the court can find out the real reason and true character behind terminating/removing and employee, the court observed.

A bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah set aside the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court upholding termination of an Assistant Project Coordinator (APC) from her contractual position under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) program.

The Court observed that the termination order against the appellant was a culmination of two show cause notices against her and was stigmatic despite the state's argument that it was a simple non-renewal of contract.

The court referred to judgment in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, 1957 which held that termination based on misconduct or inefficiency amounts to punishment and must follow due process. The Court found that the respondents failed to comply with these requirements, as the termination order had adverse consequences for the appellant, affecting her future employment.

The appellant was appointed as APC on a contractual basis on October 15, 2012, by the State Education Centre, Sehore for one academic session, renewable for two years subject to satisfactory performance in the first year.

However, five days after taking charge, her responsibility for the hostel was withdrawn on January 14, 2013. Subsequently, she was issued two Show Cause Notices (SCNs) on February 14, 2013, and March 15, 2013, for various allegations including dereliction of duty, negligence, and indiscipline. The appellant responded to these SCNs, stating that she was being harassed as she had complained about the hostel.

On March 30, 2013, the District Appointment Committee decided not to renew her contract beyond March 31, 2013, citing her unsatisfactory performance. She filed a writ petition before the HC. On June 20, 2017, the Single Judge quashed the termination order, holding that it was stigmatic in nature and could not have been passed without a formal enquiry.

The Division Bench on February 3, 2020 allowed the state's writ appeal holding that the termination was not stigmatic but a simple non-renewal of a contractual service.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the appellant contended that the termination order was stigmatic as it followed the issuance of SCNs that included allegations of misconduct.

Additional Advocate General Nachiketa Joshi for the State of Madhya Pradesh argued that the termination was a simple non-renewal of a contractual service based on unsatisfactory performance.

The Supreme Court noted that the appellant faced complaints about her punctuality. In her defence, she admitted to being late occasionally but argued that she compensated by working late. However, the Court did not accept this excuse.

“It is no justification for the appellant to contend that she was late, but worked late/overtime such that the work did not suffer”, the Court observed.

Regarding complaints regarding her reporting on events in the hostel, the Court pointed out that she was in charge of the hostel for only 5-6 days, which was insufficient time for her to fully understand and report on the issues.

Clause 4 of the RGPSM's General Service Conditions allows for the termination of a contract employee with one month's notice if found inefficient, or immediate termination if the employee engages in "undesirable activities" that degrade the dignity of the Mission.

The Court remarked that the respondents placed themselves in a “Catch-22 situation”, as the termination order dated March 30, 2013, did not comply with either part of Clause 4. If the order was based on inefficiency, one month's notice was required, which was not given. If it was based on "undesirable activities," the order would be stigmatic.

The Division Bench incorrectly concluded that the termination was non-stigmatic and a simple non-renewal of the contract, the Court opined.

Thus, the Court set aside the impugned Judgment and reinstated the Single Judge's judgment with modifications. The appellant was granted notional continuation in service with 50 percent back wages. The Court denied the respondents the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against her as previously allowed by the Single Judge. However, the respondents may take action in the future if necessary.

Case- Swati Priyadarshini vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.