Priyanka Gandhi to campaign for Assembly polls in Karnataka: DK Shivakumar
Bengaluru/Delhi, May 23: Karnataka Congress president D K Shivakumar on Monday said the party's national General Secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra has agreed to campaign and spend time in the state, for the Assembly elections next year.
The KPCC chief's sudden New Delhi visit came amid talks about differences between him and Congress Legislature party leader Siddaramaiah regarding probable candidates recommended to the high command for upcoming MLC polls in the state.
Shivakumar said he had come the national capital for party work and the final list of candidates is likely to be announced by this evening.
Tomorrow is the last date to file nominations for the June 3 polls to seven seats of the Karnataka Legislative Council to be elected by MLAs and all the three major political parties in the state -- Congress, BJP and JD(S)-- are yet to announce their candidates.
"Everyone will have the desire that their leader should come to their state, but as of now it has not been discussed," Shivakumar said in response to a question about several state leaders insisting that Priyanka Gandhi contest the Rajya Sabha polls from Karnataka.
Speaking to reporters in New Delhi, he said, "We have said that she should spend time for the state during elections (assembly polls) and she has agreed to it. She has said that she will campaign in the state...no discussion has taken place regarding Rajya Sabha tickets."
This comes amid speculation that a section of the Karnataka Congress leaders, including Shivakumar, wants Priyanka Gandhi to contest the June 10 Rajya Sabha polls from the state, as they feel it may benefit the party during the Assembly polls, due next year.
Shivakumar had recently said the party wants Priyanka Gandhi Vadra to "concentrate on the south, where elections are coming up".
Stating that he and Siddaramaiah together had submitted a list of candidates to the high command for MLC polls, Shivakumar said, "We have given our opinion and the high command will decide. There were more than 200 aspirants for the two seats, so there is difficulty, there are also people who have the required qualification and ability but have not asked for tickets, they too had to be considered."
He said, the list should be finalised and announced mostly by this evening, as tomorrow is the last day to file nominations
"We have taken care of all aspects including social justice while recommending names," he added.
The election is necessitated as the term of office of seven members is set to expire on June 14.
The seats will be falling vacant, due to the retirement of MLCs -- Laxman Sangappa Savadi and Lahar Singh Siroya of BJP; Ramappa Timmapur, Allum Veerabhadrappa, Veena Achaiah S of Congress; and H M Ramesha Gowda and Narayana Swamy K V of JD(S).
According to official sources, in this election, each MLC candidate will require a minimum of 29 votes to win, and on the basis of minimum votes required and tallying it with the strength of each party in the Legislative Assembly, the BJP will be able win four seats, Congress two and JD(S) one.
Responding to a question as to whether senior party leader and former Minister S R Patil is a probable candidate for the Rajya Sabha election, Shivakumar said, "party will decide regarding his candidacy...at the party's recent 'Chintan Shivir' (in Jaipur) it was decided that new faces should be given an opportunity from top to bottom level, so considering all aspects the high command will take a call."
Regarding his sudden Delhi visit, he said he had come here to collect election forms and also to participate in a meeting regarding organising state-wide yatras and state-level 'Chintan Shivirs' as decided during the Jaipur meet.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Husband has no control over wife's 'stridhan': Supreme Court
New Delhi, Apr 25: A husband has no control over his wife's 'stridhan' (woman's property) and while he may use it during the time of his distress, he has a moral obligation to return it to his wife, the Supreme Court has reiterated while directing a man to pay Rs 25 lakh to a woman in return for her lost gold.
The woman in this case claimed that 89 sovereigns of gold were gifted to her by her family at the time of marriage. Additionally, after the wedding, her father gave a cheque for Rs 2 lakh to her husband.
According to the woman, on the first night of their marriage, the husband took custody of all her jewellery and entrusted the same to his mother under the garb of safekeeping. She alleged that all the jewellery was misappropriated by the husband and his mother to discharge their pre-existing financial liabilities.
The Family Court, in 2011, held that the husband and his mother had indeed misappropriated the appellant's gold jewellery and that she was entitled to recoup the loss caused to her by the said misappropriation.
The Kerala High Court, while partly setting aside the relief granted by the family court, held that the woman had not been able to establish misappropriation of gold jewellery by the husband and his mother.
The woman then moved the Supreme Court against the high court order.
A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta said 'stridhan' property does not become a joint property of the wife and the husband, and the husband has no title or independent dominion over the property as its owner.
"Properties gifted to a woman before marriage, at the time of marriage or at the time of bidding farewell or thereafter are her stridhan properties. It is her absolute property with all rights to dispose at her own pleasure.
"The husband has no control over her stridhan property. He may use it during the time of his distress but nonetheless he has a moral obligation to restore the same or its value to his wife," the bench said, while referring to an earlier judgment on the issue.
The apex court said matters of matrimony can rarely be said to be simple or straightforward hence, human reaction according to a mechanical timeline before the sacred bond of marriage is severed is not what one would expect.
"Divorce, majorly, in Indian society is still considered a stigma, and any delay in commencement of legal proceedings is quite understandable because of the attempts made to have the disputes and differences resolved; more so, in a case of the present nature, when the appellant was faced with the imminent prospect of termination of her second marriage.
" Even otherwise, the appellant did not present before the Family Court a time barred claim. Doubting the bona fide of the appellant, on facts and in the circumstances, was thus not called for," the bench said.
The top court said the very concept of marriage rests on the inevitable mutual trust of the spouses, which conjugality necessarily involves and to assume that the woman from day one did not trust the husband is rather improbable.
"The High Court, thus, failed to draw the right inference from facts which appear to have been fairly established. That apart, we have neither been shown nor do we know of any binding precedent that for a claim of return of stridhan articles or money equivalent thereof to succeed, the wife has to prove the mode and manner of such acquisition.
"It was not a criminal trial where the chain of circumstances had to be complete and conclusively proved, without any missing link. Undisputedly, the appellant had brought to the matrimonial home sufficient quantum of jewellery, which she wore during the marriage and as is evidenced from photographs," the bench said.
The apex court said the woman had successfully initiated action towards recovery of money in lieu of 89 sovereigns of gold, which in the year 2009 was valued at Rs 8.90 lakh.
"Mere upholding of the decree of the Family Court at this distance of time, without anything more, would bring about injustice to her. Bearing in mind the passage of time, the escalation in cost of living, and in the interest of equity and justice, we deem it fit in exercise of power conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution of India to award to the appellant a sum of Rs 25,00,000," the bench said.
