Here is a site for all TAMIL speakers who are effected by 498a and DV act 2005. I dont speak Tamil so I hope the information is good.
http://ipc498a-misuse.blogspot.com/2010/02/blog-post_8503.html
பெண்கள் நாட்டின் கண்கள்!!
பாரத மண்ணில் வாழும் கோடிக்கணக்கான அப்பாவிப் பெண்களையும் குழந்தைகளையும் சட்ட தீவிரவாதம் என்னும் IPC498A பொய் வரதட்சணை குற்ற வழக்குகளிலிருந்து காப்பாற்றி சமுதாயத்தில் பெண்களின் நிலையை உயர்த்துவோம். பெண்களைக் காப்போம்! பெண்கள் நாட்டின் கண்கள்!!
http://ipc498a-misuse.blogspot.com/2010/02/blog-post_8503.html
Mr.Rebates
Sunday, March 7, 2010
TRUTH About dowry Law and Its Misuse.
http://mynation.net/study-report-498a.htm
This is a Report based on 5 years Research and Study on dowry Prohibition act, its use and misuse.This Reasearch conducted by our own Experts of MyNation for Save Indian Society,and not funded by any gender biased organisations. We studied 1500 Plus Families, these are feed backs from them and from the reports published by media.
This is a Report based on 5 years Research and Study on dowry Prohibition act, its use and misuse.This Reasearch conducted by our own Experts of MyNation for Save Indian Society,and not funded by any gender biased organisations. We studied 1500 Plus Families, these are feed backs from them and from the reports published by media.
In our judiciary, anybody can be bought, says Gujarat CJ
Mar 6, 2010, 03.36am IST
AHMEDABAD: Chief Justice S J Mukhopadhyay expressed concern over the future of Gujarat judiciary when hearing the case of termination of ad hoc fast-track court judges. The high court and the state government discontinued services of 56 judges last November.
Discussing charges of corruption in cases of some of judicial officers on Friday, Justice Mukhopadhaya said: "We are concerned about the future of Gujarat judiciary, where money has become the main source and where you can buy anybody with the power of money."
Justice Mukhopadhyay insisted on maintaining transparency in judiciary in order to uphold its credibility among people. He asked the lawyers representing the FCT judges how else the high court could have reacted to allegations of corruption levelled against the judicial officers.
The FCT judges were relieved from service last year with a remark in their termination letter that they were found 'unsuitable'.
The judge was of the opinion that issuance of a show-cause notice to the judges concerned would have served no purpose. He also made it clear that he was discussing the issue in the context of the judiciary across the nation, and not strictly pertaining to Gujarat.
AHMEDABAD: Chief Justice S J Mukhopadhyay expressed concern over the future of Gujarat judiciary when hearing the case of termination of ad hoc fast-track court judges. The high court and the state government discontinued services of 56 judges last November.
Discussing charges of corruption in cases of some of judicial officers on Friday, Justice Mukhopadhaya said: "We are concerned about the future of Gujarat judiciary, where money has become the main source and where you can buy anybody with the power of money."
Justice Mukhopadhyay insisted on maintaining transparency in judiciary in order to uphold its credibility among people. He asked the lawyers representing the FCT judges how else the high court could have reacted to allegations of corruption levelled against the judicial officers.
The FCT judges were relieved from service last year with a remark in their termination letter that they were found 'unsuitable'.
The judge was of the opinion that issuance of a show-cause notice to the judges concerned would have served no purpose. He also made it clear that he was discussing the issue in the context of the judiciary across the nation, and not strictly pertaining to Gujarat.
Not all demands dowry-linked: HC
Mar 6, 2010,
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has held that a solitary demand not followed by any harassment of the wife doesn’t constitute a dowry demand and is not punishable under section 304 B of Indian Penal Code. Justice V K Jain gave the ruling while acquitting three members of a man’s family who had appealed against their conviction for dowry death.
The main allegation against the accused was that they had asked for Rs 50,000 from the victim’s family and sent her to her parental house to get it. After it failed to come across any persistence in the demand for the amount, HC clarified that just because a demand was made once after the wedding, it doesn’t automatically attract penal provisions related to dowry as it was not ‘‘referable to the marriage.’’
‘‘Demand for something which has not been agreed to be given at any time before or at the time of marriage and which isn’t in the contemplation of the boy or his family members and which is neither expected by them to be given in the marriage can’t be said to be connected with marriage,’’ justice Jain noted, emphasizing that a demand should be in connection to marriage for it to be covered under section 304 B.
Explaining ‘‘in connection with the marriage of the said parties’’ provided under Section 304-B of the IPC, the court said that it clearly excludes the demands that were not in connection with the marriage of the parties.
The judge further clarified that even if the victim was harassed with respect to one demand, if it wasn’t connected to marriage it would not attract 304 B. ‘‘It is difficult to accept that the demands which are not at all referable to the marriage would also constitute dowry demand, in case woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection to such a demand,’’ he said.
However, the judge noted there are demands other than those covered under the definition of dowry which are made after the marriage and such demands do result in subjecting the girl to cruelty and harassment. He suggested the legislature change the law if these have to be dealt with under the IPC.
Earlier, the father and brother of the victim, Lovely, had alleged she committed suicide after being harassed for not bringing Rs 50,000. The trial court had in March 2005 sentenced the victim’s husband, Naresh Kumar Sharma, besides his father, mother and elder brother to seven years of imprisonment.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has held that a solitary demand not followed by any harassment of the wife doesn’t constitute a dowry demand and is not punishable under section 304 B of Indian Penal Code. Justice V K Jain gave the ruling while acquitting three members of a man’s family who had appealed against their conviction for dowry death.
