PTI, Feb 12, 2010, 06.16pm IST
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that a husband or wife is not entitled to divorce if it is proved that one deserted the other due to constant torture or harassment.
For instance, if the wife due to constant harassment is compelled to leave the matrimonial home and live separately, the husband cannot invoke the ground of "desertion" as provided under the Hindu Marriages Act to obtain divorce, a bench of Justices P Sathasivam and Asok Kumar Ganguly said in a judgement.
The apex court passed the judgement while dismissing the appeal of Ravi Kumar who sought divorce from his wife on the ground of desertion, although it was his constant harassment which drove her to leave the husband's home and live separately.
Under the Hindu Marriage Act, divorce can be granted if it is established that one of the spouse has deserted the the other.
"In this case, the child has clearly stated the cruelty of the appellant-husband towards his wife. Therefore, there is sufficient reason for the wife to stay apart. Under such circumstances, one cannot say the wife is guilty of either cruelty or desertion," the apex court said.
The apex court said the Himachal Pradesh High Court had rightly quashed the divorce granted to Ravi Kumar on the basis of the child's testimony which stated that it was the father who constantly harassed the mother compelling her to leave the home.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/No-divorce-if-spouse-is-compelled-to-live-separatelySC-/articleshow/5565246.cms
Mr.Rebates
Showing posts with label Times of India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Times of India. Show all posts
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
HC: Divorced woman can’t use ex’s name
Swati Deshpande TNN
Mumbai: What’s in a name? The famous Shakespearan line popped up during an acrimonious court proceeding on Wednesday. “A lot,’’ said an aggrieved man, especially when my ex-wife is misusing it. The Bombay High Court agreed and passed a rare order that might make divorced men smile. The court directed a divorced woman to stop using her former husband’s name and surname.
The HC also clarified that the “ex-wife cannot use the husband’s name anywhere, including in her bank account’’.
The landmark judgment was passed by Justice Roshan Dalvi as she dismissed a petition filed by a woman challenging an interim order of the family court in Bandra.
R R Vachha, principal judge of the family court in Mumbai, had last September restrained the woman from using her exhusband’s name and surname as their marriage had ended four years ago. “By using the ex-husband’s name or surname, there is always a possibility of people being misled that she is still the wife, when in fact she is not,’’ said Vachha. The HC upheld the family court order and said it need not be interfered with but should be given effect to “for all purposes’’.
Divorced woman can’t use ex’s surname too
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has directed a divorced woman to stop using her former husband’s name and surname. The HC also clarified that the “exwife cannot use the husband’s name anywhere, including in her bank account’’.
The battle over names between the couple arose a year after the family court in February 2006 granted them divorce and the HC finalised it the same year. But the wife says she has moved the Supreme Court where the matter is pending; she claimed she was still his wife.
The couple had begun their divorce fight in 1996 after staying together for a little over six months. When after their divorce, the woman filed for more maintenance, the husband—a 49-year-old police inspector—contended through his lawyers that his ex-wife continued to use his name even though she was no longer legally his wife and sought that she be restrained from doing so. The man alleged that she was
“mischievously posing as his wife, entering into altercations and caused embarrassing situations for him’’. He produced a news report from a local paper in his native village in Maharashtra about one such act of hers and said in villages where people were known by their family names, such behaviour affected not only him but also his entire family.
The Lalwanis also argued that since the woman was not a wife anymore, she was not entitled to tag on her ex-husband’s name and surname to her own as it would be misleading. The wife argued that her ex was merely being “malicious and trying to malign’’ her. The family court held that “the marriage had come to an end by virtue of the orders of two courts, but still the woman claimed to be the wife’’. Observing that the issue arose out of a marital relationship, it restrained her from using the ex-husband’s name.
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Daily/skins/TOINEW/navigator.asp?Daily=TOIH&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI
Mumbai: What’s in a name? The famous Shakespearan line popped up during an acrimonious court proceeding on Wednesday. “A lot,’’ said an aggrieved man, especially when my ex-wife is misusing it. The Bombay High Court agreed and passed a rare order that might make divorced men smile. The court directed a divorced woman to stop using her former husband’s name and surname.
The HC also clarified that the “ex-wife cannot use the husband’s name anywhere, including in her bank account’’.
The landmark judgment was passed by Justice Roshan Dalvi as she dismissed a petition filed by a woman challenging an interim order of the family court in Bandra.
R R Vachha, principal judge of the family court in Mumbai, had last September restrained the woman from using her exhusband’s name and surname as their marriage had ended four years ago. “By using the ex-husband’s name or surname, there is always a possibility of people being misled that she is still the wife, when in fact she is not,’’ said Vachha. The HC upheld the family court order and said it need not be interfered with but should be given effect to “for all purposes’’.
Divorced woman can’t use ex’s surname too
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has directed a divorced woman to stop using her former husband’s name and surname. The HC also clarified that the “exwife cannot use the husband’s name anywhere, including in her bank account’’.
The battle over names between the couple arose a year after the family court in February 2006 granted them divorce and the HC finalised it the same year. But the wife says she has moved the Supreme Court where the matter is pending; she claimed she was still his wife.
The couple had begun their divorce fight in 1996 after staying together for a little over six months. When after their divorce, the woman filed for more maintenance, the husband—a 49-year-old police inspector—contended through his lawyers that his ex-wife continued to use his name even though she was no longer legally his wife and sought that she be restrained from doing so. The man alleged that she was
“mischievously posing as his wife, entering into altercations and caused embarrassing situations for him’’. He produced a news report from a local paper in his native village in Maharashtra about one such act of hers and said in villages where people were known by their family names, such behaviour affected not only him but also his entire family.
The Lalwanis also argued that since the woman was not a wife anymore, she was not entitled to tag on her ex-husband’s name and surname to her own as it would be misleading. The wife argued that her ex was merely being “malicious and trying to malign’’ her. The family court held that “the marriage had come to an end by virtue of the orders of two courts, but still the woman claimed to be the wife’’. Observing that the issue arose out of a marital relationship, it restrained her from using the ex-husband’s name.
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Daily/skins/TOINEW/navigator.asp?Daily=TOIH&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
No extradition of NRIs in kidnap cases
Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN, Aug 9, 2009, 12.54am IST
NEW DELHI: One has heard this too often. An NRI father or mother accusing the other partner of kidnapping their children back to India in breach of a foreign decree and cocking a snook around the consequent Red Corner Notice issued by Interpol.
