Recent matter of Pooja Khedkar IAS officer, who was transferred after demanding VIP treatment during her probation which underscores the fact that the government has mechanisms in place to address the misconduct among its officials. However, when it comes to family institutions, the concept of misconduct is entirely absent.

Government Accountability: The Case of IAS Puja Khedkar

The transfer of IAS Pooja Khedkar due to her unreasonable demands during probation is a clear example of how the government holds its officials accountable for misconduct. Misconduct in the government sector are established procedures to address and rectify such behavior. It ensures that in case of misconduct officials have to face consequences, to maintain standards of moral and ethical conduct.

Puja Khedkar IAS changed the number plate of Assistant Collector and forcefully acquired his cabin. According to news she submitted false document of her disability and OBC certificate to get reservation to secure her seat.

The Family Institution: A Different Standard

The family institution lacks a clear framework to address ‘misconduct’ or what could it be termed. When it comes to family dynamics, the law often remains silent, especially in cases where a woman harasses her husband, in-laws, or distant relatives. This silence creates disparity, as the same standards of accountability and consequences applied in government institutions do not apply within family Institutions.

The Double Standards in Marital Disputes

Considering a situation where a wife denies following family norms, is not adreessed. In the maintenance case, wife often makes exaggerated demands and the government, forces husband to pay the demands of wife, irrespective of their fairness. This one-sided approach leaves men and their families vulnerable to harassment without the acknowledgment of misconduct on the wife’s part.

However, men are held accountable for their misconduct with their wives, with various laws ensuring that men are penalized. Laws such as Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which addresses cruelty by husbands or their relatives, and the Domestic Violence Act, aim to protect women from harassment and abuse. These laws are essential for safeguarding women’s rights, but they also highlight the imbalance in how misconduct is addressed within family institutions.

The government lacks focus on save Indian family from any form of harm caused by false accusations or misuse of these laws. The government punishes its employees for misconduct but such a provision is absent in family institutions and its punishment is limited to men.

The Consequences of an Imbalanced System

Due to double standard in addressing misconduct leads to significant consequences that husbands and their families suffers from undue stress and financial burden due to exaggerated maintenance demands and false cases. In some cases, in-laws or distant relatives are falsely implicated in a legal battle, dragging the entire family and often baseless allegations are breaking families.

Emotional and Psychological Impacts

The lack of clear definition of misconduct and accountability has eroded trust and harmony within families, leading to long-term emotional and psychological impacts.

In the system, it requires, both men and women to be held accountable for their actions within the family, which can help promote fairness and integrity. It will also protect individuals from unjust treatment and foster healthier, more respectful family dynamics.

The new format will be applied in the case, if the parties has not submitted the affidavit of income, expenditure and assets. The revised directions and formats will be applied in all acts dealing with maintenance amount in matrimonial cases under “Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 125 Cr.P.C; Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.”

The bench directed the family court Principal Judge, to list the year old pending cases. The court has also directed to decide the maintenance amount after “hearing the parties” if there is delay in filing affidavit.

“If any party delays in filing of the affidavit of assets, income and expenditure or the affidavit filed by a party is not in terms of these directions or a party delays the disclosure of further information/documents and the delay is causing hardship, the Court is at liberty to fix ad-interim maintenance after hearing the parties.”

Some of the directions issued by the bench are as follows:

• “the Court may fix ad-interim maintenance on the basis of the admitted documents pending filing of the affidavit of the assets, income and expenditure by both the parties.”
• “a party delays the disclosure of further information/documents and the delay is causing hardship, the Court is at liberty to fix ad-interim maintenance after hearing the parties.”
• “If the statements made in affidavit of assets, income and expenditure are found to be incorrect, the Court shall consider its effect by drawing an adverse inference or imposing additional cost, while fixing the maintenance.”
• “At the time of issuing notice on the petition for dissolution of marriage, the Court shall consider directing the petitioner to deposit such sum”
• “At the time of passing a decree of divorce, the Court shall bring to the notice of the concerned party, as the case may be, that he/she can claim permanent alimony without prejudice to his/her right to challenge the decree of divorce”
• “The affidavit of assets, income and expenditure is to be treated as guidelines to determine the true financial capacity/status of the parties. The Courts are at liberty to determine the nature and extent of information/documents necessary and to direct the parties to disclose relevant information and documents to determine their financial capacity/status.”