Mr. Rebates

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Union cabinet nod to making divorce easier

Amazing that one of the Heading states, "Not Good for Society." Interesting heading, do they think that 498a, and DV act 2005 are good for society?  Making divorce easier for all surely is a benefit for Men who are being abused with frivolous lawsuites and being held in unwantend marriages. Interesting India wants to follow developed Western Nations on Divorce yet the Useless Hindu Marriage Act of the first century only has 5 reasons now 6 allowed to Grant Divorce, while many Western Nations have 15-16 reasons to grant divorce.

June 12, 2010

Liberal laws are good

This has been a long time coming. The law ministry’s suggestion that “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” be made a ground for divorce has been cleared by the Union cabinet. Now, steps would have to be taken to amend the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act accordingly.

The marriage Acts of our country have clearly not kept up with the times. Legislated in the 1950s they have only three clauses for granting divorce: matrimonial fault, mutual consent and specific circumstances like a missing partner or insanity. The Supreme Court as well as the Law Commission have on several occasions recommended that breakdown of marriage be included in divorce provisions, but that is yet to have any impact on our laws.

It’s time this provision, which is available in many liberal democracies, be included in Indian law. The reasons for this are clear. Marriage is a contract where individuals are meant to enter on their free will. If one of the partners wants to break the contract for whatever reason, he or she must have the option to exit. This is akin to the no-fault divorce where dissolution of a marriage does not require any evidence of wrongdoing or breach of the marital contract. Several countries, including the US and Australia, have provisions for such divorce.

In the Indian context, objections have been raised regarding the vulnerability of

rural and illiterate women. These don’t have much merit. If a man seeks divorce, he is likely to exploit a legal loophole. In any case, our current laws have not been able to stop men from deserting their wives or marrying many times.

Instead of dwelling on the worst-case scenarios we need to amend our laws to make them more liberal. In the case of marriage, this must be predicated on the belief that it is a contract like any other.

Not in society’s interest

Rudroneel Ghosh

The cabinet’s nod to the proposed amendments to the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act, clearing the way for incorporating ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ as a ground for divorce, is a disastrous development. This will strike at the very root of the institution of marriage and significantly contribute to

higher divorce rates in the country. For, if irretrievable breakdown of marriage becomes a legitimate ground for divorce, it will serve as a convenient excuse for married men and women to opt out of their marriages at the slightest hint of inconvenience. This is especially true for the urban set-up where individualism along with financial selfsufficiency is on the rise. The repercussions are indeed grave. Increase in the number of broken marriages will lead to various social problems such as erosion of the concept of family. Plus, the negative impact of divorce on children is immeasurable. Hence, this is a trend that should be discouraged.

In particular, the amendments will severely impact married women from rural or disadvantaged backgrounds who are largely dependent on their spouses for their financial needs. Divorce for them equals destitution. In such a scenario if a man were to claim irretrievable breakdown of marriage and get a divorce, given our weak alimony rules, his wife would be forced into abject poverty. Besides, making divorce easier should never be the aim of the state. Instead, the focus should be on marriage counselling. Divorce should be the last resort when all else has failed.

Marriage is the most fundamental of social institutions and its sanctity must be maintained. Social problems in western societies can all be traced to their flippant attitude towards marriage and family. Our society should not follow suit and fall prey to misplaced notions of modernity.

Days before wedding, BPO girl killed by fiance

Accused Hits, Smothers Girl After Arguement Over Marriage

June 12, 2010

New Delhi: A 22-year-old BPO executive employed with a multinational giant in Gurgaon was allegedly smothered to death by her fiance, who works for another global major, less than a week before the two were to get married. The murder took place on Wednesday night but came to light on Friday, when the girl’s parents arrived in the capital and broke into her rented accommodation at Madangir in southeast Delhi.

The Ambedkar Nagar police have arrested the accused, Ravi Mishra, 27, who has confessed his crime. It seems Mishra was reluctant to commit to the relationship and the two had an argument over this at the girl’s residence on the fateful night. Police said Ravi hit the victim, Monica Jaiswal, with a heavy object and then smothered her. He left the body in the room and left after locking the place.

To cover his tracks, Ravi returned to Monica’s house twice and even asked the neighbours about her whereabouts when the girl’s family, based in Kanpur, sought his help in locating the girl.

According to Virender Kumar Chahal, additional commissioner (southeast), the wedding was slated for Monday but Mishra’s parents, who live in Khagaria, Bihar, were not too keen on the alliance. Monica’s family is from Aligarh but currently lives in Kanpur where her father works in the railways. “The girl’s family wanted her to get married soon. So they fixed a court marriage in Kanpur,” said Chahal.

Monica’s father Ravindra Jaiswal said his family had accepted the relationship. “Since both of them were staying alone in Delhi, we wanted the marriage to take place quickly. We had planned a bigger reception for November,” he said.

Police said Ravi had been trying to put off the wedding. “He did not wish to commit himself. He went to Monica’s residence on Wednesday evening. They had dinner together after which he tried to convince her that he was not in a position to marry. This led to an argument. An enraged Ravi claimed that his own parents were opposed to the match. When Monica refused to relent, he attacked her,” said Chahal. The cops said they have recovered broken glass pieces from Monica’s residence suggesting that a glass or a bottle might have been used as a weapon. “Ravi had planned his escape well. He tried to throw the police off track by claiming that Monica was in love with another person. He finally owned up the crime and said his reluctance to commit to the marriage was the reason why he killed her,” said a senior sleuth.

Monica’s mother Sunita told TOI that she had last spoken to her daughter around 7.30pm on Wednesday. “She said she was at the local market buying grocery. I again called her after 9.30pm but there was no answer. I thought she had gone to sleep. On Thursday, we called her again and no one picked up the phone. We called her office in Gurgaon but they said she had not reported for work. The office called back to say that she was not receiving their calls,” she said. The Jaiswals then turned to Ravi, to check on their daughter. “We called him twice and he said that she was not at home. Finally, we reported the incident to one of our relatives in Delhi. He reported that her house was locked. We finally decided to come to Delhi by the night train,” said Ravindra.

The parents broke open the main door, almost 34 hours after the murder, to find their daughter lying dead. “We immediately began questioning the accused who finally accepted the charges. However, since the accused had constant access to the murder spot, we are ascertaining whether he had managed to remove any evidence,” said an investigating officer. The Jaiswal family left with the body for Aligarh after the postmortem had been conducted at AIIMS.

Cases against NRI husbands on the rise

June 12, 2010

Hyderabad: The state police records an average of 80 cases every year of NRI husbands harassing their wives. In fact, as many as 30 such cases have been booked in the first four months of 2010.

According to CID officials who deal with cases registered against NRIs, a majority of the accused are white collar professionals including software engineers, doctors and management sector employees. According to CID IG S Umapati, about 90 percent of the accused are from US, followed by UK and Canada.

The majority of the cases registered against the NRI husbands have been under section 498-A (subjecting married woman to cruelty). The other sections include, 420 (cheating) and dowry prohibition act.

In the year 2009, a total of 87 cases were registered against NRI husbands in state, 34 non-bailable warrants, three look out circulars and four red corner notices were issued. About 90 percent of these cases have been registered in the city.

According to the IG, who is also an interpol liaisoning officer in the state, issuance of red corner notices had a positive effect on solving the dowry harassment cases involving an NRI husband, as most of them had been forced to come to India to face a trial. Two years ago, Interpol stopped issuing red corner notices

against accused in dowry harassment cases (section 498-A of the IPC). Prior to this decision by interpol, 19 such notices were issued in 2007.

However, even after the issuance was stopped, police are trying to bring the NRI husbands to book by trying to attach their property under section 82 (proclamation for person absconding) and section 83 (attachment of a property of a person absconding) of CrPC.

“We are also trying to extradite the accused as per section 105-B of the CrPC,” the IG said, adding that most of the victims return to their homeland to lodge a complaint as the marriage had taken place here and also because the concept of dowry does not exist in western societies. To prevent such tragedies, the IG said that people should do some basic background checks about the NRI bridegroom before marrying off their girls.

“Talk to the manager of the firm where the boy is working and also to at least two of his close friends. Send some of your people who stay in that country to verify the details. Take his passport and Visa number and be a lot more careful if he wants to marry very quickly,” the IG suggests.

Legally divorced abroad yet married in India

June 12, 2010

Hyderabad: After three years of banging doors at each other, it was time for Prakash to end his marriage, or so he thought. Stationed at Chicago on a work permit, Prakash realised just how hassle free ending his marriage would be in a foreign court where all he had to do was cite “irretrievable breakdown of marriage’’, a clause only being considered to be introduced in the Hindu Marriage Act. So while Prakash got the divorce decree, his shocked wife decided she wouldn’t take away the Mrs from her name so easily.