Is not the CBI, the Interpol partner in India, obliged to act upon such a Red Corner Notice (RCN), arrest the offending parent and extradite him/her to the foreign country to face trial there?
No, says the Supreme Court which would appear as a virtual thumbs up for the parent who slips out of the foreign country with the child and lands in familiar shores where the litigation takes years before being finally adjudicated.
Reversing the Bombay High Court's arrest order on the basis of an Interpol RCN issued against one B J Lakhani who allegedly came to India from US with his daughter despite a restrain order from a Clayton County Magistrate Court in Georgia, a Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and M K Sharma on Friday said an Interpol RCN could not be a ground for arrest.
In the absence of an extradition request from the US or a foreign country, there could be no arrest merely on the basis of an Interpol RCN, the Bench said accepting a clear stand from the ministry of external affairs (MEA).
The chances of extradition of the kidnapping parent is slimmer even when the foreign country places such a request as the SC recorded the MEA's stand that "kidnapping in case of matrimonial dispute per se is not considered to be an extraditable offence". Thus, the aggrieved parent has to come to India to pursue her remedies before the judiciary.
Coming to Lakhani's rescue, MEA said, "Even violation of an order passed by the court of competent jurisdiction in US being punishable for six months only, Lakhani could not be extradited for commission of the said offence."
MEA said that on receipt of an RCN, it was not the practice to arrest the person immediately but only to trace him. "The consideration of the question of arrest and extradition would be within the framework of domestic law including the Indian Extradition Act and the Extradition Treaty with the requesting country," it said.
Lakhani had married H Thakker on April 6, 2002 at Mumbai. After marriage, they moved to California where their daughter was born in April 2003. Alleging matrimonial harassment, Thakker moved courts in USA and sought divorce. During the pendency of the proceedings, the family court at Massachusetts passed an order of temporary custody of the child, restrain and abuse prevention order in her favour.
In April 2006, Lakhani allegedly forged Thakker's consent to take the daughter back to India. After he left, she complained to the police alleging abduction and an arrest warrant was issued. The trial court also passed a decree of divorce and custody of the child in her favour in May 2006.
She also moved a family court in Mumbai in May 2007, which allowed her custody of the child. Lakhani appealed in the HC which stayed the trial court order.
Meanwhile, the Atlanta city police and American court issued warrant of arrest against Lakhani, which was transmitted through Interpol to the Indian government. Lakhani moved the Bombay HC challenging the legality of the arrest warrant and sought stay of the RCN. The HC refused to tinker with the RCN. Lakhani then appealed against the HC order in SC.
After deciding that the RCN could not be a ground for Lakhani's arrest, the SC left the adjudication of the dispute between the husband and wife over the custody of their daughter to the Bombay HC, where the appeal is pending.
dhananjay.mahapatra@timesgroup.com
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/No-extradition-of-NRIs-in-kidnap-cases/articleshow/4871937.cms
NEW DELHI: One has heard this too often. An NRI father or mother accusing the other partner of kidnapping their children back to India in breach of a foreign decree and cocking a snook around the consequent Red Corner Notice issued by Interpol.
Is not the CBI, the Interpol partner in India, obliged to act upon such a Red Corner Notice (RCN), arrest the offending parent and extradite him/her to the foreign country to face trial there?
No, says the Supreme Court which would appear as a virtual thumbs up for the parent who slips out of the foreign country with the child and lands in familiar shores where the litigation takes years before being finally adjudicated.
Reversing the Bombay High Court's arrest order on the basis of an Interpol RCN issued against one B J Lakhani who allegedly came to India from US with his daughter despite a restrain order from a Clayton County Magistrate Court in Georgia, a Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and M K Sharma on Friday said an Interpol RCN could not be a ground for arrest.
In the absence of an extradition request from the US or a foreign country, there could be no arrest merely on the basis of an Interpol RCN, the Bench said accepting a clear stand from the ministry of external affairs (MEA).
The chances of extradition of the kidnapping parent is slimmer even when the foreign country places such a request as the SC recorded the MEA's stand that "kidnapping in case of matrimonial dispute per se is not considered to be an extraditable offence". Thus, the aggrieved parent has to come to India to pursue her remedies before the judiciary.
Coming to Lakhani's rescue, MEA said, "Even violation of an order passed by the court of competent jurisdiction in US being punishable for six months only, Lakhani could not be extradited for commission of the said offence."
MEA said that on receipt of an RCN, it was not the practice to arrest the person immediately but only to trace him. "The consideration of the question of arrest and extradition would be within the framework of domestic law including the Indian Extradition Act and the Extradition Treaty with the requesting country," it said.
Lakhani had married H Thakker on April 6, 2002 at Mumbai. After marriage, they moved to California where their daughter was born in April 2003. Alleging matrimonial harassment, Thakker moved courts in USA and sought divorce. During the pendency of the proceedings, the family court at Massachusetts passed an order of temporary custody of the child, restrain and abuse prevention order in her favour.
In April 2006, Lakhani allegedly forged Thakker's consent to take the daughter back to India. After he left, she complained to the police alleging abduction and an arrest warrant was issued. The trial court also passed a decree of divorce and custody of the child in her favour in May 2006.
She also moved a family court in Mumbai in May 2007, which allowed her custody of the child. Lakhani appealed in the HC which stayed the trial court order.
Meanwhile, the Atlanta city police and American court issued warrant of arrest against Lakhani, which was transmitted through Interpol to the Indian government. Lakhani moved the Bombay HC challenging the legality of the arrest warrant and sought stay of the RCN. The HC refused to tinker with the RCN. Lakhani then appealed against the HC order in SC.
After deciding that the RCN could not be a ground for Lakhani's arrest, the SC left the adjudication of the dispute between the husband and wife over the custody of their daughter to the Bombay HC, where the appeal is pending.
dhananjay.mahapatra@timesgroup.com
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/No-extradition-of-NRIs-in-kidnap-cases/articleshow/4871937.cms
Sunday, February 14, 2010
HC judge lashes out against 'culture of adjournments'
TNN, 29 January 2010, 01:59am IST
NEW DELHI: A Delhi high court judge has blamed his colleagues for the "culture of adjournment'' that often prolongs cases for years.
Rueing the "lattitude shown by the high court'' to lawyers who plead for adjournments, justice S N Dhingra said: "It appears as if there is an understanding between the courts and advocates that come what may the orders of trial courts refusing adjournments shall be set aside on mercy pleas and one more opportunity shall be granted.''
