A division bench of Justices VM Velumani and S Sounthar made the observation, while allowing a civil miscellaneous appeal from C Sivakumar, working as a professor in a medical college in Erode recently.
He sought to quash the orders dated June 15, 2016 of the local Family Court, refusing divorce to him.
When the woman was examined, she admitted that at the time of separation, she removed her thali chain (sacred chain worn by the wife as a token of having married). Though she proceeded to explain that she retained the thali and only removed the chain, the act of removing it had its own significance.
Her counsel, by referring to Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act submitted that tying of thali is not necessary and hence its removal by the wife, even assuming it was true, would not have any impact on the marital tie.
But, it is a matter of common knowledge that tying of thali is an essential ritual in marriage ceremonies that takes place in this part of the world, the bench pointed out.
The court also cited the orders of a division bench of the High Court, which stated that "from the materials available on record, it is also seen that the petitioner has removed the thali and it is also her own admission that she had kept the same in a bank locker. It was a known fact that no Hindu married woman would remove the thali at any point of time during the lifetime of her husband.
"Thali around the neck of a woman was a sacred thing which symbolises the continuance of married life and it is removed only after the death of the husband. Therefore, its removal by the petitioner/wife can be said to be an act which reflected mental cruelty of the highest order as it could have caused agony and hurt the sentiments of the respondent," the bench had said.
Applying the same yardstick, the present bench said the removal of thali chain is often treated as an unceremonious act. "We don't say for a moment that removal of thali chain per se is sufficient to put an end to the marital knot, but the said act of the respondent (wife) is a piece of evidence in drawing an inference about the intentions of the parties. The act of the respondent in removing the thali chain at the time of separation coupled with various other evidences available on record, compel us to come to a definite conclusion that the parties have no intention to reconcile and continue the marital knot," the bench said.
Besides, the bench noted that she had made allegations of extra marital affairs against the man with his women colleagues in the presence of co-workers, students and also before the police. In the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, the judges said they have no hesitation in holding that the wife had caused mental cruelty to the husband by suspecting his character and making false allegations of extra marital affair in the presence of others.
"We are given to understand that the appellant and his wife are living separately from 2011 onwards and there is no evidence on record to show that the wife has made any attempt for reunion during this period. Hence in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of our finding that the wife by her act caused mental cruelty to the husband, we propose to put a full stop to the marital tie by granting decree dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent (wife) that took place in November, 2008," the bench said, set aside the lower court order and granted divorce to the petitioner.
The High Court has ordered the actor to pay a pending tax of Rs 30.3 lakh in 48 hours. In 2015, Dhanush had purchased a Rolls Royce Ghost car from the UK for Rs 2.15 crore. After importing the car, the top actor approached the Commercial taxes department for NOC, but the department asked him to pay Rs 60.66 lakh as entry tax.
As per reports, Dhanush then moved the court against the department's demand of entry tax. At that time, the court had reportedly instructed the RTO office to issue an NOC only if the actor pays 50 per cent of the said tax amount.
The Court later permitted the registration of his car as per rules and regulations following the actor's submission that Rs 30.33 lakh had been paid. Since then, the writ petition has been pending.
This case was again to the fore when Dhanush's counsel told the court that his client was willing to pay the remainder of the tax and wants to withdraw the plea.
However, the Court refused to withdraw the petition and directed him to pay the pending tax amount within 48 hours. The court also censured the top actor for failing to clear the dues even after the issue was settled by the Supreme Court in 2018.
Raja was alleged to have made the remarks during heated arguments with the police in Pudukottai district on Saturday when a Ganesh idol procession was stopped citing court orders against the procession route.
On Monday, the Madras High Court directed Raja to appear before it in four weeks.
The Pudukkottai police had booked a case against Raja on Saturday under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Raja has denied making derogatory remarks about the judiciary and said his voice in the video clip was edited to tarnish his image. He said he respected the judiciary.
The court also said the state government is not monitoring the functioning of various commissions.
Ordering the suspension of the Justice Raghupathy Commission and stoppage of funds to it, the court directed the state government to take criminal action if there is proof of wrong-doing.
The AIADMK government headed by late Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa had ordered the conversion of the secretariat-cum-assembly building into a speciality hospital.
The AIADMK government also appointed the Justice Raghupathy Commission to probe irregularities in the construction.
The DMK had challenged the proceedings of the Justice Raghupathy Commission.
Dismissing the petition by Maran against the High Court order, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Naveen Sinha said: "The allegation is that you were using all this (telephone exchange) for your brother's business.
