Mr. Rebates

Saturday, August 31, 2013

My wife wants to destroy me, says Om Puri

Om Puri, who has been accused of physical abuse by wife Nandita Puri, says he is the victim
Wednesday, Aug 28, 2013

Actor OM Puri’s wife Nandita Puri has  filed a complaint alleging domestic violence against her husband. 
She has also alleged that Om is “absconding”. However on Monday night he was as accessible and 
forthright as ever.
Sounding deeply wounded but unvanquished by the serious allegation he  said, “I’ve been shooting  
the entire day. If Nandita says I am absconding then I am afraid she is speaking of a situation I am 
not aware of. I have nothing to hide. I don’t need to run away.”
Shocked and embarrassed by the latest in the series of allegations levelled at him by his wife, Om says,
“I don’t even know what domestic violence means. Because I’ve never indulged in it. If anyone, I am 
the victim here, not she.

Only I  know how I’ve suffered all these years just to safeguard and protect my son Ishaan from the 
consequences of my broken marriage.”

But enough, says Om, now. “I’ve taken enough. I can’t any more. My wife wants to destroy me. 
I can’t let her. I’ve responsibilities towards myself, my son and others who are dependent on me.

She thinks she can accuse me of anything and gain sympathy because the laws in this country 
are heavily weighed in favour of women, and  rightly so considering the rise in incidents of violence 
against women in our society.
But the same laws are also misused by privileged vengeful wives who want to destroy their husband’s 
career and life.”
Om  says he won’t allow Nandita to mess with his reputation anymore. “She accuses me of violence. 
I don’t even stay in our flat together anymore. I’ve been living in a humble flat while she lives like a queen 
in the terrace flat, the first home that I bought with my hard-earned money.”
Here, Om’s voice gives way and he breaks down. “I’ve toiled incessantly for 40 years, given my wife and 
son the best life possible. And this is what I get in return?”
He concludes,  “I’ve taken all the pain and humiliation for our son’s sake. But now I’ve reached 
breaking point. I am shortly calling a press conference to clear my name. I am supposed to travel  to 
Europe in a few days to shoot for my next international project. If this ugly allegation prevents me from 
travelling for my work then I promise you, there will be hell to pay.”

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Marriage law: The 'Inter Continental Ballistic Missile' of a Bill

The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, approved by the Rajya Sabha on Monday, has long been pegged the 'Intercontinental Continental Ballistic Missile' (ICBM) Bill by protesting men's groups, for its inclusion of the 'Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage (IBM)' clause as a valid condition for divorce. 

Virag Dhulia, a men's rights activist and head of gender studies at the Bangalore-based Confidare Research says, "The Rajya Sabha has betrayed us. We now hope the Lok Sabha MPs will not let us down." Men's groups like Dhulia's partnered with Men's Rights Association, Pune and have been protesting the Bill for months now. In December 2012 they led a rally to Jantar Mantar and courted detention on May 1, 2013 en route the Prime Minister's residence. Their objections to the Bill are that it will blindly give away property in the name of marriage, that men will stop marrying to prevent this, thus destabilizing the institution of marriage. 

"Whichever country has these clauses also has supportive laws like a legalization of pre-nuptial agreements, which India doesn't have. India is cherry picking laws that suit them, which can prove disastrous. In 2011, China rolled back a law like this because men had stopped marrying and stopped buying property" Dhulia warns. 

But the Bill is in fact far reaching and thought out over a period of decades. The first proposals for amendments to the Hindu Marriage Act came from the Law Commission in 1978. Two more Law Commission reports, several Supreme Court Judgements and after much debate among invested parties led by women's groups like Majlis, the Bill has been tabled. 

Chakshu Roy, head of technology initiatives at PRS Legislative Research, New Delhi says, "The Law Commission and the Supreme Court have on a number of occasions recommended the inclusion of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce. The Law Commission suggested that before a divorce is granted on this ground, the court should ensure adequate financial arrangements have been made for the parties and children. The Bill incorporates these suggestions and introduces this ground for divorce and makes financial provision for the wife and children."

What the Bill essentially says is that there are certain conditions based on which either the husband or wife can apply for divorce. These are cruelty, medical reasons such as communicable diseases, mental illnesses, desertion. The Bill essentially sought to correct the lacuna that arose from the need to dissolve the marriage in the eventuality that none of these stand i.e. the dissolution of marriage due to an organic breakdown. 

The Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage clause allows a woman or a man to exit on the premise that she is unfulfilled or unhappy in a marriage after a three year period of separation. The wife also bears the right to block a divorce thrust upon her if she can prove she will be in grave financial hardship. The Bill will also allow the court to consider a waiver of the 6-18 month lock-in period for couples who file by mutual consent.

A huge triumph, points out activist and head of women's group Majlis, Flavia Agnes, is the Bill's determination of the compensation due to the wife. In doing so, the Bill now allows the court to take into account inherited and inheritable properties. This becomes a crucial factor in cases where husbands are able to sell off properties in their name and prove they have no assets, leaving the wife without compensation.  

Men's groups protest this clause saying it allows women to divorce a man after five days and "clean him out". Agnes dismisses concerns stating that women have gotten the short end of the stick for far too long.

A lot of the debate has been ill-informed. Advocates state that the court will consider many factors while making such a decision. As any nuclear armed country knows, setting off a missile isn't so simple, there are many check points.

Bombay High Court asks sessions court to decide on bail plea of former Miss World Yukta Mookhey's hubby!

What will the average women learn from this? Former Miss World puts false 498a on her husband, this women is worst then a beast. What should society do with such women? 

Observing that harassment and cruelty cannot be a one off incident and has to be a continuous offence, Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed the sessions court to take appropriate decision on anticipatory bail plea filed by Prince Tuli, estranged husband of former Miss World Yukta Mookhey .

Yukta had on July 3 filed a case against her husband, parents-in-law and sisters-in-law under sections 498A (cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust). She had also levelled allegations under section 377 (unnatural sex) against Prince.
Prince and his family had then approached the sessions court seeking anticipatory bail. The sessions court had granted them interim protection from arrest and posted the matter for hearing on August 30.

Aggrieved by this, Yukta approached the High Court. "The sessions court while granting him interim relief observed that the probe is at a preliminary stage and hence it would not go into the merits of the case but in its order the court said that after perusing the complaint it feels harassment case is not made out," Yukta's advocate Pradeep Havnur said.

Justice S S Jadhav today directed the sessions court to finally hear and decide the anticipatory bail plea on August 30. "It appears that the sessions court judge has not taken into consideration that 498 (a) (harassment) is a continuous offence," the court said disposing of the petition.

The court also took note of the fact that before filing an FIR under section 498(A), Mookhey had filed 15 NC (non cognisable) offence with the suburban Amboli police.

"When no investigation was done on her NCs she was constrained to file an FIR," Justice Jadhav said.

The court also queries as to why Havnur did not point this out to the sessions court. "You could have pointed out that this is not the first time and she has been suffering like this since long. It is a continuous offence," the court said.

Havnur said Yukta had been threatened both prior and after lodging of FIR.

In 2008, Yukta married Prince, whose family has a transport and hospitality business in Nagpur. She has been staying with her parents and three-year-old son since a year.