Claiming that courts often grant adjournments on "frivolous grounds'', Dhingra said: "A separate breed of advocates has cropped up who are experts in pleading for adjournments and dragging cases. This culture has to be brought to an end,'' the HC noted, while upholding a order passed by a guardianship court in a child custody dispute between a couple. The court refused to adjourn the case when the woman's lawyer claimed that he had left the case files in his car which was stolen 11 days ago.
The HC agreed with the decision of the lower court to proceed with the hearing and close cross examination of witnesses, despite protests by the advocate of the child's mother. "Adjournments are sought in the name of strikes, elections, personal difficulties of the senior or briefing counsels or because two counsels agree to an adjournment... This wholeculture of adjournment is a major reasons why a case or a petition, which should be decided in two or three hearings, is disposed of in more than 100 hearings,'' the HC noted while dismissing the appeal filed by the child's motheragainst the lower court's order.
Dhingra said since the child was currently with the mother, she was making all attempts to prolong the hearings into the custody dispute.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/HC-judge-lashes-out-against-culture-of-adjournments-/articleshow/5511075.cms
NEW DELHI: A Delhi high court judge has blamed his colleagues for the "culture of adjournment'' that often prolongs cases for years.
Rueing the "lattitude shown by the high court'' to lawyers who plead for adjournments, justice S N Dhingra said: "It appears as if there is an understanding between the courts and advocates that come what may the orders of trial courts refusing adjournments shall be set aside on mercy pleas and one more opportunity shall be granted.''
Claiming that courts often grant adjournments on "frivolous grounds'', Dhingra said: "A separate breed of advocates has cropped up who are experts in pleading for adjournments and dragging cases. This culture has to be brought to an end,'' the HC noted, while upholding a order passed by a guardianship court in a child custody dispute between a couple. The court refused to adjourn the case when the woman's lawyer claimed that he had left the case files in his car which was stolen 11 days ago.
The HC agreed with the decision of the lower court to proceed with the hearing and close cross examination of witnesses, despite protests by the advocate of the child's mother. "Adjournments are sought in the name of strikes, elections, personal difficulties of the senior or briefing counsels or because two counsels agree to an adjournment... This wholeculture of adjournment is a major reasons why a case or a petition, which should be decided in two or three hearings, is disposed of in more than 100 hearings,'' the HC noted while dismissing the appeal filed by the child's motheragainst the lower court's order.
Dhingra said since the child was currently with the mother, she was making all attempts to prolong the hearings into the custody dispute.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/HC-judge-lashes-out-against-culture-of-adjournments-/articleshow/5511075.cms
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
SC wants views of HCs on RTI queries about judges' appointment
TNN, 9 February 2010, 01:58am IST
NEW DELHI: Faced with increasing number of queries under Right to Information (RTI) Act on judges' appointment to higher judiciary, the Supreme Court on Monday sought the views of all High Courts on this issue.
Responses of HCs were sought by a Bench comprising Justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar, which was hearing a petition filed by the CPIO of the apex court challenging an order of the Central Information Commission directing making public such information.
"We see that such matters frequently arise and High Courts are dealing with these problems. Why should we not issue notice to the registrar generals of all High Courts," the Bench asked.
On an application from S C Agarwal, the CIC, apart from asking the SC to give information about the appointment process of judges, had also directed the apex court to furnish information under RTI about the correspondence between the Chief Justice of India and the CJs of HCs.
It had also allowed the plea of Agarwal asking the SC to disclose the communication between Justice R Regupathy of Madras HC to the CJI after he alleged that a central minister had tried to influence him in a case.
Attorney general G E Vahanvati, who questioned the CIC decision, argued that if opinions expressed by judges were to be laid out in the public domain, nobody could expect a frank opinion.
Defending the sanctity to be attached to collegium decisions and other communication exchanged between CJI and CJs of HCs and other judges, Vahanvati said, "The consultor and consultee must be in a position to speak frankly. The difficulty is that if these communication are put in public domain, nobody will express an honest opinion."
Appearing for Agarwal, advocate Prashant Bhushan said these arguments held no merit as in a democracy, the public had the first right to know how top judicial appointments were carried out, as ultimately such information benefited the public at large.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-wants-views-of-HCs-on-RTI-queries-about-judges-appointment/articleshow/5549332.cms
NEW DELHI: Faced with increasing number of queries under Right to Information (RTI) Act on judges' appointment to higher judiciary, the Supreme Court on Monday sought the views of all High Courts on this issue.
Responses of HCs were sought by a Bench comprising Justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar, which was hearing a petition filed by the CPIO of the apex court challenging an order of the Central Information Commission directing making public such information.
"We see that such matters frequently arise and High Courts are dealing with these problems. Why should we not issue notice to the registrar generals of all High Courts," the Bench asked.
On an application from S C Agarwal, the CIC, apart from asking the SC to give information about the appointment process of judges, had also directed the apex court to furnish information under RTI about the correspondence between the Chief Justice of India and the CJs of HCs.
It had also allowed the plea of Agarwal asking the SC to disclose the communication between Justice R Regupathy of Madras HC to the CJI after he alleged that a central minister had tried to influence him in a case.
Attorney general G E Vahanvati, who questioned the CIC decision, argued that if opinions expressed by judges were to be laid out in the public domain, nobody could expect a frank opinion.
Defending the sanctity to be attached to collegium decisions and other communication exchanged between CJI and CJs of HCs and other judges, Vahanvati said, "The consultor and consultee must be in a position to speak frankly. The difficulty is that if these communication are put in public domain, nobody will express an honest opinion."
Appearing for Agarwal, advocate Prashant Bhushan said these arguments held no merit as in a democracy, the public had the first right to know how top judicial appointments were carried out, as ultimately such information benefited the public at large.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-wants-views-of-HCs-on-RTI-queries-about-judges-appointment/articleshow/5549332.cms
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
UP minister faces dowry allegations
IANS, 1 February 2010, 12:24pm IST
LUCKNOW: An enquiry has been initiated against Uttar Pradesh Sports Minister Ayodhya Prasad Pal over allegations that he called off his son's marriage because the woman's family failed to meet a Rs.5 million dowry demand, police said on Monday. ( Watch Video )
Pal's son Om Dutt was apparently engaged to the daughter of a doctor in Chitrakoot district in October 2008 but the minister has now called off the engagement allegedly over the family's inability to pay dowry.