Dismissing the plea against the High Court order by Maran and three other BSNL officials, Justice Gogoi said in the order: "We are not inclined to interfere with the High Court order. Since recording of our views may effect the trial, we refrain to do so.
As one of the officials accused in the matter sought to address the court, the bench said: "Go with your minister. There are serious charges against you."
The court, admitting the criminal revision petition, issued notice to the Maran brothers and other accused.
A special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court, on March 14 discharged the Maran brothers and others from what is called the illegal telephone exchange case.
The CBI had alleged a loss of Rs 1.78 crore to the government due to the installation of alleged an illegal telephone exchange at Dayanidhi Maran's house which was used for Sun TV operations.
The others who were discharged were BSNL's former Chief General Manager K.Brahmanathan and former Deputy General Manager M.Velusamy, the former minister's Personal Secretary V. Gowthaman, and Sun TV network employees S.Kannan and K.S. Ravi.
The senior Election Commission official would submit the documents relating to the permission given for the thumb impression of Jayalalithaa and how it is in line with the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act and also the election conduct rules.
DMK's candidate P. Saravanan had approached the court to cancel the election of AIADMK's A.K. Bose from the Thirupparankundram Assembly constituency in the by-election held last year raising doubts on affixing of the thumb impression by Jayalalithaa in his poll documents.
Jayalalithaa who was in Apollo Hospitals during October 2016 had an inflamed right hand as she had undergone tracheostomy.
She had to affix her left thumb impression in the poll documents submitted by an AIADMK candidate.
As per the Representation of People Act, a candidate contesting on behalf of a political party has to submit Form B, where their party's leader has to authorise the candidate to contest under the party's election symbol.
The by-polls in Aravakurichi, Thanjavur and Thiruparankundram assembly constituencies in Tamil Nadu were slated for November 19 and the ruling AIADMK candidates had filed their papers.
The three AIADMK candidates submitted their papers on October 28 to the Returning Officers.
The thumb impression of Jayalalithaa was attested by a government doctor - P.Balaji, Professor of Minimal Access Surgery, Madras Medical College.
In his comments, Balaji said: "Since the signatory has undergone tracheostomy recently and has an inflamed right hand, she is temporarily unable to affix her signature. Hence she has affixed her left thumb impression on her own in my presence."
Dr Babu K. Abraham, working in Apollo Hospitals, signed as a witness.
Tracheostomy is a medical procedure whereby a direct airway is created by an incision in the windpipe enabling a person to breathe directly without the use of nose or mouth.
Jayalalithaa was admitted to the hospital with fever and dehydration on September 22 and died after over 70 days in December.
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter for an early hearing before a bench of Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
Mehta told the court the order staying the lookout notice was received by the CBI on Friday and since the next two days were Saturday and Sunday they were moving the court on Monday for an early hearing.
Mehta told the bench the Madras High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
Emerging from the court room, Mehta said that the plea was against stay of lookout notice.
He urged the bench to hear the matter at the end of the board later during the day saying that petition challenging the high court order has already been numbered.
According to reports, the lookout notice for Karti Chidambaram was issued by the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in relation to the alleged irregularities in securing Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approvals.
The court has posted the case for August 7, 2017.
Meanwhile, on his twitter page, Karti Chidambaram has posted a picture of him at his residence in Sivaganga district in Tamil Nadu with a comment -- "For all those looking out for me."
Permitting the board to declare the results and go ahead with consequential steps including counselling and admissions, the vacation bench of Justice Prafulla C. Pant and Justice Deepak Gupta said that no High Court across the country would entertain any plea relating to the NEET 2017.
Staying the May 24 order of the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court, Justice Pant passing the order said: "The High Court shouldn't have easily and liberally interfered with the schedule".
Popular Tamil movie hero Dhanush, born to Tamil film director and producer Kasthuri Raja, is the son-in-law of actor Rajinikanth.
Last year, the couple -- Kathiresan and Meenakshi -- had filed the petition in the magistrate's court in Melur in Madurai district in Tamil Nadu.
The couple also submitted physical identification proof and the court had ordered medical examination.
The medical team after examining Dhanush refuted the identification marks submitted by the couple.
Dhanush had approached the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court to set aside the proceedings in the magistrate's court saying that the case was aimed at extracting money from him.
On Friday, the high court allowed Dhanush's petition and as such the proceedings in the magistrate's court have been set aside.
The voting for the office-bearers for 2017-19 began from 8 a.m. and will go on till 4 p.m. here.
The counting will take place at 5 p.m. and results will be announced subsequently.
