The Telegraph
Since 1st March, 1999
Email This Page

Mind game

nIn a divorce case, the husband petitioned the family court to direct his wife to appear before the superintendent of a mental hospital to determine if she was suffering from any mental disease. The wife challenged the order, contending that it infringed upon her fundamental rights. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that even if the order did not violate her fundamental rights, a person couldn’t be forced to undergo such an examination. The family court drew its inference from the guidelines of the Indian Evidence Act, the court clarified (B. Laxmi vs B. Venugopal).

Full circle

nAbdul Sattar filed an application to quash a case against him under Section 498 (A) of the IPC that refers to a husband subjecting his wife to cruelty. Sattar contended that after divorce, the accused ceased to be a ‘husband’, and so the Section was not applicable to him. Rejecting his contention, the Kerala High Court held that if the husband committed the offence before the divorce, the proceedings would continue. All that needs to be proved is that the offence was committed when the marriage was valid, it said. (Abdul Sattar vs Annesa).

Taxman wrongeth

nEntertainment tax is levied at the rate of four per cent on movie theatres in Andhra Pradesh villages with a population of less than 15,000 and at the rate of five per cent in those where the population is 15,000 or more. Accordingly, a four per cent tax was levied on two theatres. But in 2001, they were asked to pay the difference of one per cent from 1996 because, the authorities claimed, the population in that village had reached 15,000 at that point. The high court held that authorities decide the tax amount and that the theatres had not suppressed facts (Sri Venkateswara Delux Theatre and Another vs Entertainment Tax Officer, Jogipet Medak District).


Email This Page