So, she came back home to Hyderabad and

moved the local family court seeking that the Chicago court verdict be eclared null and void. And she succeeded by virtue of the fact that foreign divorces are not considered valid in India unless the grounds and proceedings are in compliance with the Indian law. Also the verdict needs to be validated in India. However it is not a tangible victory. For, while the wife got her Mrs tag back, Prakash continues to live in Chicago as a ‘single, divorced male’. In legal speak, his marital status swings between married and separated, but socially he is back in the groom market looking at giving life a second chance.

Hundreds of nautical miles from Chicago, another Indian couple settled in Singapore decided to call it quits just that the wife was not quite ready, like in the Chicago case. Unwilling to accept the verdict, the wife came to India to get her divorce declared null and void. With a judgment in her favour now, declaring them to be still married, she is currently awaiting the execution of the court order. “If both husband and wife agree for a divorce even in foreign land, they can get it by dissolving the marriage under the provisions of the concerned marriage act. But in cases where one of the partners does not want a divorce, a petition seeking to get it declared null and void can be filed here,” said Anita Jain, family court advocate.

And this has resulted in creating a rare marital status: legally divorced abroad but married in India. Lawyers say that when individuals get married in India as per any Indian form of marriage, then the dissolution of the same should also happen through the Indian family court which has jurisdiction over the place where the marriage was solemnised. It could also be resolved in the family court which has jurisdiction over where they last stayed together. Thus, it becomes possible for couples to seek separation even when they are abroad, just that it takes a wrong direction when one of them does not consent to the separation.

But even a reversed separation decree has failed to yield much for the disgruntled

women in both the mentioned cases. In case of the Singapore couple, for instance, the husband though still married to his wife as ruled by the local family court in Hyderabad, has gone ahead and tied the knot again.

So whatever happens to the Mrs after she wins this court battle? The woman with a nullified foreign divorce decree in hand can claim a share in the husband’s property and also slap charges of dowry harassment and similar sections on the man, one reason why women continue to demand that divorces be declared null and void. “It has happened in a few cases. The woman has refused to drop her married tag to be able to claim her husband’s property and also ensure that he cannot visit India with pending cases against his name,” says Anita Jain.

In another case, however, the aggrieved wife who got the divorce declared null and void at the Secunderabad court is now trying that the orders be served to her husband in the US. She is also trying for bigamy charges to be pressed against her husband. Not only is the process long drawn, it is almost impractical to assume that a local court summons would be binding on a person settled or working abroad.

Men More Affected than Woman by Ups and Downs of Relationships

Guys Take it Harder, Turn to Drugs and Alcohol

Jun. 11, 2010

Contrary to popular belief, men are more affected by a rocky relationship than their female counterparts, according to new research from Wake Forest University.

Research shows that women have a harder time coping with a breakup, but the guys are the ones who feel more stress and strain when the relationship hits a rough patch, researchers found. On the upside, men also get more of a psychological and emotional boost when the relationship is healthy.

"Common wisdom says that women are more hurt by problems in a relationship," says Robin Simon, lead researcher on the study and a sociologist at Wake Forest, "but we found that the benefits of support [in a relationship] and the disadvantages of strain are exaggerated for the men."

"Men are more sensitive than we often think they are," she says.

For the study, Simon and co-author Anne Barrett, associate professor of sociology at Florida State University, drew on mental health and relationship data from over a thousand college-aged youths in south Florida.

They found that while men often put forth a brave front in the face of a faltering romance, they were hurting emotionally more than the women were -- they just didn't show it in the same way.

While women tend to get depressed when they are hurt or upset, men express their distress through substance use or abuse, Simon says. In the study, the more relationship problems a guy had, the more likely he was to score high on substance abuse measures, including those that gauge emotional issues associated with drug dependence, she says.

These results may point to a societal shift in the way that young men today experience relationships, gender and relationship experts say.

"These boys are more likely to have experienced a divorce in their family," Simon says, "and this might make them more sensitive to the ups and downs of a relationship. They are more aware of the frailties of relationships than past generations."

The study was published in the June edition of the Journal of Health and Social Behaviour.

Big Boys Don't Cry, They Drink

Though these findings run counter to popular wisdom about the way men handle their relationships, gender and relationship experts were not surprised by these results.

"Women are more naturally expressive," says Audrey Nelson, author of "Code Switching: How to Talk so Men Will Listen." "We'll cry, show our feelings – when a women is having a hard time, she has two or three friends she can talk to, to ease the pain. Men have the same feelings and emotions, but they have no outlet."

"One of the ten commandments of "masculinity" is 'thou shalt not be vulnerable,'" she says, "so they self-medicate the feelings with drugs and alcohol and drown their vulnerability, rejection, sadness."

Nelson says the difference between the sexes has to do with both how women and men are wired neurologically and taught socially.

Research shows that the region of a woman's brain related to compassion and empathy is larger than a man's, she says, so "straight out of the womb she's more nurturing."

Then, society trains girls to express their feelings -- though not their anger, she notes -- while men are taught not to cry, not to show vulnerability. In fact, she says "the only sanctioned emotion for men to express publicly is anger. It's no surprise that men turn to alcohol to numb the [unwanted] emotions."
Today's Boys: Generation Vexed?

The young men in the study were more likely to have "mothers employed outside the home, fathers absent or dependent on the mother's income, or a child of divorce" than past generations, Simon says.

This may be at the heart of why young men today may be more sensitive to the trials of a relationship, she says.

Alternatively, Frances Cohen Praver, an author and psychologist in Locust Valley, New York, says the gender difference might be because women are less sensitive to these issues today.

"Women are more autonomous and independent. They need to love and be loved, but they can get love from their friends and family," she says.

This might also be why men in the study benefited more from the support of a healthy romantic relationship -- because they were getting support they otherwise wouldn't get.

But the issue cannot be explained by the social support element alone, Simon warns. "We can't tease out whether it's their emotional development at this time in their life, or if it's this generation, or what," she says.

So as for what causes these emotional gender differences, "That's the million dollar question," she says.

Divorce 'cruel' NRI hubby, Bombay HC to woman

 Jun 12, 2010,

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Friday suggested that a 22-year-old Mumbai girl, who has filed a case against her estranged NRI husband alleging cruelty and torture, file for divorce rather than seek a police probe because of technical difficulties.

“Why do you want to run after a dead marriage? You are keeping the courts and the police machinery busy. At the end of the day, what are you going to achieve,’’ asked Justice B H Marlapalle. A division bench of Justice Marlapalle and Justice Anoop V Mohta is hearing a petition filed by Borivli-resident Maya Bhatnagar (name changed).

Maya, who married London-based Paresh Bhatnagar (name changed) on March 27, 2008. “My parents spent a lot on my wedding and ensured that all the demands made by Paresh’s family were met,” Maya has claimed.

Maya’s family was shocked when they realised that Paresh, who was scheduled to return to London, had not booked tickets for his wife. Maya has alleged that she had to book her tickets using her own “sources”. However, her travails did not end there. When she arrived in London in June-July 2008, neither Paresh nor his family welcomed her. “From October 2008, I was frequently subjected to mental and physical cruelty by Paresh and his family,” Maya has alleged. “On December 11, 2008, Paresh drove me out of the house and sent me back to India,” Maya has claimed in her petition.

Subsequently, Maya filed a complaint against Paresh at the Borivli police station in March 2009, following which the cops sent a notice to the Scotland police. When Maya received no response, she filed a case under Section 498A for dowry harassment and an FIR was registered. However, Maya alleged that no step was taken by the police. “The police can’t force him to come,” said Justice Marlapalle.

Maya’s lawyer said Paresh has initiated divorce proceedings in London and she is unable to go there due to financial reasons. “They’ll decide the case ex parte then. This is a case of marital dispute,” said Justice Marlapalle.

SIFF presents Research Report on 498A and Alimony-Maintenance to Law Commission of Karnataka

Sub: SIFF presents Research Report on 498A and Alimony/Maintenance to Law Commission of Karnataka

Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) is a non-funded non-profit NGO fighting for men’s rights, Gender Equality and Family Harmony by creating awareness against the misuse of gender obsessed laws like Section 498A, the Domestic Violence Act, and the various Maintenance laws etc. which are systematically breaking down the family system of India.

Gender-budgeting has been happening in India since quite some years and with the institution of Constitutional and quasi-constitutional bodies like the National Commission for Women (NCW) and Women & Child Development Ministry (WCD), a significant portion of the union budget is kept aside for studying women’s issues and addressing them through recommendations provided by NCW to WCD.

Interestingly, in the last 62 years of Indian Independence neither a single rupee has ever been allocated for men’s welfare nor has a single Constitutional/Academic body ever been formed to study the problems faced by men let alone addressing them.