Gautham Vasudev Menon, K.E. Gnanavel Raja, A.L. Azhagappan, A.M. Rathnam, Prakash Raj, Mysskin and S.A. Chandrasekaran are among producers and directors from the Tamil filmdom who are contesting for various posts.
Actor Vishal, producer T. Siva, R. Radhakrishnan, Kalaipuli G. Sekaran and Kothanda Ramaiah aka KR are contesting for the post of president.
The election is being conducted under the supervision of Madras High Court's Justice (retd) S. Rajeswaran.
First Bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Abdul Quddhose posted it for hearing tomorrow before a bench headed by Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh after a mention was made for taking up the matter urgently.
Petitioner S Kalimuthu Mylavan, an advocate, submitted that candidates who applied from Tamil Nadu were allotted NEET examination centres in other states and not according to their choice within the state as mentioned in their applications.
The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) is scheduled to be held across the country on May 6.
Stating that at the time of applying, candidates are required to prefer three examination centres of their choice, the petitioner submitted most of them had chosen three centre situated nearby in their respective states.
The petitioner further said candidates from southern districts of the state had been allotted centres in neighbouring Kerala.
He contended that most of the candidates who had applied were from rural areas and from poor families and may not be able to afford to spend for their stay in other states.
He prayed the court to quash the April 18 public notice issued by Central Board of Secondary Education, which conducts NEET, and for subsequent direction to re-allot examination centres for candidates from Tamil Nadu to those nearest to their residences within Tamil Nadu.
In its counter affidavit filed before the court in compliance of notice issued to it, the TV network said its reports were based on the deposition of G Sampath Kumar before the Supreme Court-appointed Mudgal Committee.
Dhoni had filed the suit claiming Rs 100 crore damages for allegedly telecasting "malicious" news that he was involved in betting, spot and match fixing of IPL matches.
The Zee Television Network denied it deliberately attempted to malign Dhoni and accused him of attempting to gag media from discussing an issue of national and public importance.
As responsible journalists, they had a duty to report the "sorry saga" of Indian cricket and put forth questions in the mind of every citizen of the country, it contended.
In an interim order effective for two weeks, the court had on March 18 restrained Zee News and News Nation channels from telecasting any news linking Dhoni with the IPL betting/fixing scam and issued notices to the defendants.
A bench headed by Justice K S Radhakrishnan dismissed the petition filed by them challenging the Madras High Court's order which had refused to quash the proceedings against them.
Giving green signal to the trial court to proceed against them, the apex court also vacated the stay order on the trial and directed the lower court to complete the proceedings within four months.
The Income Tax department had in 1996-97 launched criminal proceedings against Jayalalithaa, Sasikalaa and Sasi Enterprises, of which both were partners, for not filing returns for the assessment years of 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94.
The trial court had dismissed their discharge pleas and the Madras High Court had upheld the same in 2006.
Subsequently, special leave petitions were filed in the apex court against the judgement of the high court.
Justice N Kirubakaran passed the order on a plea by advocate M Purushothaman seeking direction to the CBSE to follow only syllabus and books prescribed by the National Council Of Educational Research and Training.
When the plea came up for hearing before Justice Kirubakaran, the CBSE produced a copy of the circular which said it had issued similar circulars on September 15, 2004, and on September 12, 2016, saying there should not be any homework assigned to students of classes 1 and 2.
According to CBSE affiliation bylaws, schools affiliated to the board must satisfy its advisory saying no school bag and no homework for students up to class 2.
The board also stated that in compliance of the directions of the high court "it is once again reiterated that schools may ensure that no homework is given in class 3."
"It is also reiterated that since NCERT is an academic authority for classes 1 to 8, all schools may ensure that CBSE circular dated April 17, 2007, on reducing the satchel load and homework for children, is scrupulously followed," it said.
Recording the submission, the judge asked the counsel for CBSE on the mechanism it has to ensure that all the institutes implement the rule.
To this, the counsel said that CBSE would act whenever they are "put to notice of such violation."
Also Read: Alert! From February 2019, No Cash Refilling In ATMs After 9 PM
Refusing to accept the contention, the judge said "People are considering CBSE as a premier board, but it is unfortunate that you do not even have a system to check such violations."
"As you said there were over 18,000 schools affiliated to CBSE, but the board has a staff strength of only 1,200. With such a low staff how could you ensure implementation of rules," the judge asked.
[With PTI Inputs]
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology had asked Google and Apple to block the app following the Supreme Court's refusal to stay the original Madras HC court order on April 3.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday refused to lift the ban on TikTok and set April 24 the next hearing date.
