Yatra Naryastu Pujyante… 46% of Indians say husband has the right to beat wife

Bengaluru, Mar 15: The civic body in Bengaluru has said that gathering at marriage functions should not exceed 100 people in order to curb the spread of coronavirus.

A circular issued by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) dated March 15 said, "All marriage functions pre booked in marriage halls, hotels, Party places, etc. prior to the issue of circular dated March 13, shall be allowed to be conducted subject to the condition that the gathering in the function not exceeding 100 persons."

"The above relaxation is an exception in consideration of the difficulties in rescheduling and cancelling the Marriage event immediately," the circular said.

It said, "The Owners/Management of such locations where Marriages are to be solemnized due to pre booking shall maintain high standards of sanitation and hygiene by periodically cleaning by 10 per cent Sodium Hydrochlorite Solution or any other effective disinfectant the surfaces, floors and exposed areas likely to be touched by the attendants."

"Any person attending the function having any such symptoms like Cough, Cold, and Fever etc. shall be requested for immediately leaving the Programmes," it said.

The civic body further said in the circular, "No fresh bookings of any place for Marriage programme are permitted till further orders. Any bookings on future dates by any organizer, event manager, owner of such property or any other person will be at his own risk and action will be taken against the property or any other person for any kind of bookings before an Order allowing such bookings is issued by a Competent Authority."

"The restrictions imposed are in the absolute interest of Public Health for preventing the Community Spread and outbreak of the disease at mass scale. All other restrictions imposed by order dated March 13 shall stand the same," the Circular added.

Mangaluru, May 21: The Supreme Court has awarded Rs 7.64 crore compensation to the next of kin of a man who was killed in a crash-landing of Air India Express Flight 812 from Dubai in Mangalore on May 22, 2010. The accident killed 158 out of 166 passengers on board.

The family of the 45-year-old Mahendra Kodkany, which include his wife, daughter and son, were earlier granted Rs 7.35 crore as compensation by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). This compensation will now get enhanced after adding 9 per cent interest per annum (on the amount yet to be paid), to be paid by Air India.

Kodkany was the regional director for the Middle East for a UAE-based company. The aircraft overshot the runway and went down a hillside and burst into flames.

A bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi said: "The total amount payable on account of the aforesaid heads works out to Rs 7,64,29,437. Interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum shall be paid on the same basis as has been awarded by the NCDRC. The balance, if any, that remains due and payable to the complainants, after giving due credit for the amount which has already been paid, shall be paid within a period of two months."

The apex court noted that in a claim for compensation arising out of the death of an employee, the income has to be assessed on the basis of the entitlement of the employee. The top court said: "We are unable to accept the reasons which weighed with the NCDRC in making a deduction of AED (UAE currency) 30,000 from the total CTC. Similarly, and for the same reason, we are unable to accept the submission of Air India that the transport allowance should be excluded. The bifurcation of the salary into diverse heads may be made by the employer for a variety of reasons."

The top court observed that the deceased was evidently, a confirmed employee of his employer. "We have come to the conclusion that thirty per cent should be allowed on account of future prospects", added the court.

The top court noted that if the amount which has been paid by Air India is in excess of the payable under the present judgement, "we direct under Article 142 of the Constitution (discretionary powers) that the excess shall not be recoverable from the claimants," said the court.