The main allegation against the accused was that they had asked for Rs 50,000 from the victim’s family and sent her to her parental house to get it. After it failed to come across any persistence in the demand for the amount, HC clarified that just because a demand was made once after the wedding, it doesn’t automatically attract penal provisions related to dowry as it was not ‘‘referable to the marriage.’’
‘‘Demand for something which has not been agreed to be given at any time before or at the time of marriage and which isn’t in the contemplation of the boy or his family members and which is neither expected by them to be given in the marriage can’t be said to be connected with marriage,’’ justice Jain noted, emphasizing that a demand should be in connection to marriage for it to be covered under section 304 B.
Explaining ‘‘in connection with the marriage of the said parties’’ provided under Section 304-B of the IPC, the court said that it clearly excludes the demands that were not in connection with the marriage of the parties.
The judge further clarified that even if the victim was harassed with respect to one demand, if it wasn’t connected to marriage it would not attract 304 B. ‘‘It is difficult to accept that the demands which are not at all referable to the marriage would also constitute dowry demand, in case woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection to such a demand,’’ he said.
However, the judge noted there are demands other than those covered under the definition of dowry which are made after the marriage and such demands do result in subjecting the girl to cruelty and harassment. He suggested the legislature change the law if these have to be dealt with under the IPC.
Earlier, the father and brother of the victim, Lovely, had alleged she committed suicide after being harassed for not bringing Rs 50,000. The trial court had in March 2005 sentenced the victim’s husband, Naresh Kumar Sharma, besides his father, mother and elder brother to seven years of imprisonment.
Hindu Marriage Act not applicable to NRIs: HC
Mar 6, 2010,
MUMBAI: A desire to get married the traditional way attracts young non-resident Indian couples to tie the knot in India, but the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) may not be applicable to them if they are domicile of a foreign country. The Bombay high court has said that the HMA cannot apply to an estranged couple who were domiciled in the US.
Justice Roshan Dalvi quashed an order of the Pune family court which had said Indian courts would have jurisdiction to hear a divorce case even if the couple had resided for a single day in the city when they came to India for a holiday.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Michigan-based Smita Muley who had got a divorce from a US court. Her husband Suhas Muley came back to India and filed another divorce petition in a Pune court.
“The man cannot confer jurisdiction on the court of Pune where the couple never stayed together for any length of time in their own matrimonial home (India), they having had their matrimonial home in the US,’’ said the judge. “The HMA itself does not apply to the couple conse-qu-ent upon their domicile in the US and also because the rights between the parties have been settled by a judgment conclusive between them.’’
The Pune court had said it had jurisdiction to hear the case based on Suhas’s claim that they had spent a night in his parents’ house in Aundh, Pune, in January 2008.
“The order of the family court, Pune, concluding that the parties last resided together in Pune and even though their residence is for a single day, it would give the court jurisdiction, suffers from material irregularity and is required to be interfered with.’’
In the HC, Suhas produced documents as proof that he was domiciled in India: copy of his ration card issued in 2001, his driving licence obtained in 1999, a 1995 voter identity card and passport with validity up to 2019.
But the court was not satisfied. “None of these documents shows his intention to reside in India permanently; his Green Card shows he intends to stay in the US,’’ said the judge, adding, “It is easy to see that both the parties have had the intention of making the US their permanent home even prior to their marriage. Since their parents reside in India, they came to India to be married as per Hindu rites.’’
The court said Suhas could challenge the US court’s divorce order of January 2009 in that country.
MUMBAI: A desire to get married the traditional way attracts young non-resident Indian couples to tie the knot in India, but the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) may not be applicable to them if they are domicile of a foreign country. The Bombay high court has said that the HMA cannot apply to an estranged couple who were domiciled in the US.
Justice Roshan Dalvi quashed an order of the Pune family court which had said Indian courts would have jurisdiction to hear a divorce case even if the couple had resided for a single day in the city when they came to India for a holiday.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Michigan-based Smita Muley who had got a divorce from a US court. Her husband Suhas Muley came back to India and filed another divorce petition in a Pune court.
“The man cannot confer jurisdiction on the court of Pune where the couple never stayed together for any length of time in their own matrimonial home (India), they having had their matrimonial home in the US,’’ said the judge. “The HMA itself does not apply to the couple conse-qu-ent upon their domicile in the US and also because the rights between the parties have been settled by a judgment conclusive between them.’’
The Pune court had said it had jurisdiction to hear the case based on Suhas’s claim that they had spent a night in his parents’ house in Aundh, Pune, in January 2008.
“The order of the family court, Pune, concluding that the parties last resided together in Pune and even though their residence is for a single day, it would give the court jurisdiction, suffers from material irregularity and is required to be interfered with.’’
In the HC, Suhas produced documents as proof that he was domiciled in India: copy of his ration card issued in 2001, his driving licence obtained in 1999, a 1995 voter identity card and passport with validity up to 2019.
But the court was not satisfied. “None of these documents shows his intention to reside in India permanently; his Green Card shows he intends to stay in the US,’’ said the judge, adding, “It is easy to see that both the parties have had the intention of making the US their permanent home even prior to their marriage. Since their parents reside in India, they came to India to be married as per Hindu rites.’’
The court said Suhas could challenge the US court’s divorce order of January 2009 in that country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)