"The inquiry has been initiated against the minister and his family also, following a written complaint registered by the doctor Prabal Pratap," district police chief Aparna H S told reporters in Chitrakoot, some 280 km from Lucknow.
According to Pratap, the engagement ceremony took place Oct 7, 2008 at a tourist bungalow in Karvi town in Chitrakoot. Since then, the minister has been delaying the marriage and is now demanding dowry.
"He (minister) now says the only way to get my daughter married to his son is to give Rs.50 lakh (Rs.5 million). The minister has even openly challenged me to get a case registered against him for demanding dowry," Pratap told reporters.
"I have also learnt that the minister has now arranged his son's marriage to the daughter of an engineer in the irrigation department in Allahabad," he added.
According to Pratap, he had submitted necessary evidence to prove he had spent over Rs.500,000 on gifts that were given to Pal's family on the occasion of the engagement ceremony.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/UP-minister-faces-dowry-allegations/articleshow/5523264.cms
LUCKNOW: An enquiry has been initiated against Uttar Pradesh Sports Minister Ayodhya Prasad Pal over allegations that he called off his son's marriage because the woman's family failed to meet a Rs.5 million dowry demand, police said on Monday. ( Watch Video )
Pal's son Om Dutt was apparently engaged to the daughter of a doctor in Chitrakoot district in October 2008 but the minister has now called off the engagement allegedly over the family's inability to pay dowry.
"The inquiry has been initiated against the minister and his family also, following a written complaint registered by the doctor Prabal Pratap," district police chief Aparna H S told reporters in Chitrakoot, some 280 km from Lucknow.
According to Pratap, the engagement ceremony took place Oct 7, 2008 at a tourist bungalow in Karvi town in Chitrakoot. Since then, the minister has been delaying the marriage and is now demanding dowry.
"He (minister) now says the only way to get my daughter married to his son is to give Rs.50 lakh (Rs.5 million). The minister has even openly challenged me to get a case registered against him for demanding dowry," Pratap told reporters.
"I have also learnt that the minister has now arranged his son's marriage to the daughter of an engineer in the irrigation department in Allahabad," he added.
According to Pratap, he had submitted necessary evidence to prove he had spent over Rs.500,000 on gifts that were given to Pal's family on the occasion of the engagement ceremony.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/UP-minister-faces-dowry-allegations/articleshow/5523264.cms
Sunday, January 31, 2010
HC reprimands inept ASJ
Abhinav Garg, TNN, 29 January 2010, 02:17am IST
Topics:Delhi High Court R Justice Suresh Kait Justice Pradeep Nandrajog
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court reprimanded an additional sessions judge for blindly relying on the version of the prosecution and ignoring actual evidence while delivering judgments. Equating the lapse to a judge sleeping on his job, a division bench comprising Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Suresh Kait on Wednesday termed it as nothing short of "serious blunder'' and "misdemeanour.''
The HC was alarmed to note that not just once but five times it came across cases where additional sessions judge Narottam Kaushal simply copied extracts of the chargesheet onto his verdict and ignored what the witnessess actually said in court. "Where the judge proceeds to sleep or take a short or long nap, the casualty is life and liberty of the accused,'' the judges noted, pointing out how ASJ Kaushal had dealt in a cavalier fashion with cases where the maximum penalty is death. HC was surprised to note that the ASJ didn't even record the different stand taken by witnesses in court, instead chose to stick to facts as mentioned in the chargesheet.
"This is the fifth decision noted by us in the last 10 working days, author whereof is ASJ Narottam Kaushal, where on a reading of the decisions it has been brought out to us that the judge reproduces evidence proved by the prosecution by merely narrating facts from chargesheet ignoring the actual evidence,'' HC noted while hearing a case of robbery-cum-murder.
Marking its verdict to the inspecting judges of ASJ Kaushal, HC said its observations need to be brought to the attention of them. "In fact, the use of the word `blunder' would be a misnomer... the correct expression has to be that 'we noted a complete non application of mind by the judge','' the judges went on to note in their verdict, pointing out how ASJ Kaushal failed to note that the statement by the lone survivor of the crime had given a different statement in court to what was attributed to her in the chargesheet.
"These misdemeanours noted by us and committed by ASJ Kaushal were ignored by us as we thought they were aberrations, but by the time we detected the fifth such case, we realized that these were not aberrations but instances of a judge totally oblivious of his duties,'' the HC observed, even as it partially reversed the trial court's order and acquitted one of the accused.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/HC-reprimands-inept-ASJ/articleshow/5511060.cms
Topics:Delhi High Court R Justice Suresh Kait Justice Pradeep Nandrajog
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court reprimanded an additional sessions judge for blindly relying on the version of the prosecution and ignoring actual evidence while delivering judgments. Equating the lapse to a judge sleeping on his job, a division bench comprising Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Suresh Kait on Wednesday termed it as nothing short of "serious blunder'' and "misdemeanour.''
The HC was alarmed to note that not just once but five times it came across cases where additional sessions judge Narottam Kaushal simply copied extracts of the chargesheet onto his verdict and ignored what the witnessess actually said in court. "Where the judge proceeds to sleep or take a short or long nap, the casualty is life and liberty of the accused,'' the judges noted, pointing out how ASJ Kaushal had dealt in a cavalier fashion with cases where the maximum penalty is death. HC was surprised to note that the ASJ didn't even record the different stand taken by witnesses in court, instead chose to stick to facts as mentioned in the chargesheet.
"This is the fifth decision noted by us in the last 10 working days, author whereof is ASJ Narottam Kaushal, where on a reading of the decisions it has been brought out to us that the judge reproduces evidence proved by the prosecution by merely narrating facts from chargesheet ignoring the actual evidence,'' HC noted while hearing a case of robbery-cum-murder.
Marking its verdict to the inspecting judges of ASJ Kaushal, HC said its observations need to be brought to the attention of them. "In fact, the use of the word `blunder' would be a misnomer... the correct expression has to be that 'we noted a complete non application of mind by the judge','' the judges went on to note in their verdict, pointing out how ASJ Kaushal failed to note that the statement by the lone survivor of the crime had given a different statement in court to what was attributed to her in the chargesheet.