This emptiness has led SIFF to do research on men’s problems, talk to the victimized men, understand their pain, collect data and statistics related to men’s abuse and create awareness about them. SIFF has been doing this research since the last 5 years. Also SIFF and its allied NGOs all over India, have been engaging in various awareness campaigns to create awareness of men’s issues through media, internet blogs and road protests.

SIFF also engages in counseling victimized men and their families – who are victims of social bias and stereotypic presumptions and providing them with moral support. Interacting with them provided SIFF the data required to understand the lacunae in the existing law and legal provisions which formed a core part of study of SIFF’s research team.

Taking note of the constant awareness created by SIFF, the Law Commission of Karnataka headed by Dr. Justice V.S.Malimath invited SIFF to know their views on the existing nature of Section 498A and the necessary changes. After detailed discussions on the 25th of August 2009, the Law Commission of Karnataka requested SIFF to submit a report containing SIFF’s recommendations on the changes needed in Section 498A.

SIFF has submitted its report to the Law Commission of Karnataka on the 22nd October 2009. The report titled “The Perils of Section 498A of IPC – A Report on Changes Required” talks on the need and reasons of making Section 498A “Bailable and Non-Cognizable”.

The main highlighted points of the report are:-

1. A brief technical explanation of the Section 498A of IPC and the modus operandi of its misuse with some curious and famous cases highlighting one or the other lacunae of the criminal justice system.

2. Locus Standi of Experts on Section 498A which includes views of the higher judiciary, some eminent lawyers, noted women’s rights activist Madhu Kishwar, Chairperson of the National Commission for Women Dr. Girija Vyas to name a few.

3. The various impacts created by Section 498A on the Government, Police, Elders, Professional lives of individuals implicated in false 498A cases, and Psychological impact on individuals in particular and the society at large.

4. The fact that Section 498A and the processes around it at various stages like complaint stage, FIR and bail stage, trial stage have made “Suicide – The only way out of a broken marriage for husbands” along with illustrative examples spread over the bandwidth of social strata and case stages.

Additionally, taking cognizance of the media reports on the 12th of October 2009 that the National Commission of Women has suggested radical and vicious recommendations in the alimony and maintenance scenario especially in Section 125 CrPC, which included giving maintenance to “adulterous wives” and forcing man to pay maintenance outside his sufficient means, SIFF decided to prepare a report on the alimony/maintenance front as well.

Keeping in mind that husbands are a major stakeholders in the alimony/maintenance scenario and SIFF being a prominent organization focusing on husband’s issues; SIFF felt it extremely important to articulate the viewpoint of a neglected section of society in lawmaking, namely husbands, on the issue Alimony/Maintenance front and on the 22nd of October 2009, SIFF presented a report titled “Rationalization of Alimony Laws” along with “The Perils of Section 498A of IPC – A Report on Changes Required”.

The main highlighting points of the report on alimony are:-

1. Alimony – Its Origin.

2. Cases where Alimony/Maintenance is justified.

3. Cases where Alimony/Maintenance is thoroughly unjustified.

4. The Rural vs. Urban Women Divide.

5. A recent shift of attitude in the western countries with some case studies.

6. The needed rationalizations.

The second report on alimony has also been accepted by the Law Commission of Karnataka. The Law Commission of Karnataka has greatly appreciated SIFF’s report for its depth in content, research and reliance on hard-facts and accepted both the reports viz. The Perils of Section 498A of IPC – A Report on Changes Required” and “Rationalization of Alimony Laws“.

A copy of both the reports will also be sent to the Law Commission of India and the Ministry of Law and Justice for their perusal, consideration and implementation. We believe that a new beginning has been made with the articulation of the rights and needs of husbands. The same if consulted and considered in every law making procedure, then urgent rationalization of the laws will be complete in addressing the needs and rights of husbands leading to a sane and just society.

SIFF would like to end this press release with a feeling that “Change is constant and required”.

Date: 23-Oct-09 Thanks and Regards

Place: Bangalore Research Team

Save Indian Family Foundation

Revisit laws which shield corrupt govt officials: Moily

Mon Sep 14 2009

New Delhi: A day after Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan pointed at delays in granting sanction to prosecute corrupt government officials, Law Minister M Veerappa Moily on Sunday said there was need to 'revisit' constitutional provisions giving protection to civil servants.

“There is no gainsaying that the provisions of Article 311 have come in the way of bringing corrupt civil servants to book. Article 311 would require a revisit... this needs to be done. I am pursuing the matter with the Prime Minister and the government,” said Moily while addressing a seminar on combating corruption — it was organised by the CBI and National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Sciences.

His remarks assume significance given that CJI Balakrishnan had pointed to procedural delays like grant of sanction in initiating action against corrupt officials.

Quoting the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption which remarked that “Article 311 of the Constitution as interpreted by our courts has made it very difficult to deal effectively with corrupt civil servants,” Moily said “even after Article 311 was amended, the panoply of safeguards and procedures still available is interpreted in such a manner as to make the proceedings protracted, and therefore, effete in the ultimate analysis.”

Man Proposes Your Honor Disposes

Public has a short memory and this has been proved time and again. “Irretrievable breakdown of marriage” was quite in discussion until some time ago and caught a high with the case of Smriti Shinde – daughter of ex-law minister, Sushil Kumar Shinde – filing a Public Interest Litigation to make the same as a ground of divorce as well but now the topic is completely out of discussion.

And further unfolding of the case revealed that it was actually a case of a “Mutual Consent” Divorce filed and one of the spouses refusing to abide by the mutual consent agreement even after a part of the agreement, based on which the consent was drawn, being fulfilled and thus divorce not being granted.

The performance of the judiciary in the society in general and in matrimonial cases in particular has not been something laudable. More often than not, the judges are driven by emotion and pre-defined stereotypic gender notions in arriving at their decisions leading to not only ignorance of evidence placed on record and the data available, but also at arriving upon socially harmful interpretations of law and at times overstepping their constitutional limitations and boundaries. It has also led to judges acting as “Social Workers” proving Harold Laski correct in the Grammar of Politics – “Judges do not deliver judgments; they only give decisions. They only decide which side argued better”.

The issue of non-compliance of mutual consent divorces by either of the spouses even after the full/partial execution of the terms of the consent, leading to agony to the other spouse is not limited or exclusive to women. Husbands are more at the receiving end of such practices wherein often they end up executing the payment part and then keep running from pillars to post for divorce which is held back at the whims and fancy of the wife.

Taking note of the gravity of the situation and realizing that it is more of a social problem and not a gender problem, a men’s rights activist from Bangalore, Pandurang Katti, wrote to the same bench before which the PIL was filed by Smriti Shinde. The letter requested the bench to consider elevating the letter to a PIL for setting general guidelines in mutual consent cases and offered help to the judiciary in assisting to arrive at a just conclusion.

More than a month has passed after the letter was officially received by the bench; the man is yet to hear from the bench. And then the judiciary keeps complaining of backlog of cases and being overburdened etc.

1. Well, if one does not work, what remains to be said?

2. If truly, the judiciary is overloaded, then why do they work only 5 hrs in a day, why not 10 hrs?

3. Why do they take more vacations than schoolchildren?

4. Why do they keep giving adjournments after adjournments rather than using their judicial discretionary power to keep delay of cases in control?

5. Why don’t they come up with a filtration mechanism in admission of cases?

6. Why don’t they invoke provisions under section 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code to punish people who file false cases?

7. Why don’t they entertain perjury petitions to enable litigants to take action against people lying on oath, misleading the courts for their sinister and selfish agenda to be realized and waste precious judicial time?

8. Why are they so afraid of transparency and accountability and run away from the Right to Information Act provisions?

9. And, why does it take them decades to decide on petty issues like granting divorce or deny granting the same?

10. Do they fail to understand that a couple is no longer interested in staying together and it is just and prudent to allow them to lead lives peacefully rather than just being forced to hang around in courts loitering for non-existent justice?

Even in this particular case, the Bench is unable to decide whether to accept the letter and elevate it into a PIL or to dispose it. It further drives home the message that the judiciary is not at all ready to LISTEN to men

A copy of the letter sent is available at,

Letter Part1

Letter Part 2

Divorce laws need updating

Dec 19, 2009

Marriage and divorce laws in our country belong to an era that has long elapsed. But the laws have neither kept pace nor do they take into account the altered socio-economic realities of contemporary India. This is highlighted, once more, by the recent controversy surrounding grounds for divorce following Smriti Shinde's petition to the apex court urging it to consider granting unilateral divorce when a marriage has irretrievably broken down. The Supreme Court itself is ambivalent about where it stands on the matter.

