A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 34 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 42 NOMINAL INDEX Mohammed Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 34 Jeya Sudha v. Inspector of Police and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 35 P Amutha v Gunasekaran, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 36 Harina v. The...
A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 34 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
NOMINAL INDEX
Mohammed Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
Jeya Sudha v. Inspector of Police and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
P Amutha v Gunasekaran, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
Harina v. The Regional Passport Officer and Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
P Markandan v. The Commissioner HR&CE Department, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
KC v. UK and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
KC v. UK, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
M/s. Amirta International Institute of Hotel Management v. The Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
S v. V, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
REPORT
Case Title: Mohammed Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
The Madras High Court has said that the Shariat Councils are neither courts nor arbitrators and thus they cannot pronounce or certify dissolution of marriage by Khula.
Justice C Saravanan quashed a Khula certificate issued by the Shariat Council and directed a woman and her husband to approach the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority or a Family Court to resolve their disputes.
The bench noted that even previously, the High Court in Bader Sayeed Vs. Union of India had restrained bodies such as Kazis from issuing certificates dissolving marriages by Khula.
Case Title: Jeya Sudha v. Inspector of Police and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
While noting that there are only seven Special Courts to deal with NDPS cases at present, the Madras High Court suggested setting up of Special Courts covering 100 km radius or a Special Court for every four districts.
Justice B Pugalendhi suggested the same after noting that the Investigating officers were finding it difficult to follow up with the cases as they had to continuously travel long distances. The court added that the possibility of designating Additional District Courts as Special Courts to deal with EC/NDPS cases can also be explored.
Case Title: P Amutha v Gunasekaran
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
The Madras High Court has held that the maintenance allowance that is granted to the wife would not come within the purview of debt and thus, the pension of the husband is not exempt from attachment towards payment of arrears of maintenance.
Highlighting that maintenance is a social justice to prevent destitution and vagrancy, Justice V Sivagnanam observed,
"Lawful claim due to a woman in distress should not be denied heartlessly and lawlessly. The conscience of social justice, the cornerstone of our constitution will be protected. Therefore, I hold that the maintenance allowance granted to wife cannot be considered as a debt and she is not a creditor. Hence, exemption under Section 11 of the Pension Act 1871 as well as the exemption provided in Section 60(1)(g) of Civil Procedure Code, cannot be granted to husband."
Case Title: Harina v. The Regional Passport Officer and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on Monday directed the Central Government to consider issuing a passport to a woman, whose parents had escaped to India to save themselves from persecution.
Justice G. R. Swaminathan, noting that the process of applying for Indian Citizenship by naturalization under Section 6 of the Citizenship Act may not afford immediate relief, permitted the petitioner to submit an application under Section 20 of the Passports Act.
Case Title: P Markandan v. The Commissioner HR&CE Department
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
The Madras High Court has ordered closure of all illegal/unauthorised websites that have been created in the name of temples and which have been collecting funds from the devotees by misleading them.
Noting that temples are places of worship which people visit to get eternal peace and harmony, the bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad held that temples should not turn into places for gaining profits. Thus, the court held that apart from the official website of the temple, the third parties should not be allowed to maintain websites in the name of temples and collect funds.
Case Title: KC v. UK and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
While holding that the courts should always look into the best interest of the child in matters relating to custody, the Madras High Court has directed a mother to return her twin boys to their father in the US.
The division bench of Justice PN Prakash (since retired) and Justice Anand Venkatesh said the children are now living in an environment which is alien to them since for nearly 13 years, they were in the US.
The court followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Rohit ThammanaGowda v. State of Karnataka and Others wherein the Apex Court observed that the question of 'what is the wish/desire' of the child is different and distinct from the question 'what would be the best interest of the child'. The court had to thus look into the welfare of the child.
Case Title: KC v. UK
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
The Madras High court recently held that the law in India does not prohibit a person holding an Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) card or person temporarily residing here from seeking relief under the Domestic Violence Act in the Indian courts.
Justice SM Subramaniam said upon Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act "unambiguously stipulates that aggrieved person temporarily residing or carrying out business or employed is also falling within the ambit of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Therefore, a person, who is temporarily residing in India or Overseas Citizen of India, if abused economically by the spouse, who is residing in other country, is entitled to seek relief under the Act. The cause of action arouses in India, since the aggrieved person is residing in India."
Case Title: M/s. Amirta International Institute of Hotel Management v. The Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed the pleas filed by music composers AR Rahman, GV Prakash and Santhosh Narayan challenging the proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of the GST Department levying service tax on transfer of copyright in musical work for the period between 2013 and 2017.
Justice Anita Sumanth noted that to adjudicate the issue, it was necessary to look into the factual nature of the agreements between the petitioners and the third parties, and the authority was better equipped to look into the matter. The court added that the writ court could not go into interpretation of contractual clauses.
Case Title: S v. V
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
The Madras High Court recently said that as far as grounds for dissolution of marriage are concerned, they are of continuing nature.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan held that when the cause of action is of continuing and recurring nature, the subsequent petition for divorce will not be hit by res judicata.
The court noted that as long as the cause of action remains different and the relief is founded on new facts, there is no bar on raising the same grounds again.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: K Ponmudi v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case No: WP. No.2202 of 2023
The Madras High Court has directed the Income Tax Department not to take any coercive steps against Higher Education Minister K Ponmudi in a case alleging that the minister had received illegal wealth from one SRS Mining Company.
Justice Abdul Quddhose allowed the Income Tax department to file their counter and posted the matter to 27th February.
2. Madras High Court Seeks Govt's Response On Plea Seeking Gender Neutral Toilets Across State
Case Title: Fred Rogers v. The Chief Secretary and others
Case No: WP 2499 of 2023
The Madras High Court has directed the State to respond to a plea seeking gender neutral public toilets across educational institutes, at bus stops, railway stations, airports and such other public places.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy directed the State counsel to seek instructions and respond to the petition in a week.
The petitioner claimed that though transgender persons in the state are given the choice to choose toilets of their own self-identified gender, in reality they are harassed- verbally, physically and sometimes sexually, whenever they try to use the same.
The Madras High Court has made e-filing mandatory in both the Principal bench in Madras and the Madurai bench. This facility is initially compulsory for Anticipatory bail applications only.
The Madras High Court has also introduced an online certified copy application portal for issuing certified copies of judgments/orders/documents. The facility can be availed through https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/eservices/copyapp