Class Notes - 8th November, Friday, 2024

#

These are the notes from the classes held on Friday, 8th November 2024 for LLB 3Y students at Padala Rama Reddi Law College, covering Family Law and Law of Torts. Though vetted, it may contain inaccuracies; discretion is advised.

Classes were suspended at 12 p.m.

Notes for Day 34 can be found here.

---

Family Law - 1

#

Faculty: Dr Sriveni

Key Sections in the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA)

#

Section 24 & 25 - Ancillary Reliefs

#

• English vs Indian Law: Under English law, only the wife can claim maintenance. In Indian law, both husband and wife can claim.

• Maintenance Pendente Lite (Interim Maintenance):

  • Right to claim maintenance is an independent right. “Pendente lite” refers to maintenance paid during pending proceedings.
  • This petition must be resolved within 60 days after serving the notice.
  • Maintenance is granted only to those without independent income (not based on assets).
  • Maintenance is provided for essentials like food, shelter, clothing, medical expenses, and, for an unmarried daughter, marriage expenses. It also covers dependents until age 18.
  • Maintenance cannot exceed the income of the other spouse.
  • The court considers both the claimant’s and the non-claimant’s income.
  • Maintenance is to be paid until:
    • Death of either spouse.
    • Remarriage of the spouse receiving maintenance.
    • Proven adultery by either spouse.
    • Resumption of cohabitation.
  • Maintenance granted pendente lite is temporary, covering the period until the case is fully resolved.
  • No conditions can be placed on the payment of maintenance.
  • Case Laws:
    • Indra Paul Kaur v. Tejinder Pal Singh: Maintenance should reflect the actual needs of the parties.
    • Remani Menon v. K.G. Omnal Cuttar: Maintenance includes food, shelter, clothing, and basic education.
    • Yashpal Singh Thakur v. Smt Anjana: Husband, an auto driver, stopped working and sought maintenance from his wife; the court denied maintenance.
    • Rani Sethi v. Sethi: Wife was ordered to pay ₹20,000 maintenance, ₹10,000 legal costs, and a Zen car to her husband by the Delhi HC.

• Permanent Alimony (Section 25):

  • Can be granted by the court either at the time of passing the decree or after the decree.
  • It is a one-time settlement, based on the status and assets of the parties.
  • Once alimony is paid, maintenance is no longer required.

Section 26 - Custody of Children

#

• Custody decisions are made alongside maintenance petitions, ensuring the child’s welfare is prioritized.

Section 27 - Joint Property

#

• Property acquired during marriage is considered joint property.
• Any one spouse can buy out the house from the other spouse OR the house can be sold and the proceeds can be shared.
• Case Laws:
  • Prathibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar: Court ordered the return of dowry and ornaments worth RS 60,000.
  • Sunita Shankar Salvi v. Shankar Laxman Salvi: After divorce by mutual consent, a jointly purchased property was sold, and the sale proceeds were divided.

Section 28 & 28A - Appeal and Enforcement

#

• Section 28 - Appeal: Appeals must be filed within 90 days. Appeals solely regarding recovery of costs are not allowed.
• Section 28A - Enforcement of Decree: The decree can be enforced in line with the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Section 29 - Customs

#

• All customs prior to 1955 are preserved under this section, acknowledging traditional practices.

Section 30 - Repealed

#

• Note: The Repealing and Amending Act, 1960 was enacted to clean up the statute books by removing obsolete or redundant laws and making necessary amendments to existing ones. In this case, Section 30 of the Hindu Marriage Act had already served its purpose of repealing the older laws when the Act was initially passed in 1955. Once those laws were repealed, Section 30 itself became redundant and was therefore removed from the Act.

Importance of Conciliation

#

• Conciliation is a process where a trusted intermediary helps settle disputes.
• Benefits of conciliation include:
  • Faster and cheaper than litigation.
  • Allows privacy, promoting the welfare of needy women.
  • Encourages spouses to resolve issues privately.
  • Conciliators counsel both parties to foster mutual understanding.

Recent Trends in Marriage

#

Overview: Society is witnessing significant shifts in marriage trends, influenced by modernization, economic factors, and evolving cultural values.

Trends in Marriage:

#

1. Live-in Relationships:

   • Increasingly common as couples test compatibility before marriage.
   • Live-in partners can claim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act of 2005.

2. Late Marriages:

   • People today prioritize establishing their careers and financial independence before marriage.
   • This causes people to marry late in the late 20s or early 30s.

3. Fewer Children:

   • Rising costs of living and career ambitions lead to couples having fewer children.

4. Rise in Marriage Counseling:

   • More couples seek professional help to navigate marital challenges, reflecting the need to visit such professionals.

5. Westernization & Modernization:

   • Exposure to Western ideals has influenced marital expectations, leading to conflicts between traditional values and modern practices.

6. Changing Purpose of Marriage:

   • Marriage was traditionally viewed as a holy union. Today, some consider it more as a partnership or contract. This is inspired by the American version of marriage.

7. Shift in Mate Selection:

   • Women are also given an option nowadays to choose. In the past, the mate was selected by parents.

8. Inter-caste and Inter-religious Marriages:

   • As societal norms evolve, couples increasingly marry outside their caste or religion, emphasizing compatibility and love over tradition.

---

Law of Torts

#

Faculty: Dr Pavani

This is part of General Defenses in Torts.

#

Volenti Non Fit Injuria

#

Definition: The legal maxim volenti non fit injuria means “no injury is done to one who consents.” This implies that harm suffered with the plaintiff’s consent is not actionable, as the person willingly exposed themselves to the risk. Thus, when harm is voluntarily incurred with full knowledge and free will, it does not constitute a legal injury.