Under the Hindu Marriage Act or the Special Marriage Act, there are no provisions that recognise "irretrievable breakdown" or "irreconcilable differences" as grounds for granting divorce when it is not a mutually consensual decision. However, in 2006, the apex court granted divorce in the Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli case, precisely because of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. But, early this year, another SC bench refused to entertain this argument in the Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Manju Sharma case. It decided to stick to the letter of the law.

This is as good a time as any for the laws governing divorce to be updated. In doing so, the issue must not be looked at through a moral prism alone. As Indians interface with the world and are exposed to new ideas and opportunities, there is bound to be a social churn, which impacts on personal affairs like marriage and family relations. Add to this the fact that more women today are economically more independent and assertive of their rights and choices. Divorce must be seen as a social reality, unfortunate though it might be, and not as a social evil.

There are of course legitimate concerns that waiving the mutual consent clause to grant divorce in cases of irreparable marital breakdown would put women in a vulnerable position. But that cannot be used as an excuse to deny those who would genuinely benefit from easing the process of obtaining a divorce. As things stand, one has to go through a lengthy, convoluted and extremely stressful procedure to get a divorce. It's time that changed.

Too many breakdowns

 Dec 19, 2009

Smriti Shinde's petition to the Supreme Court to allow for irretrievable breakdown as grounds for divorce essentially the no-fault divorce seems, prima facie, to be a good suggestion. Who, after all wants to be trapped in a marriage-in-name-only, in which neither party is happy, but one party holds on out of spite or fear of recrimination? But deeper investigation will reveal that unilateral divorce would be nowhere near as beneficial for women as its proponents are claiming.

Supporters of no-fault divorce think that the provision would help women trapped in unhappy marriages, beholden to their husbands for financial stability, who would not be able to get consent from their partners for the dissolution of a marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act. But the law doesn't distinguish between the husband or wife, so a husband would be entitled to seek unilateral divorce just as much as his wife. That means that men who are looking for a quick bailout could use it to take the easy way out of a marriage that is proving to be inconvenient. It cuts both ways and if men use it to get out of marriage, it would leave women even more disadvantaged than before, because the wife in that situation would have no grounds to claim spousal support.

Consider, also, the problems that could arise from making divorce too easy. Marriage is the institution on which human civilisation rests, and to destroy it easily by facilitating a no-fault divorce might shake the foundations of our society. Take the example of the United States. All US states, except for New York, have adopted no-fault divorce, with an unsurprising increase in the divorce rate. Continuing with the American example, statistics show that over 80 per cent of no-fault divorces are unilateral, which means that no-fault laws leave the party not in favour of divorce unable to do anything to save their marriage. Further operational details are also problematic. No-fault would mean that judges would have free reign, more or less, in deciding on issues of custody and asset division, which would lead to arbitrary decisions based on subjective criteria.

India's divorce laws are complicated, true, and do need to be looked at and simplified. But adding no-fault divorce to existing divorce laws wouldn't do that it would merely complicate it further.

Shinde’s daughter pleads for change in divorce law

Thursday, December 17, 2009

New Delhi In a serious challenge against the law providing for divorce by mutual consent, the Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to examine whether the need for ‘consent’ violated a person’s fundamental right, if the other partner withheld or withdrew consent.

In her petition, Union Power Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde’s daughter Smriti Shinde has challenged this provision under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, and stated that as a result of withdrawal of consent by her husband, she was forced to live a married life against her choice and freewill, a violation of her fundamental right to live (Article 21).

Shinde also questioned the provision on the ground of gender equality. She argued that while Article 14 lays emphasis on gender equality and provides special laws in favour of women, Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act compels a woman to “remain bound in wedlock even when the couple has lived apart for a year and thereby it is established that the marriage is dead.”

Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocates Harish Salve and Mukul Rohtagi told the court that the matter raises a serious constitutional issue and must be viewed from the prism of fundamental rights of an individual. The Bench of Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan, Justices AK Ganguly and BS Chauhan issued notices to the Union Law and Justice Ministry, directing to file a reply to the petition.

The petitioner and her husband, Mumbai resident Sanjay Paharia, have been living separately since January 2005. Under Section 13B(1), the parties had jointly moved a petition for divorce by mutual consent in May 2007. Six months later, the petitioner wished to obtain a decree of divorce under Section 13B(2) of the Act. The husband chose to remain absent from court. This became a ground for the Bombay High Court to set aside the divorce decree obtained by the wife, on the ground that the husband’s absence indicated withdrawal of consent. To make matters worse, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, as lately as May 11 this year.

With the matter reverting back to the trial court, the aggrieved wife challenged the legal provision under the Act, both Sections 13B(1) and (2) that provide for joint presentation of suit for divorce and the subsequent section containing the words “…by both the parties.”

In stake was also the interest of the two children born out of the wedlock. Shinde claimed in her petition, “…It is necessary for the petitioner (wife) to provide a great degree of emotional stability to these children to compensate as far as is humanly possible, for the trauma of having come from a broken home.” Such responsibility gets strained if the petitioner is herself burdened to live her life with a man with whom she no more shares emotional or mental compatibility.

Shinde’s daughter moves SC for divorce

Here is the case that finally got the corrupted slow moving useless buggers in the Indian Parliament to finally bring in “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” as a valid ground for divorce. Naturally when thousands of men scream no one hears us, but when the Union Ministers Daughter is involved the nation hears, god bless India. Jai Hind.
Thank god Smriti's husband refused her Mutual Concent Divorce or else this law would never have come in today! This is what I call Husband Wife service, it too both of them to change the laws, you can say the two of them benefited the nation this day.  

 Dec 17, 2009

NEW DELHI: Hinging hopes on an apex court advisory to the government to consider “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” as a valid ground for divorce, Union minister Sushil Shinde’s daughter Smriti on Wednesday moved SC seeking to end to an unhappy marriage with her husband.

Frustrated by persistent refusal of her husband to consent to a mutually agreed divorce, Smriti’s counsel, senior advocates Harish Salve and Mukul Rohtagi, pleaded before a Bench comprising CJI K G Balakrishnan and Justices A K Ganguly and B S Chauhan that this violated her fundamental right to live life with dignity, which was guaranteed by Article 21 (right to life) of Constitution.

What the SC, which had previously dismissed her appeal against an HC order rejecting her divorce plea as her husband had refused to consent for ending the marriage, was whether such withholding of consent by one party violated other party’s fundamental right. It issued notice to ministry of law and justice as Smriti alleged that because of the husband, she was forced to live a married life against her free will.

Men, too, want to be under the umbrella

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

Often battered and abused husbands have been falsely implicated in harassment cases by 'designing' wives. So, while the Centre takes its own time to frame rules for the Domestic Violence Act, Haima Desshpande examines whether there is a need of gender neutrality in the provisions of the Act.

Case 1

For nearly a decade, 50-year old Chetan Diwane has been doing the rounds of police stations and courts, battling against complaints and cases filed by his estranged wife and her relatives. Each time he extricates himself from one case, another one crops up. "I will not give up. Let me see how many false complaints and cases she can file. No one believes in me. I will fight till my last moment. God will give me justice," is his matter-of-fact summation of the situation.

Case 2

For the Sinhas, life came to a full stop when they were arrested after a complaint of harassment was filed by their son Sunil's wife. Their memories of spending time in a police lock up are still fresh. Though police investigations later revealed that the complaint was false, for the Sinhas the humiliation and loss of face could never be compensated. They have moved away from the city where generations of their family have lived. "If I talk about it I relive the pain, when all I want is to forget it. I have filed a defamation case against that family but since I am a man there is no sympathy," said Sunil Sinha.

As the central government delays in framing the rules of the Domestic Violence Act, 2006, those like Diwane and Sinha have been demanding amendments to the Act and the introduction of clauses that will protect men against "false complaints and abuse" from wives and in-laws. Though the demand is not new, the greater outcry and the formal structure gatherings have now acquired are new. The staunch opposition to this demand by women's groups has only intensified the activities by men's groups to achieve what they term as "an equal footing in the Domestic Violence Act."

The Mumbai-based Protect India Family, an organisation for aggrieved men by aggrieved men, is campaigning aggressively to ensure that abused husbands get a fair footing in the yet to be implemented Domestic Violence Act. Their 24-hour helplines, set up across various cities, are jammed, revealed Mohanlal R Gupta, one of the founders.

The group takes up a case after carefully checking that the man is not making "unnecessary or false allegations". "The group was founded to help aggrieved husbands get justice from false complaints. So we are very careful that no one who comes to us uses the organisation for something else," said Gupta.

While women's groups have said that the promulgation of this Act was long overdue and was a step towards tackling domestic violence, its provisions have caused concern amongst the male fraternity. Under this Act, a case of domestic violence can be filed against a husband and his family on the basis of a mere complaint of insult, verbal abuse or ridicule. Once the case is filed, if the wife complains for a second time, the husband can be thrown out of his house and won't have access to his children.