"These misdemeanours noted by us and committed by ASJ Kaushal were ignored by us as we thought they were aberrations, but by the time we detected the fifth such case, we realized that these were not aberrations but instances of a judge totally oblivious of his duties,'' the HC observed, even as it partially reversed the trial court's order and acquitted one of the accused.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/HC-reprimands-inept-ASJ/articleshow/5511060.cms
Forced to eat beef, NRI's wife gets divorce
Shibu Thomas, TNN, 17 October 2009, 03:08am IST
MUMBAI: A man forcing his traditional Indian wife to consume beef, pork and alcohol, forcing her to pose in photographs on a website amounts to cruelty, the Bombay high court has decreed. A division bench of Justice P B Majumdar and Justice R V More on Friday upheld a family court order allowing a Ghatkopar resident to divorce her US-based husband.
"This is an eye-opener for parents whose daughter is going to marry a person settled in a foreign country," said the judges. "In such cases they are required to take appropriate care to find out the credentials of the person who has settled in the other country. If the matrimonial knot is tied without proper verification, it may result in serious difficulties, as has happened in the present case."
Naina, 32, married California resident Ritesh Karnik (36) in June 2002 in Nashik according to Hindu Vedic rites and moved to the US with him. Their marital bliss did not last long, with Naina returning to India within seven months and filing for divorce.
The aggrieved wife claimed that after reaching the US, Ritesh insisted on her discarding her traditional lifestyle for the American one. He made her cut her hair and eat beef and pork, even asking her to cook meat on days when she was fasting, "showing no respect for Gods and Hindu deities". When she refused, he would deny her money to buy Indian food, and she had to survive on bread and jam. Her other grievances: on a trip to Hawaii, Ritesh forced her to wear "short and vulgar dresses", "mix with boys and girls in parties" and later uploaded her photographs on websites.
Ritesh's lawyers, while denying that he had uploaded her photographs, argued that there was no cruelty in asking one's wife to cook a certain food or wear a particular kind of outfit. "Naina married Ritesh with the full knowledge that she was required to settle in America. Consequently she cannot make any complaints regarding the lifestyle which she was required to follow," Ritesh's advocate contended, adding that she was expected to "adjust" to the environment of the new country.
The judges, however, did not buy this argument. "It is not expected from Naina to sacrifice her own culture and adopt an atmosphere which may not suit a lady (brought up in a) different Indian culture altogether," remarked the court. "To ask a wife to wear a particular type of outfit or compelling her to take wine or alcohol, in our view, can be said to be an act of cruelty to the wife. Even if the husband compels the wife to mix with his friends when she is unwilling, it would also amount to cruelty to her." The judges also took a strong view of Naina's allegation that her photographs in short dresses of the couple's trip to Hawaii were uploaded on websites under fake profiles. "Normally no wife will tolerate the projection of her photographs on websites," the judges said.
Naina told the court that she did not want any maintenance from Ritesh. During the hearing of the appeal, Ritesh offered divorce if Naina withdrew all the criminal cases she had registered against him under the cyber crime laws for allegedly uploading her photographs. Naina refused. The court also rejected Ritesh's plea for a retrial in the family court — Ritesh had said that while he would not come to India, his mother should be allowed to testify on his behalf.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/indians-abroad/Forced-to-eat-beef-NRIs-wife-gets-divorce/articleshow/5133285.cms
MUMBAI: A man forcing his traditional Indian wife to consume beef, pork and alcohol, forcing her to pose in photographs on a website amounts to cruelty, the Bombay high court has decreed. A division bench of Justice P B Majumdar and Justice R V More on Friday upheld a family court order allowing a Ghatkopar resident to divorce her US-based husband.
"This is an eye-opener for parents whose daughter is going to marry a person settled in a foreign country," said the judges. "In such cases they are required to take appropriate care to find out the credentials of the person who has settled in the other country. If the matrimonial knot is tied without proper verification, it may result in serious difficulties, as has happened in the present case."
Naina, 32, married California resident Ritesh Karnik (36) in June 2002 in Nashik according to Hindu Vedic rites and moved to the US with him. Their marital bliss did not last long, with Naina returning to India within seven months and filing for divorce.
The aggrieved wife claimed that after reaching the US, Ritesh insisted on her discarding her traditional lifestyle for the American one. He made her cut her hair and eat beef and pork, even asking her to cook meat on days when she was fasting, "showing no respect for Gods and Hindu deities". When she refused, he would deny her money to buy Indian food, and she had to survive on bread and jam. Her other grievances: on a trip to Hawaii, Ritesh forced her to wear "short and vulgar dresses", "mix with boys and girls in parties" and later uploaded her photographs on websites.
Ritesh's lawyers, while denying that he had uploaded her photographs, argued that there was no cruelty in asking one's wife to cook a certain food or wear a particular kind of outfit. "Naina married Ritesh with the full knowledge that she was required to settle in America. Consequently she cannot make any complaints regarding the lifestyle which she was required to follow," Ritesh's advocate contended, adding that she was expected to "adjust" to the environment of the new country.
The judges, however, did not buy this argument. "It is not expected from Naina to sacrifice her own culture and adopt an atmosphere which may not suit a lady (brought up in a) different Indian culture altogether," remarked the court. "To ask a wife to wear a particular type of outfit or compelling her to take wine or alcohol, in our view, can be said to be an act of cruelty to the wife. Even if the husband compels the wife to mix with his friends when she is unwilling, it would also amount to cruelty to her." The judges also took a strong view of Naina's allegation that her photographs in short dresses of the couple's trip to Hawaii were uploaded on websites under fake profiles. "Normally no wife will tolerate the projection of her photographs on websites," the judges said.
Naina told the court that she did not want any maintenance from Ritesh. During the hearing of the appeal, Ritesh offered divorce if Naina withdrew all the criminal cases she had registered against him under the cyber crime laws for allegedly uploading her photographs. Naina refused. The court also rejected Ritesh's plea for a retrial in the family court — Ritesh had said that while he would not come to India, his mother should be allowed to testify on his behalf.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/indians-abroad/Forced-to-eat-beef-NRIs-wife-gets-divorce/articleshow/5133285.cms
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Should dowry law be diluted?The gender war carries on...
Pallavi Srivastava, TNN, 28 September 2008, 12:45am IST
Can the stringent and controversial Section 498A, commonly called the 'dowry law' last another quarter-century in its present form? Women's groups say 'yes' because when it was inserted into the Indian Penal Code 25 years ago, it gave women a matchless legal shield against violence and cruelty at the hands of the husband and his family. ''No, Section 498A should go,'' say about 30 men's groups, currently meeting in Goa to find a way to dilute the law. So why has Section 498A become the frontline of India's gender wars? And whose side will the government take? For the moment it appears to be backing the women with no dilution likely in the law any time soon.