A Google spokesperson told IANS: "As a policy, we don't comment on individual apps but adhere to the law in countries we operate in."
TikTok said in a statement that the company has faith in the Indian judicial system.
"We are optimistic about an outcome that would be well received by over 120 million monthly active users in India, who continue using TikTok to showcase their creativity and capture moments that matter in their everyday lives," a TikTok spokesperson said.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere, for now, with the Madras High Court's order banning Chinese video app TikTok, and directed further hearing in the matter on April 22.
Expressing concern over the "pornographic and inappropriate" contents of the TikTok, the High Court had, on April 3, directed the Centre to ban the app.
The ban order came after the court noted that children were being exposed to pornographic and inappropriate material.
With over 54 million users every month, TikTok allows its users to create and share videos and these may have inappropriate content.
The rise of Chinese short video-sharing app TikTok in India has been so spectacular over the past year that it is now nearly impossible for any social media user to not have come across its content.
These user-created videos that often contain memes, lip-syncing songs and sometimes sleazy posts regularly find ways to other popular social media sites including Facebook, WhatsApp and ShareChat. These are the platforms where most adult social media users are now getting introduced to TikTok.
Deciding the case filed by advocate Muthukumar, the bench vacated its interim order banning the app, subject to conditions that pornographic videos will not be uploaded on it, failing with the contempt of court proceedings would begin.
Early this month, the high court, on a petition filed by the advocate, issued an interim order to the Central government banning downloading of the app in India and restricted the media from telecasting videos taken using the app.
The high court had passed an interim order banning the app citing inappropriate and pornographic content.
Tamil Nadu's Information Technology Minister M. Manikandan had earlier said that the state would write to the Central government seeking a ban on the app in India.
The high court had appointed leading lawyer Arvind Datar as an independent counsel to the court.
On an appeal filed by the Chinese company, the Supreme Court, on April 22, asked the Madras High Court to decide on TikTok's plea for an interim relief by April 24, failing which the ban imposed on the mobile app will stand lifted.
The apex court had refused to pass any order in the matter.
The Madras High Court's Madurai Bench on Wednesday lifted the ban on video mobile application TikTok, owned by Chinese company ByteDance, subject to certain conditions.
Deciding the case filed by advocate Muthukumar, the bench vacated its interim order banning the app, subject to conditions that pornographic videos will not be uploaded on it, failing which contempt of court proceedings would begin.
"We are glad about this decision and we believe it is also greatly welcomed by our thriving community in India, who use TikTok as a platform to showcase their creativity," TikTok said in a statement.
Early this month the high court, on a petition filed by the advocate, issued an interim order to the Central government banning downloading of the app in India and restricted the media from telecasting videos taken using the app.
The high court had passed an interim order banning the app citing inappropriate and pornographic content.
Tamil Nadu's Information Technology Minister M. Manikandan had earlier said that the state would write to the Central government seeking a ban on the app in India.
The high court had appointed leading lawyer Arvind Datar as an independent counsel to the court.
On an appeal filed by the Chinese company, the Supreme Court, on April 22, asked the Madras High Court to decide on TikTok's plea for interim relief by April 24, failing which the ban imposed on the mobile app will stand lifted.
The apex court had refused to pass any order in the matter.
TikTok on wednesday said it was "committed to continuously enhancing" its safety features.
"We are grateful for the opportunity to continue serving our users better. While we're pleased that our efforts to fight against misuse of the platform has been recognised, the work is never 'done' on our end," TikTok added.
Sources in the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology said that official communication to the technology companies would be made after it receives the court directive.
The IT ministry had earlier asked Google and Apple to block the app following the Supreme Court's refusal to stay the Madras HC's call for ban on the app on April 3.
Deciding the case filed by advocate Muthukumar, the Madurai Bench on Wednesday vacated its interim order banning the app, subject to conditions that pornographic videos will not be uploaded on it, failing which contempt of court proceedings would begin.
Owned by Chinese company ByteDance, TikTok claims to have over 120 million monthly active users in India.
A search for the app on Google Play Store and Apple's App Store on Thursday did not yield any result.
While Google and Apple refused to share any official statement, the companies would be able to reinstate the app only when they receive an official directive revoking the ban.
TikTok refused to share anything more than what it had said on Wednesday.
"We are glad about this decision and we believe it is also greatly welcomed by our thriving community in India, who use TikTok as a platform to showcase their creativity," TikTok had said.
Deciding on the case filed by Puducherry Congress legislator K. Lakshminarayanan against Bedi, the High Court said the Lt. Governor has no power to interfere in the day-to-day activities of the government.