"The law does not say anything about women and their relatives who abuse or harass husbands," said 28-year old Nitin Datar who has three complaints of harassment filed against him by his estranged wife.

"One month after I got married, I returned to my job abroad. My wife and I communicated via email and telephone. I returned for a holiday and stayed for a fortnight. The next thing I knew, I was slapped with multiple complaints of harassment. I have shifted back to India so that I can fight the allegations," said Datar, a merchandising manager with an MNC.

Though many elected representatives strongly believe that this Act, when implemented, will convert innocent husbands into offenders and criminals, vote bank politics have forced them to stay silent on the issue of gender neutrality in the Domestic Violence Act.

"I strongly believe that this Act is strongly inclined towards women, but I will not say it loudly. The Centre needs to make it a gender neutral Act," said a MP from Mumbai.

Congress MP and Supreme Court advocate Abhishek Singhvi had earlier remarked that the structural realities of India cannot be ignored. He had stated that the use of wide, imprecise and subjective legislative language coupled with a venal and malleable enforcement machinery could spell doom for any law-abiding male citizen of India.

Singhvi had also cautioned that a motivated or malafide invocation of the Act would end up with a remedy much worse than a disease.

Dismissing the claim for gender neutrality in the Domestic Violence Act, former chairperson of the Maharashtra State Women's Commission, Nirmala Samant Prabhavalkar said, "Domestic violence occurs mainly due the patriarchal society we live in, and chauvinism. When a woman's position is that of a subordinate, violence and violations are part of her daily life."

"This Act is necessary to safeguard the interests of abused women. Since there is a provision for counselling in this Act, wherein men can speak up, it is a gender neutral Act. If men feel they are being harassed, they can seek recourse from the general law. There should be no amendments to the Domestic Violence Act," added Prabhavalkar.

Though statistics and research studies point to rising instances of domestic violence against women, an increasing number of men have dismissed these as false and motivated complaints.

Vishal Gupta, a computer engineer, said, "Ninety-nine per cent of complaints of domestic violence are false cases. Women want everything fast -- cars, houses and materialistic things. Living with in-laws is termed mental torture. This Act will definitely be misused, if it is not gender neutral."

Jai Vaidya, a family law advocate, feels that while examining the demand by men's groups, the lawmakers must have a larger overview of social dynamics. "A majority of

women face domestic violence as against the number of men who claim so. Their demand should be backed by research and not individual cases. Men cannot be on par with women in cases of domestic violence. As long as there is no equality between genders... legislature is empowered to pass laws such as the Domestic Violence Act," stated Vaidya.

Set up in 1993, Men Against Violence and Abuse (MAVA) is the only male organisation working against gender-based violence against women. However, for the last three years, the organisation has been 'involved in giving space to aggrieved men to vent their voice in a non-threatening atmosphere'. MAVA founder and Harish Sadani said that in the last five years, a significant percentage of men have asked them for help. "It is a reality that there is no place for aggrieved men either in the Dowry Act or in the Domestic Violence Act. The number of harassed men in households is significant and increasing," said Sadani Yet he is not for gender neutrality in the Act. "The number of men who are harassed and abused by their spouses is much less compared to women who face domestic violence. Women still need the support of the law. We do not think any amendment to the Domestic Violence Act is required," he said.

However, members of Protect India Family insist that the gender neutral provision is required as today's women are empowered and are at par with men. "Women's organisations are responsible for this situation. Instead of understanding acase, they support women who file false complaints. The women who are truly suffering get left behind," is Mohanlal Gupta's verdict.

What the cops say

Top police officials confirm, albeit reluctantly, that cases of false complaints of domestic violence by women are indeed on the rise. "There is not much we can do. By the time we reach the conclusion, husbands and their families have suffered. We have to arrest them when there is a complaint of harassment. If we don't, we will be harassed by women's groups. We fear greater misuse of the Domestic Violence Act as it isn't too precise," said a high-raking police officer.

The problem

Though the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government's Domestic Violence Bill came to be a law on October 26, 2006, it is yet to be implemented due to the inordinate delay in framing the rules.

According to sources lack of budget is also a reason for the slow progress towards implementation.

Men in Kerala unite against harassing wives

November 7, 2007

Protection group alleges misuse of dowry act by women, demands a panel for men on lines of National Commission for Women

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Indian society does not seem to be patriarchal to some people at least. They think it's a hard world out there where men are hounded by their wives cashing in on the rigorous dowry laws of the country. A group of men have formed an association -- Kerala Men's Rights Protection Committee -- to voice their protest against a legal system "biased to the fair sex". There are over 100 members in the Kochi-based association.

"Men face a lot of harassment under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. If a woman complaints of dowry harassment, the police arrest her husband and parents in-law without any investigation. The only thing that matters is the woman's statement. Most of the time, innocent in-laws and relatives are named as accused," said Sivan Cheppala, general secretary of the two-month-old registered association.

The controversial section of the IPC, inserted in 1983, reads: "Whoever, the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such women to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine." The offence is cognizant, non-compoundable and non-bailable.

"There should have a proper inquiry before someone is booked under Section 498A. We also need a non-judicial forum to discuss family issues and only those cases in which there is no other way but divorce should come under the purview of family courts. Around 900 cases have come before Ernakulam family court since January. There has been as many instances of invoking Section 498A," Sivan said.

The association also demands the setting up of men's commissions on the lines of the National Commission for Women and its state counterparts. "When women's organizations affiliated to political parties take up domestic issues, they act as a judicial body. But they are not concerned about any proof supporting the plaint. Women cells of the police are no better. There should be representation for men when marriage-related issues are considered," he added.

"If things go on like this, men will have to go back to the age of untouchability for fear of touching the women. We have to unite against this trend," he added. The association has members from all walks of life. There are youngsters and elders, bachelors and husbands as its members. They are on a membership campaign till December 30.

The peeved men have company elsewhere., a website which attempts to "create awareness among Indian nationals about the misuse of  IPC 498A.

'Incompatibility' is now a ground for divorce

Jun 11, 2010
New Delhi: Union Cabinet on Thursday approved an amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and Special Marriage Act 1954 and made it possible to get a divorce on grounds of 'irretrievable breakdown' or 'incompatibility'.

Now the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 will be tabled in Parliament and if passed will become a law.

"The proposal will provide irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce and to provide safeguards to parties to marriage who file petition for ground of divorce by consent from the harassment in court if any of the parties don't come to the court or willfully avoids the court to complete the proceedings," Information and Broadcasting Minister Ambika Soni said.

Until now a divorce was possible only on grounds of adultery, desertion, mental disorder, conversion, mutual consent and cruelty.

Union Power Minister Sushilkumar Shinde's daughter, Smriti Shinde, could be among the earliest beneficiaries of the new amended law.

The Supreme Court had recently pointed out while hearing a petition filed by Smriti that changes needed to be made in the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

A 2006 judgement, too, had voiced the need for legislative intervention on the issue.

In its 71st report submitted in 1978, the Law Commission had recommended introduction of breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce in addition to "fault" grounds in the divorce law.

In 1981, a Bill was introduced to give effect to "irretrievable breakdown" as a ground for divorce, but it did not find acceptance as some were of the view that unscrupulous husband would desert their wives by taking advantage of this provision.

Forget about freedom: SC to husbands

11 Jun 2010,

NEW DELHI: Married men should forget about their freedom after they tie the nuptial knot as restrictions on their independence are like “dividends” they have to pay for matrimony, the Supreme Court said on Thursday in a divorce suit.

“Whenever a person is married, there is no question of independence,” Justice Deepak Verma said, hearing a divorce suit between Colonel Ajit Sharma (name changed) and his estranged wife and software professional Seema Sharma (name changed).

By making the observations, the court revisited the remarks of the vacation bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Verma of 2009 wherein it had said: “Do what the wife tells you and never question her authority.”

Justice Katju had said: “If men want to rule their life then they should always be on the right side of their wife. Otherwise, a defiant husband’s life would be ruled by others.”

He said that if the “wife says turn right, turn right and if she says turn left, then turn left”. On Thursday, the observation about husbands surrendering their independence came when the court was told that Seema had wished “happy Independence Day” to her husband when both of them filed a divorce suit by mutual consent.

The bench of Justice Verma and Justice K S Radhakrishnan was hearing an appeal filed by Ajit seeking divorce from his wife. They have a 14-year-old daughter Priyanka (name changed) studying at a boarding school in Dehradun.

Initially, the court said: “We are not made to break up marriages.” Thereafter, the court counselled the couple to go for reconciliation. The two were told by the court that for them, the welfare and the future of their child should be the top priority.