Organisations campaigning to amend Section 498A were euphoric earlier this month, when the Women and Child Development (WCD) Ministry agreed to review it. But women's groups immediately submitted a memorandum to the WCD expressing concern about any dilution. So did the National Commission for Women (NCW), the statutory body set up to protect and promote women's interests and advise the government on policy matters affecting women.
Women's rights campaigners repeat as they have for decades that Section 498A is invaluable because it provides a stronger voice to women than usually heard in Indian society. What gives the law teeth and a terrible bite is that any offence under it is non-bailable and non-compoundable, which means it cannot be privately resolved between the parties concerned. It's also cognizable, which means it allows police to arrest the accused without investigation or warrants if a woman or close relative alleges cruelty in the marital home.
Those found guilty face a jail term of upto three years. But the unique strength of Section 498A is also seen as a weakness. Many groups of aggrieved husbands say this fearsome law, with its non-bailable and non-compoundable provisions, is being abused by women falsely to implicate the spouse and in-laws and extort money from them.
Organisations that represent men, who claim they are harassed, victimised and abused by Section 498A, insist it must become bailable and thereby, bearable. Swarup Sarkar, coordinator of Save Family Foundation, an organisation that claims to be committed to fight ''all gender-biased law" says, ''For the last three years, we have been trying to make it bailable, but now that the NCW has expressed disapproval, the ministry's review will amount to little."
Many other harassed husbands' groups share Sarkar's fears. "The announcement is just a sham. They won't come up with anything," says Vihan Khera, spokesman of MyNation Foundation, an organisation that also describes itself as "fighting gender bias". In fact, the Internet is full of men who claim to be victims of this law. There are blogs with names such as, 'Section 489A'. Their entries vary from earnest to intensely vitriolic.
Mary E John, director of the Centre for Women's Development Studies, says the Internet is partly responsible for whipping up emotion against 498A. "Anyone can see how vindictive and vicious these groups are," she says, adding that the Internet has given far too much visibility to self-styled harassed husbands. She and other women's activists say that amending 498A because a few men claim it is unfair would be tantamount to changing "the Income Tax Act if people evade tax. The law per se is not defective."
But Khera, campaigner for men's rights, says it is lop-sided and unfair to women as well. In the last four years, 1,15,000 women mothers-in-law or other female relatives of the husband - are alleged to have been arrested without investigation.
Mary John admits that sometimes, even statistics don't tell the true story and "there are no figures for false cases." The only figures about Section 498A are its low rate of conviction, perhaps due to lack of evidence. But John says this still does not mean 498A is a bad law. "Based on the rate of conviction, you cannot change the law, whether it's rape or dowry," she says.
The pro-Section 498A lobby points out that it's not that easy to misuse it because its use is hard enough. They say that it is hard for the average woman even to lodge a case under Section 498A and some times, it could take months. They say that making domestic violence a gender-neutral offence misses the point because it's women who are generally dependent and vulnerable. 'Harassed' husbands would, of course, have a different story to tell. Justice may be blind, but it sure cannot afford to be deaf.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Should-dowry-law-be-dilutedThe-gender-war-carries-on/articleshow/3535287.cms
Can the stringent and controversial Section 498A, commonly called the 'dowry law' last another quarter-century in its present form? Women's groups say 'yes' because when it was inserted into the Indian Penal Code 25 years ago, it gave women a matchless legal shield against violence and cruelty at the hands of the husband and his family. ''No, Section 498A should go,'' say about 30 men's groups, currently meeting in Goa to find a way to dilute the law. So why has Section 498A become the frontline of India's gender wars? And whose side will the government take? For the moment it appears to be backing the women with no dilution likely in the law any time soon.
Organisations campaigning to amend Section 498A were euphoric earlier this month, when the Women and Child Development (WCD) Ministry agreed to review it. But women's groups immediately submitted a memorandum to the WCD expressing concern about any dilution. So did the National Commission for Women (NCW), the statutory body set up to protect and promote women's interests and advise the government on policy matters affecting women.
Women's rights campaigners repeat as they have for decades that Section 498A is invaluable because it provides a stronger voice to women than usually heard in Indian society. What gives the law teeth and a terrible bite is that any offence under it is non-bailable and non-compoundable, which means it cannot be privately resolved between the parties concerned. It's also cognizable, which means it allows police to arrest the accused without investigation or warrants if a woman or close relative alleges cruelty in the marital home.
Those found guilty face a jail term of upto three years. But the unique strength of Section 498A is also seen as a weakness. Many groups of aggrieved husbands say this fearsome law, with its non-bailable and non-compoundable provisions, is being abused by women falsely to implicate the spouse and in-laws and extort money from them.
Organisations that represent men, who claim they are harassed, victimised and abused by Section 498A, insist it must become bailable and thereby, bearable. Swarup Sarkar, coordinator of Save Family Foundation, an organisation that claims to be committed to fight ''all gender-biased law" says, ''For the last three years, we have been trying to make it bailable, but now that the NCW has expressed disapproval, the ministry's review will amount to little."
Many other harassed husbands' groups share Sarkar's fears. "The announcement is just a sham. They won't come up with anything," says Vihan Khera, spokesman of MyNation Foundation, an organisation that also describes itself as "fighting gender bias". In fact, the Internet is full of men who claim to be victims of this law. There are blogs with names such as, 'Section 489A'. Their entries vary from earnest to intensely vitriolic.
Mary E John, director of the Centre for Women's Development Studies, says the Internet is partly responsible for whipping up emotion against 498A. "Anyone can see how vindictive and vicious these groups are," she says, adding that the Internet has given far too much visibility to self-styled harassed husbands. She and other women's activists say that amending 498A because a few men claim it is unfair would be tantamount to changing "the Income Tax Act if people evade tax. The law per se is not defective."
But Khera, campaigner for men's rights, says it is lop-sided and unfair to women as well. In the last four years, 1,15,000 women mothers-in-law or other female relatives of the husband - are alleged to have been arrested without investigation.
Mary John admits that sometimes, even statistics don't tell the true story and "there are no figures for false cases." The only figures about Section 498A are its low rate of conviction, perhaps due to lack of evidence. But John says this still does not mean 498A is a bad law. "Based on the rate of conviction, you cannot change the law, whether it's rape or dowry," she says.
