WakeelSaab.in

INTRODUCTION  In a recent judgment passed by Delhi High Court, it was decided that the period of separation of one year period before filing a petition for mutual divorce is not mandatory but only directory. This means that now the husband and wife who are looking to get separated by mutual consent did not necessarily has to wait for a period of 1 year before approaching the Family Courts. The said condition is however not applicable for all cases by default but can be invoked only under the following circumstances: - The period of waiver of one -year can be applicable only in cases of exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity as the case may be in accordance with the proviso to Sec 14(1) of the HMA, 1955. The said proviso is also reproduced herein for better understanding: - Provided that the court may, upon application made to it in accordance with such rules as may be made by the High Court in that behalf, allow a petition to be presented before one year has elapsed since th...

RECENTLY, KERALA HIGH COURT UPHELD AN ORDER OF THE FAMILY COURT BY WHICH A COMPENSATION OF 6000/- AND RS. 4500/- WAS FIXED TO BE PAID FOR DESTITUTE WIFE AND CHILD.  FACTS  WIFE FILED AN APPLICATION BEFORE FAMILY COURT FOR SEEKING MONTHLY COMPENSATION UNDER ORDER 125 CRPC. HOWEVER, HUSBAND OBJECTED THE SAME BY STATING WIFE IS WELL QUALIFIED AND THUS WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION.  THE FAMILY COURT STILL GRANTED MAINTENANCE IN FAVOR OF WIFE AND CHILD. THE SAID ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BY THE HUSBAND IN KERALA HIGH COURT, HOWEVER, THE SAID ORDER HAS BEEN UPHELD BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS. OBSERVATIONS MERELY BECAUSE THE WIFE IS CAPABLE OF EARNING, SHE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE NOT ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE UNDER PROVISIONS OF SEC 125 CRPC. IN OTHER WORDS, THE SAID PROVISION IS AN ENABLING PROVISION WHICH IS ENACTED FOR AID OF DESTITUTE WIFE, DEPENDANT CHILD AND PARENTS. ONLY WHEN ACTUAL EARNING IS MENTIONED, THEN ONLY IT CAN REFUSE THE GRANT OF COMPENSATION AND NOT MERELY...

FACTS   IN YEAR 2022, A PERSON WAS ADMITTED TO HOSPITAL IN NOIDA AFTER SUFFERING FROM HIGH FEVER AND FACING BREATHING DIFFICULTY. THEY ALSO INFORMED THE INSURANCE COMPANY IN ADVANCE FROM WHERE THE PERSON WAS HAVING HIS MEDICLAIM POLICY. THE COMPANY ASSURED THAT CASHLESS CLAIM WILL BE CLEARED IN FEW DAYS. WHEN THE TREATMENT WAS DONE, THE INSURANCE COMPANY REJECTED THE CLAIM. LATER, THE PARTY WAS FORCED TO PAY THE BILL ON THEIR OWN. AFTERWARDS THEY FILED A CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY. IT WAS ALSO REJECTED WITH REASONS THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THE PATIENT TO GET ADMITTED FOR A SIMPLE FEVER WITHOUT HAVING OTHER SYMPTOMS. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE PERSON SENT THEM A LEGAL NOTICE, HOWEVER STILL CLAIM WAS NOT PASSED. LATER A CONSUMER CASE HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE INSURER.  OBSERVATIONS RECENTLY WHILE PASSING THE JUDGMENT, THE CONSUMER FORUM OBSERVED THAT IN SUCH CASES, THE INSURER CANNOT DECIDE IF THE PATIENT REQUIRES ANY HOSPITALIZATION OR NOT. IF THE DOC...