However, soon realising that the couple could not live peacefully under one roof, the court worked out a package that could mitigate the difficulties of the mother who was to bring up Priyanka after separation.

The court asked Ajit to suggest a package that he was willing to offer his estranged wife so that she could bear the expenses of bringing up their daughter. The court said that the package should factor in inflation, price rise and the cost of child’s education, her marriage and other needs. It gave Ajit time to think over it.

When SC resumed hearing, Seema was told that besides Ajit bearing entire expenses of Priyanka’s education till senior secondary, he would pay her Rs 4 lakh and give a 250 square metre plot in Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh.

Ajit said she could dispose the house to mop up more money. The package was in addition to the Rs 1.50 lakh that has already been given to Seema by him. An insurance policy of Rs 5 lakh in the name of their daughter has also been given to her.

After a second adjournment, Seema told SC that she wanted a plot of land in Delhi or Gurgaon and demanded an arrangement for their daughter’s education after school.

Friday, June 11, 2010


As far as i think & what i read for PROSECUTION OF PERJURY;

1. Legal obligation to state the truth
2. The making of a false statement .
3. Belief in its falsity .

Criteria for establishing offense:
(a) The statement is false
(b) The parson making the statement knew or believed it to be false or did not believe it to be true.
(c) The statement was made intentionally.

All three criteria must be proved for conviction. Intention is most important.

False evidence is said to be given intentionally, if, the person making the statement is aware or has knowledge that it is false and has deliberately used such evidence in a judicial proceeding with the intention of deceiving the court .


1) False statement made by a person

Who is --
a) Bound by an oath
b) By an express provision of law
c) A declaration which a person is bound by law to make on any subject
d) Which statement or declaration is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true.

2. Oath must be administered by a person of competent authority.

The authority must be competent to administer the oath.
The proceedings where oath is administered must be sanctioned by law.

3. Express provisions of law include—Plaints, Written Statements, and other pleadings.

a)CPC casts a legal duty to speak the truth
b)Verification of pleadings is a legal obligation.

4. Affidavits are declaration made under oath.

5. A statement could be verbal or otherwise.

a) Statement that he believes a thing which he does not believe.
b) Statement that he knows a thing which he does not know.
C)Statement that he knows to be false or does not believe to be true .
d) Statement need not be on a point material to the proceedings.

Due to this the related other section which can be used are :

IPO 191: Giving false evidence, judicial perjury
IPO 192: Fabricating false evidence
IPO 193: punishment for offenses u/s 191 & 192 IPO
IPO 194 & 195: Aggravated forms of offenses u/s 191 & 192 IPO
IPO 196 to 200: Offenses punishable in the same way as giving or fabricating false evidence
IPO 201 to 229: Offenses against public justice


(a) IPO 172 to IPO 188 relate to contempts of the lawful authority of public servants and also of attempt to commit or
conspiracy to commit such offense or abatement there of.

(b) IPO 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228, when such offense is alleged to have
been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court.

CrPC 195:

Generally any person can lodge complaint of an offence and set the law in motion. Exception to this rule is offenses
specified u/s 195 CrPC.
Section 195 lays down rules to be followed by the court to take cognizance of an offence specified under it.
Court has full discretion in deciding whether any prosecution is necessary or not.

Considerations for sanctioning prosecution:

a) Administration of justice is not hampered
b) Not to be used as a means for wreaking vengeance by people
c) Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent upon the court to order prosecution.
d) Judicial discretion to order prosecution only in the larger interest of administration of justice.
e) When police finds that complaint was false and case is cancelled u/s 173 CrPC, the police can start
proceeding u/s 211 IPO against person who lodged false complaint.

CrPC 340:

Section 340 CrPC lays down directions for the guidance of the court which desires to initiate prosecution in respect of an offence covered under IPO 195.
Court can take action and make a complaint to concerned magistrate u/s 340 either suo motu or on an application made to it on that behalf.
Sanction of the public servant court is a must for offenses in (a) under Criteria for establishing offense

Sanction of the court is a must for offenses in (b). under Criteria for establishing offense
Any Civil, Revenue or criminal court can proceed under this section.
Person against who proceedings are initiated has no right to participate in preliminary Inquiry.
The trial for the offence will be held by the magistrate based on complaint by the court acting u/s 340 sanctioning prosecution.
The order is appealable only once and no second appeal or revision lies.

Requirements for starting prosecution:

The court is not bound to start prosecution.
Only if it is expedient in the interest of justice and affects administration of justice.
Contradictory evidence is not enough for prosecution.
Offence must have been committed intentionally.
Perjury should appear to be deliberate and conscious.
Conviction is reasonable probable or likely.
Reasonable foundation for the charge must exist.
Statement given by complainant in FIR u/s 154 cannot be basis of prosecution u/s 340.
Statements given to police u/s 161 are not evidence.


Receive application or suo motu – application can be filed by a person not party to the proceedings in relation to which the offense is committed.
The court where application is filed only decides if inquiry should be made
Hold preliminary inquiry (not essential in law).
Record findings .
Make a complaint in writing - include offence, facts on which it is based and evidence available for proving it. The judge has to sign the complaint himself.
Forward it to a first class Magistrate having jurisdiction.

IPC 192:

No condition to be bound by oath.
Reasonable prospect of proceedings and intention to use the fabricated evidence in such proceedings. Proceedings need not be in progress.
Material omission is made in an entry or a statement
Affidavit- making a document containing false statement to be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding.


Particular Intention that false document so made should appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding.
Reasonable prospect of using the document is sufficient to establish offence.
Should be material to the result of the proceedings- Judge is made to entertain an erroneous opinion touching nay point material to the result of such proceeding based on such fabricated evidence.

IPO 199:

False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence.

IPO 200:

Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false

Lawyer who complained against former Haryana IG missing: Cops

 June 11th, 2010

A woman lawyer, who has accused former Inspector General of Haryana Police M.S, Ahlawat of molesting her, has gone missing from her home, her father has said in a complaint to the police.

Jagjit Singh, father of the lawyer, lodged a complaint with Yamunanagar police on Thursday night that his daughter has gone missing from home.

In the complaint, he has said that three police personnel, including two women constables, who were posted at the lawyer's house for her protection, were unaware of her whereabouts, Station House Officer (Yamunanagar city) Manoharlal said.

Ahlawat had on Thursday moved a local court for anticipatory bail after he was booked for allegedly molesting and intimidating the woman lawyer eight years back when he was superintendent of police.

The case, which is similar to Ruchika molestation case in which for Haryana DGP S.P.S. Rathore was convicted and finally jailed, was registered on Tuesday against Ahlawat by the Yamunanagar police under various sections of the IPC.

A Special Investigation Team has been formed to conduct the probe.

Ahlawat has been booked under sections 354 (criminal force on woman with intent to outrage modesty), 323 (assault with intent to voluntarily cause hurt) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC in the case.

The victim had recently met Haryana DGP Ranjiv Singh Dalal at Panchkula. She claimed to have come into Ahlawat's contact when she had approached the Yamunanagar police in May 2002, to lodge a case of dowry harassment against her husband.

The victim alleged that Ahlawat had insisted on meeting her in his camp office and allegedly tried to establish illicit relations with her.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Govt to consider making it easier to get divorce

Jun 10, 2010

NEW DELHI: Sparring couples may now have a way out of their misery without having to go through the blame game. The Cabinet on Thursday is expected to consider a proposal to amend matrimonial laws for making "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" a ground for divorce.

The proposal moved by law ministry suggests amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and Special Marriage Act 1954 to add the new basis for granting divorce.

Breakdown of marriage is currently not a ground for divorce despite several Supreme Court verdicts favouring it and the Law Commission recommending that it be included in the provision of the law.

The amendment will enable couples to get divorce if one of them refuses to live with the other and will not work towards reconciliation, and the court is convinced that there is no hope of the two leading a normal matrimonial life.

The legal fraternity seems to be split over the proposed amendment. Some experts feel that growing individuality in society has contributed to an increasing number of cases ending at the divorce court with both parties dishing out dirty laundry. The amendment would make parting of ways less bitter.

But several other experts warned of pitfalls in the proposed law. Eminent lawyer Kamini Jaiswal felt the amendment may not be a "bad idea" for urban women wanting to opt out of a relationship, but it may adversely impact rural women who have few options. "I feel there should be a comprehensive look at all laws relating to maintenance and alimony instead of a piecemeal look at one amendment," she added.

Kirti Singh, former Law Commission member described the amendment as "disastrous" if it came without adequate safeguards. "The amendment should only be brought when women are given adequate share in household assets and maintenance. Most women get a pittance from the courts and most do not want to get out of a marriage only because there is nothing to sustain them outside it," she said, adding that this would only provide relief to men.

According to the existing Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, divorce can be granted on three grounds -- matrimonial fault, divorce by mutual consent and frustration due to specified circumstances.