The pro-Section 498A lobby points out that it's not that easy to misuse it because its use is hard enough. They say that it is hard for the average woman even to lodge a case under Section 498A and some times, it could take months. They say that making domestic violence a gender-neutral offence misses the point because it's women who are generally dependent and vulnerable. 'Harassed' husbands would, of course, have a different story to tell. Justice may be blind, but it sure cannot afford to be deaf.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Should-dowry-law-be-dilutedThe-gender-war-carries-on/articleshow/3535287.cms
NRIs cry foul over IPC 498A, dowry law
PTI, 14 January 2007, 03:06pm IST
NEW DELHI: Many NRIs are crying foul over the alleged misuse of anti-dowry law with social activists claiming that Indian men and NRIs are becoming soft targets of IPC 498A. Once a case is registered under 498A, the police gets into action and books the groom and his family and they are immediately taken into custody. And if the groom is an NRI, a 'Red Corner Notice' is issued against him and his passport impounded. It is a cognizable offence and a non-bailable offence, one has to get the bail from the court, if, booked under 498A.
In order to protect the rights of the male bastion, groups like ‘498a.org’, ‘Rakshak’ and ‘Save the Indian Family’ are not only taking the issue to Parliament but have also presented memorandums to the Prime Minister and President.
"IPC Section 498A can potentially ruin a man and his family both mentally and financially," said Dr Anupama Singh, convenor, 498a.org. Singh's family has been dragged to the court and falsely booked under IPC 498A.
"The Indian judiciary and police are so crippled by this law that no sooner does a woman lodge a complaint that the man and his family are booked," she alleged.
"Around 58,000 dowry cases were registered last year, out of which 25,000 were proved to be false," Singh claimed.
So much so, the NRIs claim that most Indian girls dream of a lavish stay abroad, but when the party ends, they come back to India and lodge complaints.
"My wife thought that we would always keep on travelling to wonderful places, but I have a job to do and I am not a money minting machine. As soon as she knew that, she left me and after reaching India booked me and my family under domestic violence act and dowry laws," Naveen from Florida said.
However, the Commission doesn't agree that there is no inside story about it. "There is no smoke without fire," the official said.
"If NRI men are facing the threat of losing their jobs and social status, then they should consider not marrying in India. We have third generation NRIs, so what's the point coming to this land. If you marry in India, then you have to abide by the laws of the land," she insists.
And as far as revision of the law is concerned, NCW maintains that this is the sole way to ensure women empowerment and this is the only way to instigate the police and judiciary to get working.
"The idea should be to see how the police system works, the concerned official out there should not lodge an FIR and arrest the groom and his side before investigating. These kind of shortcuts are mainly tainting the image of the prevailing law," NCW spokeswoman added.
The Commission also agreed that not all should be booked under this law. "The way uncles, aunts are also humiliated is not fair, we agree that they should not be booked until a full-proof investigation is carried out. Instead of amending the law we should try to improve our police system and investigating procedure," she said.
With Pravasi Bhartiya Divas being held in the city and the government wooing the NRIs to invest in India, this matter needs to be settled, so that NRIs don't scrap all ties with their roots.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/NRIs-cry-foul-over-IPC-498A-dowry-law/articleshow/1184646.cms
NEW DELHI: Many NRIs are crying foul over the alleged misuse of anti-dowry law with social activists claiming that Indian men and NRIs are becoming soft targets of IPC 498A. Once a case is registered under 498A, the police gets into action and books the groom and his family and they are immediately taken into custody. And if the groom is an NRI, a 'Red Corner Notice' is issued against him and his passport impounded. It is a cognizable offence and a non-bailable offence, one has to get the bail from the court, if, booked under 498A.
In order to protect the rights of the male bastion, groups like ‘498a.org’, ‘Rakshak’ and ‘Save the Indian Family’ are not only taking the issue to Parliament but have also presented memorandums to the Prime Minister and President.
"IPC Section 498A can potentially ruin a man and his family both mentally and financially," said Dr Anupama Singh, convenor, 498a.org. Singh's family has been dragged to the court and falsely booked under IPC 498A.
"The Indian judiciary and police are so crippled by this law that no sooner does a woman lodge a complaint that the man and his family are booked," she alleged.
"Around 58,000 dowry cases were registered last year, out of which 25,000 were proved to be false," Singh claimed.
So much so, the NRIs claim that most Indian girls dream of a lavish stay abroad, but when the party ends, they come back to India and lodge complaints.
"My wife thought that we would always keep on travelling to wonderful places, but I have a job to do and I am not a money minting machine. As soon as she knew that, she left me and after reaching India booked me and my family under domestic violence act and dowry laws," Naveen from Florida said.
However, the Commission doesn't agree that there is no inside story about it. "There is no smoke without fire," the official said.
"If NRI men are facing the threat of losing their jobs and social status, then they should consider not marrying in India. We have third generation NRIs, so what's the point coming to this land. If you marry in India, then you have to abide by the laws of the land," she insists.
And as far as revision of the law is concerned, NCW maintains that this is the sole way to ensure women empowerment and this is the only way to instigate the police and judiciary to get working.
"The idea should be to see how the police system works, the concerned official out there should not lodge an FIR and arrest the groom and his side before investigating. These kind of shortcuts are mainly tainting the image of the prevailing law," NCW spokeswoman added.
The Commission also agreed that not all should be booked under this law. "The way uncles, aunts are also humiliated is not fair, we agree that they should not be booked until a full-proof investigation is carried out. Instead of amending the law we should try to improve our police system and investigating procedure," she said.
With Pravasi Bhartiya Divas being held in the city and the government wooing the NRIs to invest in India, this matter needs to be settled, so that NRIs don't scrap all ties with their roots.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/NRIs-cry-foul-over-IPC-498A-dowry-law/articleshow/1184646.cms
Amendment may make dowry law toothless
Abhinav Garg, TNN, 19 January 2009, 12:43am IST
NEW DELHI: Buried under vociferous calls by bar associations for court boycott and strikes, a largely unnoticed fallout of the CrPC amendments has
begun to bother astute legal observers in the capital. Had lawyers agitating against the amendments highlighted this instead of issuing threats to shut courts, they would have better mobilized public opinion against these amendments.