Key Principles

#

1. Voluntary Consent: The individual must have willingly and knowingly consented to the risk. If someone knowingly exposes themselves to harm, they cannot later claim damages.
2. Application to Intentional Acts: This maxim applies primarily to intentional acts that would otherwise be tortious if the individual had not consented.

Case Examples

#

• Illot v. Swilkes: The plaintiff, a trespasser, knew the defendant had set spring guns to protect his logs of wood. When injured by the spring gun, he sued for tortious liability, but the court held that he had willingly exposed himself to the risk, so the defence applied.
• Hall v. Brookland Auto Racing Club: A spectator at a car race was injured when a car door flung off. The court held that, as the spectator voluntarily accepted the risk of injury by attending the event, the organisers were not liable.
• Woolridge v. Sumner: A photographer got too close to a winning horse in a stable and was injured when the horse kicked him. The court ruled that since he voluntarily approached the horse, he could not claim damages.

Knowledge vs. Voluntariness

#

• Knowledge alone is insufficient: The maxim is not sciente non fit injuria (knowledge of risk does not imply consent). Instead, it must be volenti, meaning that the person voluntarily and knowingly accepted the risk. Merely knowing about the risk is not enough; the individual must have also willingly accepted it.
• Case: Smith v. Baker & Sons (1891) – An employee working with stones being conveyed on a belt sued the employer after a stone fell and injured him. The court held the employer liable as they had not provided adequate safety equipment such as helmets, and mere knowledge of the risk did not mean voluntary acceptance.

Exceptions / Limitations

#

1. No Consent or Leave for Unlawful Acts: No consent or license can legalise an unlawful act.

   • Case: Lane v. Holloway – An old man challenged a younger man to a fight, and the younger man seriously injured him. The court held that the younger man was still liable, as one cannot consent to an unlawful act.

2. Breach of Statutory Duty: The maxim does not apply when there is a breach of statutory duty by the employer or responsible party. A workman cannot be denied compensation if injured due to the employer’s statutory negligence.

   • Case: Imperial Chemical Industries v. Shatwell – Two brothers, without authorization, performed a risky task in a quarry and got injured. Since they acted against instructions, the employer was not liable, as the injury resulted from their own voluntary actions.

3. Exigencies or Rescue Cases: The maxim does not apply when the plaintiff voluntarily faces risk to save another person from imminent danger due to the defendant’s wrongful act.

   • Case: Haynes v. Harwood – A runaway horse endangered a woman and a child, and a man was injured while attempting to stop it. The court held that this was an exception to the volenti rule, as the rescuer faced the risk to save others from harm.

4. Negligence Cases: The maxim does not apply if the harm results from the defendant’s negligence. For this defence to apply, the plaintiff must have willingly accepted the risk and agreed to waive any claim for injury.

   • Case: White v. Blackmore – The plaintiff, attending a dangerous event, entered knowing the risks. However, the owner provided limited instructions on safety. The court held that the plaintiff had consented to risk, but liability would still arise if there was negligence on the defendant’s part.

---

Rule of Strict Liability | No Fault Liability

#

Overview: The rule of strict liability, established in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), holds that if a person brings onto their land something likely to cause harm if it escapes, they are strictly liable for any resulting damage, regardless of negligence. This principle is also known as no-fault liability, as the defendant can be held liable without the plaintiff having to prove any fault.

Facts of Rylands v. Fletcher

#

In the landmark English case Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), the defendant, Rylands, owned a mill and sought to ensure a reliable water supply for its operation. He hired independent contractors to construct a reservoir on his property. During excavation, the contractors failed to notice old, disused mine shafts beneath the site. These shafts, unbeknownst to Rylands, connected to neighboring coal mines owned by the plaintiff, Fletcher.

After the reservoir was filled, water escaped through the old mine shafts and flooded Fletcher’s coal mines, causing significant damage. Fletcher sued Rylands, asserting that Rylands was responsible for the damage caused by the escape of water from the reservoir, even though Rylands himself had no knowledge of the mine shafts and had not acted negligently.

Court’s Decision and Principle Established

#

The House of Lords ruled in favor of Fletcher, holding Rylands strictly liable for the damages. The court established the principle that a person who, for their own purposes, brings onto their land something likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at their own peril. If they fail to do so, they are answerable for any harm that results from its escape, regardless of intent or negligence. This came to be known eventually as ‘strict liability’ or ’no fault liability’.

This principle, later known as the rule of strict liability, applies when:

1. A Dangerous Thing: The person brings onto their land a potentially dangerous thing that is likely to cause harm if it escapes.
2. Escape: The dangerous thing must escape from the property and cause damage.
3. Non-natural Use: The activity or use of the land must be “non-natural,” meaning it is an unusual or special use that increases the risk of harm.

Key Principles from Rylands v. Fletcher

#

1. Bringing a Dangerous Substance: The defendant must have brought something dangerous onto their land.
2. Escape from the Defendant’s Land: The thing must escape from the defendant’s land to another area, causing damage.
3. Non-natural Use of Land: The rule applies when the land is used in a way that is unusual and inherently dangerous, as opposed to a natural or common use.

Examples of Dangerous Things and Case Law

#

• Ponting v. Noakes: The plaintiff’s horse trespassed onto the defendant’s land and ate poisonous leaves. The court ruled no liability under strict liability since there was no escape.

Application and Limitations

#

The rule of strict liability laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher is limited by certain defenses, including:

1. Plaintiff’s Own Fault: If the plaintiff caused the escape, the defendant may not be liable.
2. Act of God (Vis Major): Natural events that are extraordinary and unforeseeable, like severe storms or earthquakes, can exempt the defendant from liability.
3. Act of a Stranger: If the escape was caused by the actions of a third party over whom the defendant had no control, the defendant might not be liable.

---