According to the first ground, marriage can be dissolved when either spouse has committed a matrimonial offence. Under this provision, it is necessary to have a guilty and an innocent party in matrimonial dispute and only the innocent party can seek divorce.

Divorce on mutual consent is based on the fact that since two persons can marry by their free will, they should also be allowed to move out of their relationship if both agree to do so.

Under "frustration by reason of specified circumstances", divorce can be granted to a person whose spouse has met with "civil death" -- disappeared without a trace for at least seven years -- or renounced the world.

The law commission in its report points out that the ground of matrimonial fault is not always sufficient for divorce and may cause injustice in disputes where the marriage cannot work although none of the parties is at fault, or the fault is of such a nature that the parties to the marriage do not want to reveal it.

The report suggests that in such circumstances it will be in the interest of justice to dissolve the marriage through the proposed amendment.

Blog of US Ambassador to India on 498a

Please post your comments on the US Ambassodors website a good way to spread awareness of 498a and DV act 2005.

Its just one month old.
Section 498A

As a result of my postings about the importance of support for women’s rights and empowerment, I have received a number of comments criticizing Section 498A. Clearly, this is a very controversial law about which people have strong feelings. It is fortunate that we live in this great democracy where Indians can debate these kinds of issues honestly and openly. In fact, Indian laws are best debated among Indians and I can only hope that Indian society will find a path that will lead to fairness for all – men, women and children

Here are my comments I put on the US Ambassodors blog, I dont know whether he will allow them to be published or not, but at present is keeps saying my comments are being review for moderation, how long that takes know one knows. MY comments I left are below.

Reddy Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

June 10th, 2010 at 10:05 am

Dear Ambassador,

It is very great of you to want all members of society to be treated with equality, that is want all members of varios NGO’s against Indians Draconia Laws IPC 498a, and DV act 2005 want as well, to be treated with dignity and respect, unfortunatly the Indian Government doesnt look at it like that, the Indian government is playing, “Vote Bank Politics,” with various womens groups. If you go through my blog and numerous other blogs and websites dedicated to this 498a Law you will realize it is a very one side and biased law. No where in the Democratic or non Democratic world do they have any such law where a mear phone call from an astranged wife can have the husbands family and his direct and indirect family arrested without any investigation what so ever. The government has never listen to any NGO where male or female which oppose this Draconian law, Men and Women are equally effected by this unjust law. India may be the worlds largest Democracy, but unfortunatly extreme corruption and vote bank politics makes India worst then any non Democratic nation. The entire Police system is corrupt to the core, as is much of the judiciary. For many years many NGO’s have pleaded with the Indian Government to listen and make changes to no avail, all they do is turn a deaf ear to this matter. So when you talk about Womens Rights and Empowerment in India please sir be careful since your walking on a mine field. The Womens groups in India are amongst the most radical and unjust anywhere, they are looking for revenge and vengence, and wrech there fury on Indian society, and not to really empower women. The women who are really being beaten and harrassed are truely in need of help but are not the ones recieving it, its only the small educated women who wield the power and engage in this evil for there own political meens.

Why only Men is made responsible for Domestic Violence in India ?

I was amused as well as shocked on knowing that only Man is made responsible for Domestic Violence in India (as per DV Act,2005) by the legislatures of India but this has also forced me to do brain storming on this question (Why ?)and after analyzing the Men’s attitude and beliefs in society, I came to conclusion that it is because Most men in India
Are still living in the illusion that India is a male dominating society.

Think it below their dignity to voice for their rights.

Are taught to pamper woman right from birth.

Treats it status symbol to talk in favor of women (without any knowledge of reality)

Follows the feministic fashion prevailing in society( as they don’t want to be odd man out).

Don’t have courage to swim against the flow(media, feminism and pseudo empowerment etc.)

Do have “Chalta Hai” attitude.

Don’t have “M “ factor.

Are sex starved(being marriage age 21 and adultery, an unethical in society)

Are afraid of their spouse and prefers to be slave to them as suggested by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Are not concerned about this issue as being busy in bread earning, maintaining and protecting their families.

Last but not least, corruption in system, decline in social character, fall in ethics & values alongwith adulteration in food articles, pollution in environment, global warming and green house effect etc. etc. etc.

There is still time , I urge MEN TO AWAKE NOW and FIGHT FOR THEIR RIGHTS as this species(real man) is already on the verge of extinction in India.

Why Blame Constitution of India for Gender Biased Laws?

It is now wide spread that India is country of gender Biased Laws especially when it comes to matrimonial matters. Any matrimonial dispute in India is now seen as a criminal offence and the courts & police has been allowed to peep into the bedroom of couple & family by the Government of India. The argument put forth by Government or judiciary for creating this gender imbalance in country, is that Constitution of India allows special provisions for special category. Yes, it is true but what about enacting special provisions for special category by oppressing other category’s basic & fundamental rights?, definitely it was not the spirit of our Constitution. Special provisions can be made for a special category in society to uplift that category by providing economical, educational, social or infrastructural benefits, but to grant legal impunity or undue benefits to someone on account of being special category is surely defeats the purpose of justice itself and this is the trend that Indian Government is following.

In this process, the Government has put on stake the very basic unit of it’s society i.e. the family, which was once, the pride of belonging to an Indian society has now been turned into a sense of guilty(of being wife beater or dowry seeker) by enforcing more & more gender biased laws which Constitution of India never envisaged. It’s simply a power & vote bank game for Government alongwith getting easy foreign funding on concocted figures and stats. This appeasement of a section of society on gender base by turning blind eye to the other section which as a result gets oppressed has created a dangerous imbalance in gender equality in nation. The Government in this regard, has forgotten that with any individual of a particular gender there are many others connected /dependents of opposite gender. So, covering one in special category to provide undue benefit automatically makes many others discarded of same gender.

The Government of India, under the pressure of radical feminists and to secure vote bank has over the years evolved many legal tools to oppress husbands/males in India. These legal tools are not only drafted & enacted clumsily & skewed eyed but are also responsible for promoting & propagating such social evils which were never being the part of Indian society. These enactments has given legal licences to the unscrupulous elements in society to play with judicial system & laws. Here are some legal tools in the hands of unscrupulous women which are on rampant cruel use in Indian society:

IPC 498a(Legal tool to extort, abuse & harass husband, in-laws, their whole family and any near & dear ones)

Domestic Violence Act(Civil cum criminal tool to enjoy all rights despite of being erroneous)

CrPC 125(tool for monetary support to keep the husband busy in Courts)

IPC 497( legal tool to enjoy adultery yet to take revange from Man)

HMA 24(another tool to remain idle on husband’s money )

Alimony(tool to make monetary arrangement to lead lavish & Care-free life)

Here it is to be realized that the Constitution of India assures its citizens of justice, equality, and liberty and to promote among them all fraternity and It lays down the framework defining fundamental political principles, establishing the structure, procedures, powers and duties, of the government and spells out the fundamental rights, directive principles and duties of citizens. But Indian Governments rather than discharging its duties of tackling social & other problems through its machinery & resources is seems to be panelizing & oppressing one section of society on gender base by entangling and throwing all &every responsibility/blame on that section . The end result is that India no more can be called a “Welfare State”. These laws( legal tools) has made India a nation where Innocents are suffering and are crying for justice but judiciary is tossing onus on legislations and both are passing it to the Constitution of India, forgetting that Constitution of India has not given authority to anyone to oppress more than 50% (male) population of the society for the sake of pseudo women empowerment or women upliftment.

Now, India has reached at a stage, where the Government & judiciary should stop making excuse of Constitution of India and should realize their duty of safeguarding the true spirit of Constitution of India in order to prevent further public unrest or Jungle Raj.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Father disallowing children to watch TV is not cruelty: Bombay HC

Monday, June 7, 2010

Mumbai: In a significant judgment in a divorce case, the Bombay high court has held that decision of a father disallowing children from watching television programmes continuously and forcing them to go to bed early could not be termed as "cruelty".

Dismissing an appeal filed by a 37-year-old housewife from Pune against a family court's order refusing to grant her divorce, justice AP Deshpande and justice RP Sondurbaldota observed recently that such conduct cannot amount to harassment leading to mental cruelty.

The housewife examined her 12-year-old daughter to prove
the charges of cruelty.

She alleged that her husband wanted his two children to watch Marathi programmes and not Hindi serials. She further alleged that the children were asked not to watch television continuously and to go to bed early.

The judges cross-examined the daughter who did not support her mother's allegations of cruelty.

The bench disagreed with the appellant that her husband had indulged in cruelty by stealing toys of their children, beating them in front of their friends, not allowing daughter to operate computer at home and disconnecting television wire to prevent them from watching serials.