For, once the amended law comes into force, Section 498A of IPC (dowry harassment) will become a toothless penal provision as errant husbands and in-laws will no longer face the possibility of being shunted to jail for harassment. The amendment empowers police to simply issue a ‘notice of appearance' to the accused instead of putting him behind bars in cases under Section 498A of IPC, which has a maximum punishment of three years.
It also means the deterrent effect behind Section 498A — fear of arrest by police — evaporates. Experience has shown that, at present, in-laws and husband fall in line as soon as they realize they might be whisked away to jail by cops, and more often than not, readily undertake to take care of the victim before courts hear their anticipatory bail pleas.
However, this might now change with the sting being taken out from the provision, says advocate Shipli Jain. She explains: "Almost half of the cases in criminal courts in Delhi are related to dowry-harassment bail pleas. We often notice that a husband and his parents become very forthcoming for a settlement when they realize a court might dismiss their bail applications. The amendment makes matters very easy and convenient for them. Most dowry cases get settled at the bail stage itself, something that won't happen now."
But isn't the provision of arrest under 498A a grossly misused one? Jain counters by saying: "Lots of divorces have been saved because men are scared of throwing women out of the house lest they be booked under 498A. In a way, it is the most effective provision despite the presence of the special laws like Domestic Violence Act."
Another noted women lawyer from Delhi, Minaxi Lekhi, also felt the CrPC changes will lead to problems: "At the end of the day, criminal laws mean threat of arrest."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Amendment-may-make-dowry-law-toothless/articleshow/3998702.cms
NEW DELHI: Buried under vociferous calls by bar associations for court boycott and strikes, a largely unnoticed fallout of the CrPC amendments has
begun to bother astute legal observers in the capital. Had lawyers agitating against the amendments highlighted this instead of issuing threats to shut courts, they would have better mobilized public opinion against these amendments.
For, once the amended law comes into force, Section 498A of IPC (dowry harassment) will become a toothless penal provision as errant husbands and in-laws will no longer face the possibility of being shunted to jail for harassment. The amendment empowers police to simply issue a ‘notice of appearance' to the accused instead of putting him behind bars in cases under Section 498A of IPC, which has a maximum punishment of three years.
It also means the deterrent effect behind Section 498A — fear of arrest by police — evaporates. Experience has shown that, at present, in-laws and husband fall in line as soon as they realize they might be whisked away to jail by cops, and more often than not, readily undertake to take care of the victim before courts hear their anticipatory bail pleas.
However, this might now change with the sting being taken out from the provision, says advocate Shipli Jain. She explains: "Almost half of the cases in criminal courts in Delhi are related to dowry-harassment bail pleas. We often notice that a husband and his parents become very forthcoming for a settlement when they realize a court might dismiss their bail applications. The amendment makes matters very easy and convenient for them. Most dowry cases get settled at the bail stage itself, something that won't happen now."
But isn't the provision of arrest under 498A a grossly misused one? Jain counters by saying: "Lots of divorces have been saved because men are scared of throwing women out of the house lest they be booked under 498A. In a way, it is the most effective provision despite the presence of the special laws like Domestic Violence Act."
Another noted women lawyer from Delhi, Minaxi Lekhi, also felt the CrPC changes will lead to problems: "At the end of the day, criminal laws mean threat of arrest."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Amendment-may-make-dowry-law-toothless/articleshow/3998702.cms
HC judge lashes out against 'culture of adjournments'
TNN, 29 January 2010, 01:59am IST
Topics:Delhi high court judge Justice S N Dhingra
NEW DELHI: A Delhi high court judge has blamed his colleagues for the "culture of adjournment'' that often prolongs cases for years.
Rueing the "lattitude shown by the high court'' to lawyers who plead for adjournments, justice S N Dhingra said: "It appears as if there is an understanding between the courts and advocates that come what may the orders of trial courts refusing adjournments shall be set aside on mercy pleas and one more opportunity shall be granted.''
Claiming that courts often grant adjournments on "frivolous grounds'', Dhingra said: "A separate breed of advocates has cropped up who are experts in pleading for adjournments and dragging cases. This culture has to be brought to an end,'' the HC noted, while upholding a order passed by a guardianship court in a child custody dispute between a couple. The court refused to adjourn the case when the woman's lawyer claimed that he had left the case files in his car which was stolen 11 days ago.
The HC agreed with the decision of the lower court to proceed with the hearing and close cross examination of witnesses, despite protests by the advocate of the child's mother. "Adjournments are sought in the name of strikes, elections, personal difficulties of the senior or briefing counsels or because two counsels agree to an adjournment... This wholeculture of adjournment is a major reasons why a case or a petition, which should be decided in two or three hearings, is disposed of in more than 100 hearings,'' the HC noted while dismissing the appeal filed by the child's motheragainst the lower court's order.
Dhingra said since the child was currently with the mother, she was making all attempts to prolong the hearings into the custody dispute.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/HC-judge-lashes-out-against-culture-of-adjournments-/articleshow/5511075.cms
Topics:Delhi high court judge Justice S N Dhingra
NEW DELHI: A Delhi high court judge has blamed his colleagues for the "culture of adjournment'' that often prolongs cases for years.
Rueing the "lattitude shown by the high court'' to lawyers who plead for adjournments, justice S N Dhingra said: "It appears as if there is an understanding between the courts and advocates that come what may the orders of trial courts refusing adjournments shall be set aside on mercy pleas and one more opportunity shall be granted.''
Claiming that courts often grant adjournments on "frivolous grounds'', Dhingra said: "A separate breed of advocates has cropped up who are experts in pleading for adjournments and dragging cases. This culture has to be brought to an end,'' the HC noted, while upholding a order passed by a guardianship court in a child custody dispute between a couple. The court refused to adjourn the case when the woman's lawyer claimed that he had left the case files in his car which was stolen 11 days ago.
The HC agreed with the decision of the lower court to proceed with the hearing and close cross examination of witnesses, despite protests by the advocate of the child's mother. "Adjournments are sought in the name of strikes, elections, personal difficulties of the senior or briefing counsels or because two counsels agree to an adjournment... This wholeculture of adjournment is a major reasons why a case or a petition, which should be decided in two or three hearings, is disposed of in more than 100 hearings,'' the HC noted while dismissing the appeal filed by the child's motheragainst the lower court's order.
Dhingra said since the child was currently with the mother, she was making all attempts to prolong the hearings into the custody dispute.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/HC-judge-lashes-out-against-culture-of-adjournments-/articleshow/5511075.cms
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)