The court said that "Bedi does not have to power to call for files and give orders to the officials".
"The court said the administrative and financial powers are with the elected government and the Lt.Governor has to act as per the advice of the council of Ministers," Lakshminarayanan told IANS.
He said the court said it is only the elected government that has the power.
Lakshminarayanan said the court struck down the clarifications issued by Union Home Ministry in 2017 on the powers of the Lt. Governor.
The Congress government and Bedi were at logger heads for a long time.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi rejected the TikTok plea that all matters pending in the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court be transferred to the Supreme Court for final and expeditious disposal.
The court said the Madras High Court can very well address all issues, including those relating to free speech.
"We are not inclined to entertain this transfer petition," the bench said.
Earlier, the Supreme Court directed the Madras High Court to decide on the interim relief on the ban imposed on mobile app TikTok.
TikTok had challenged the High Court order in the apex court. The company claimed that the court's interim order was based on exaggerations made by the petitioner.
On April 17, the High Court refused to stay its order calling for a ban on the download of the app.
TikTok has contended that the problems faced by it are exactly the same as those faced by other social media platforms. Selective action against TikTok was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, it was contended.
Later, on April 24, the Madras High Court lifted its ban on TikTok on the condition that the platform should not be used to host obscene videos.
"As a testimony to ByteDance's recognition of India's efforts to frame a new data protection legislation, we taking a significant step towards establishing a data centre in India," said the startup, which also owns the social media platform Helo.
"We are now in the process of examining options for safe, secure and reliable services for our Indian users within Indian borders," it said.
It may take ByteDance 6-18 months to set up the data centre at a cost of $100 million, IANS has learnt. The investment will be part of the company's commitment to invest $1 billion in India over three years.
With over 200 million users, India is the biggest market for TikTok, where it has also courted several controversies over the past few month.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity) has sought response from operators of TikTok and Helo on a set of questions, which include if it was considering storing data in India, and the measures they were taking to protect users below 18 years from getting exposed to potentially dangerous content.
The social media platforms must reply by Monday or face a ban.
"India is one of our strongest markets and we are happy to be part of the mainframe of Digital India in 15 Indian languages," ByteDance said.
"Since the launch of our platforms in India, we have stored our Indian users' data at industry-leading third-party data centres in the US and Singapore. We believe the time has come to take the next big leap," ByteDance said.
The Meity sent notice to the operators on July 17 after the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh's (RSS) arm Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM) sent a letter to the Prime Minister alleging that these social media platforms were being used for anti-national activities.
The Ministry asked what user data in India was being collected by these platforms. It was also asked the rationale behind the minimum age limit (13) to use TikTok in India when "a person below 18 is considered as child in the country".
In a statement shared with IANS, TikTok said it welcomed the "opportunity to collaborate with the government to meet and exceed our obligations".
In April, the Madras High Court had passed an interim order banning TikTok, citing inappropriate and pornographic content. The ban was subsequently lifted.
ByteDance now has a portfolio of applications available in over 150 markets and 75 languages.
Going against the stand of social media companies, professor V Kamakoti made the submissions before a bench of Justice S Manikumar and Justice Subramonium Prasad which is hearing a PIL seeking a direction to the authorities to link Aadhaar number with social media accounts of users for easy identification of accused in cyber crime cases.
Countering the contentions of the social media companies, especially WhatsApp, that the original sender of a post can never be traced since all the messages sent through the application were encrypted, Kamakoti said it was technically possible to add an identification tag to messages.
The bench then directed the professor and his team to file their views as a report by July 31 to enable the social media companies to submit their reaction and adjourned the matter to that date.
Internet Freedom Foundation, an intervenor in the PIL opposed the prayer for linking Aadhar numbers, saying any direction by the court in this regard could potentially restrict fundamental rights of over 600 million internet users from the country.
[caption id="attachment_327991" align="aligncenter" width="750"] Pic Credit- dazeinfo.com[/caption]
It also opposed the professor's suggestion that phone number of the original sender of a Whatsapp message be included whenever it was forwarded, saying it would raise concerns regarding privacy and free speech of internet users.
"Anonymity permits dissent and it can enrich public discourse by overcoming hierarchical structures present in the society which silence individuals based on caste, class, religion, gender, and sexual orientation," the foundation said in its affidavit.
Pointing out to the "#MeToo" movement through which many women anonymously posted their experiences of sexual violence, the foundation said if these women had to disclose their identity they would have been forced to remain silent to avoid social stigma and retaliation by the perpetrator.
(With PTI inputs)