In the cross-examination, the daughter admitted that their father beat her and brother often but it was only to discipline them by preventing them from watching television.

She further said that he kept the toys in cupboard to give to

her cousin, Rohit. She also told the court that at the relevant time she did not know how to operate the computer.

The judges noted, "the four complaints made in the examination-in-chief which would otherwise make the respondent (husband) a villain, stand completely explained in the cross-examination which would show father to a good parent who wanted children to be disciplined, to be able to share toys with other children and not get addicted to television and also not use the electronic items that they cannot handle".

"One fails to understand how this conduct can amount to harassment leading to mental cruelty. The appellant has failed to establish that her husband had treated her with cruelty after solemnisation of marriage", the bench remarked.

The court also noted that the allegations made by the appellant were of general nature and she had not cited any specific instances of cruelty.

The respondent denied all allegations and claimed that both had not at all separated and were living together as husband and wife in the matrimonial home with their children.

The couple had married on August 15, 1991, at Mumbai and had two issues from the marriage, daughter Apporva and son Achintya.



In the cross-examination, the daughter admitted that
their father beat her and brother often but it was only to
discipline them by preventing them from watching television.
She further said that he kept the toys in cupboard to give to
her cousin,
Rohit. She also told the court that at the
relevant time she did not know how to operate the computer.
The judges noted, "the four complaints made in the
examination-in-chief which would otherwise make the respondent
(husband) a villain, stand completely explained in the
cross-examination which would show father to a good parent who
wanted children to be disciplined, to be able to share toys
with other children and not get addicted to television and
also not use the electronic items that they cannot handle".
"One fails to understand how this conduct can amount
to harassment leading to mental cruelty. The appellant has
failed to establish that her husband had treated her with
cruelty after solemnisation of marriage", the bench remarked.
The court also noted that the allegations made by
the appellant were of general nature and she had not cited any
specific instances of cruelty.
The respondent denied all allegations and claimed that
both had not at all separated and were living together as
husband and wife in the matrimonial home with their children.
The couple had married on August 15, 1991, at Mumbai
and had two issues from the marriage, daughter Apporva and son

HC: Distant kin can be booked for domestic violence

 Judgement further down.

 June 08, 2010

New Delhi, Even distant relatives living together in urban villages can be charged under the Domestic Violence Act. The Delhi High Court gave the verdict in an appeal filed against a trial court judgement.

The High Court also ordered 15 persons to be charged with harassing the daughter-in-law of the family for dowry.

In July 2008, the trial court had acquitted eight persons of all offences in a domestic violence case filed by Sunita (name changed).

The 25-year-old woman had lodged an FIR with the Women Cell in May 2004 against her husband, 11 of her in-laws and three other relatives accusing them of harassing her for dowry.

Sunita and the accused were all living as a joint family in Jaffar-Kalan village in southwest Delhi.

The trial court, in its judgement, had excused eight of the family, saying the allegation against distant relatives were vague, as they were not immediate members of the family, and did not attract prosecution.

Sunita’s counsel Vijay Aggarwal filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court against the trial court order, which had refused to frame charges against the in-laws.

Aggarwal contended: “All these 15 family members are living together in one single house. They tortured Sunita at various point in time.”

The high court upheld his contention that in the present case distant relatives are effective members of family.

Justice Sanjeev Khanna said, “Though distant relatives of the husband have been roped in, this has to be viewed in the context that the family members lived in villages within National Capital Region of Delhi.”

Stating that distant relatives become a party to Domestic Violence Act, the court said that the prevalent social milieu in an urban village shows constant interaction between all family members.

full text @


full text of the order

CRL.REV.P. 623/2008


+ CRL.REV.P. 623/2008
LALITA YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. R.D. Mehra, Advocate with Mr.
Rahul Mehra, Advocate
STATE ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta & Ms. Fizani
Hussain, APP for the State.
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate, Mr.
Pramod Kr. Dubey, Sri Singh & Mr.
Vivek Jain, Advocates for respondents
no. 2 to 9.
% 22.04.2010

The matter has been heard at length. The petitioner in ground 7 (ii) has
specifically quoted the averments and allegations made in the charge-sheet against
the respondents who have been discharged. The said allegations have been
examined and considered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that the allegations against
Hukam Singh & Priyavarat are too general and not specific and states that he
is not pressing the present revision petition against them.

However, allegations made against Sukhma Devi, Tek Chand, Jai Kishan,
Magan, Jagram @ Jagbir & Vijay are in detail and specific. It may be relevant to
state here that these persons had earlier also filed a revision petition before this
court for quashing of FIR No. 177/2004, under Sections 498-A, 406 of the Indian
Penal Code and all consequential proceedings. One of the contention raised in the
writ petition was that the said persons are distant relatives and not members of
the immediate family. Learned single Judge in his order dated 28.02.2008 did not
accept and had rejected the said contention after making reference to the FIR and
the charge-sheet. It was observed that there were specific allegations and not mere
casual or general allegations. Court also noticed that though, distant relatives of
the husband had been roped in, but this had to be viewed in the context
that the CRL.REV.P. 623/2008

family members lived in villages within the National Capital Region of Delhi and
the prevalent social milieu in that setting facilitates constant interaction between
them. Learned Judge while dismissing the petition had stated that the observations
made in the order would not influence the trial court at any of the subsequent
stages and it was stated that parties would be entitled to raise all contentions at the
time of arguments on charge.

Learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the impugned order dated 19.07.2008
has discharged the said private respondents without discussing and meeting with
the requirements of Section 239 & 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which
specifically requires that if an accused is discharged, reasons for the same shall be
recorded. As noticed above, there are specific allegations against the private
respondents in the charge-sheet. At this stage, it is not possible to come to a
conclusion or decide whether these allegations are false or correct. This requires
evidence. At this stage only a prima facie view is to be taken.
In these circumstances, impugned order dated 19.07.2008 discharging
Sukhma Devi, Tek Chand, Jai Kishan, Jagram @ Jagbir and Vijay are set-aside.

The learned trial court will frame charges on the basis of specific
against the said persons after examining the contentions of the parties. As
conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present revision petition
against Hukum Singh and Priyavarat is dismissed. Petition is disposed of.
Trial court record will be sent back.


APRIL 22, 2010

The wait of justice

It is amazing that the Indian Criminal Justise system can be so lenient on real criminals who have indirectly killed more then 20,000 people, and let them basically get away with murder and give them a slap on the wrist, that is what a 2 year sentence is, and it is a slap in the face for the victims of this very tragic episode in Indian history.
It is amazing that Falsely accused people as in the case of most 498a victims can get  a maximum of 7 years in prision,  and be harrassed with Jail immediatly for no crime that they have committed, just simply a false police report. This is B S Indian Justice the real victims pay the price while the perpetrators get away scot free.

The convicted in the Bhopal tragedy immediatly got bail and are free, in 498a cases victims have to hide and run around hopeing for Bail. Will the Judicial system take away the Passports of the 12 accused and convicted felons, as they do to 498a falsely accused? Will the ACP issue RED CORNER Alerts with INTERPOL for these 12 convicts, the court has proven them all Guilty after more then 25 years and the death of more then 20,000 innocent people and the victims are still indirectly feeling the effects of Bhopal tragedy, ACP immediatly trys even now to get INTERPOL to Issue RED CORNER Alerts to falsely accused 498a victims? This tells you that India is going to the Dogs, corruptions is rampent and spreading like wild fire and has to be extinguished.

Jun 7th 2010

OVER a quarter of a century after a deadly methyl isocyanate gas leak from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal killed thousands of people, eight men (one of whom is now dead) have been convicted of causing “death by negligence”. The district court in Bhopal sentenced them to two years in prison and imposed fines. The accused were immediately released on Rs 25,000 ($530) personal bail bonds. They include Keshub Mahindra (current chairman of India's big tractor maker Mahindra & Mahindra), who was formerly chairman of Union Carbide’s Indian subsidiary.

The wheels of justice always turn slowly in India’s courts, which have a backlog of more than 20m cases. One judge recently suggested that it would take 320 years to clear it. But they were particularly ponderous in this case. After the accident India’s government concentrated on getting compensation from Union Carbide. A criminal case only began in 1987, when India's Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), charged 12 people with "culpable homicide not amounting to murder". Since then more than a dozen judges have heard the case, 180-odd prosecution witnesses have been examined and around 3,000 documents submitted to the judges. This first trial got nowhere and so in 1996 India’s Supreme Court reduced the charges and a new one began.

That increased the chances of getting a conviction but the consequences have enraged campaigners, who have expressed frustration about the levity of the sentences for an accident estimated to have caused between 10,000 and 25,000 deaths. They have also lamented the repeated failure to prosecute Warren Anderson, the (American) chairman of Union Carbide at the time of the incident.