July 24, 2010
Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) are increasingly concerned about their vulnerability to the Indian anti-dowry law, namely, the IPC-498A, that was passed by the Indian Parliament in 1983. And they have reason to worry.
Under the Indian law, when a wife files dowry charges against her husband and/or his family, irrespective of the validity of the charges, the husband and/or his family members can be arrested within 24 hours without an investigation, leading to much embarrassment and physical and emotional damage caused to the accused. Since most Indian expat families looking for brides for their sons are unable to carry out detailed investigations about the prospective bride because of the lack of such a facility in the Kingdom, their vulnerability increases many folds.
Mohammed Mustafa, an Indian expat working in a construction company in Jeddah, explains how he and his family were implicated in a false dowry case last year. “My brother-in-law’s wife filed a dowry case against him, me and my wife along with other family members. She alleged that we persecuted her for not bringing any dowry. She demanded an amount of Rs15 to 20 lakhs for an out-of-court settlement, which ultimately the family had to give in to,” said Mustafa.
He said Indian men working abroad are easy targets in false dowry cases since “mostly, their expectations of a wife are such that they desire women who would take care of the home and their relatives, even when they are abroad, and this leads to overlooking several other potentially problematic issues”.
“There have been countless instances,” Mustafa continued, “where without any investigation, the police have arrested elderly parents, unmarried sisters, pregnant sisters-in-law and even three-year-olds. In these cases, the unsuspecting family of the husband has to go through a lot of mental torture and harassment by the system. A typical case goes on for years (five to seven years) and the conviction rate is about two percent only. Some accused parents, sisters and even husbands have committed suicide after languishing in jail.”
International legal expert Advocate Basha Nawaz Khan says: “The definitions of an act constituting a crime in matrimonial matters are extremely vague and the procedures are attempts to give justice before the court’s verdict”.
The Indian Penal Code 498A, is a criminal law (not a civil law), which is defined as: “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman 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 cognizable, non-compoundable and non-bailable.”
Expatriates from India, regardless of their age or marital status, (including the husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother(s)-in-law, sister(s)-in-law) living /lived with the wife in the (joint) family, can be jailed under section 498A of the IPC based on the woman’s (wife’s) complaints in the police station.
Most cases, where the IPC-498A is invoked, turn out to be false as they are mere blackmailing attempts by the wife (or her close relatives) in a strained marriage. In such cases, the complaint is followed by demands for a large amount of money (extortion) seeking an out-of-court settlement.
“In a typical case, misunderstandings and the failure to fulfill the unlimited demands of a frustrated person in the family may lead the wife to file a false written complaint alleging dowry harassment. The husband, his parents and relatives are immediately arrested without sufficient investigation and put behind bars on non-bailable terms,” explained advocate Khan.
K. K. Vijayan, community welfare consul at the Indian Consulate in Jeddah, said: “This law is for the protection and safety of women, especially in dowry and bride-burning cases. If it is misused and if a case is filed against a person, who is not living in India, that person can go through a legal procedure and prove his innocence.”
Mustafa said that there have been instances when Indian expats on returning to India were either arrested at the airport or their passports were confiscated as part of the bail condition.
“Following the confiscation of their passports, they are unable to return to their jobs,” he said, adding that since most court cases drag on for around six to eight years in Indian courts, these men cannot afford to stay in India for that length of time.
There is another related situation in Indian law according to which, if a wife dies an unusual death within the first seven years of marriage, her husband is assumed to have murdered her, if cruelty was mentioned by the wife before her death.
The Indian government’s concern for NRIs and their families is best exemplified by a ministry specifically created for NRIs, the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs (MOIA). It was created to act as a liaison between NRIs and their motherland and to help innocent NRIs and their families in cases like these.
“The inflexibility of laws is so brutal that it totally blocks any access to the wife by the husband, who fears false cases against him, which will instantly lead to his and his family’s arrest. The assumptions are such that once the wife leaves the husband’s home, the husband fears that the death of the wife will involve him in a murder trial, and, at the same time, the reunification with the wife will result in more legal sufferings. Under such a legal system created by the Indian government, divorce is usually the best solution, despite the short-term jail and severe financial loss suffered by the husband and his family,” said Khan.
“Dowry death cases are unfortunate and should be punished, but today the tables are turned. The IPC section 498A is being misused, and there is no way for those resident abroad to prevent this law from being abused. A person can only win if he chooses to fight. A typical case will go on for three to seven years and requires a lot of patience and finances to win,” said Mustafa.
Mr.Rebates
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Woman files dowry case on NRI hubby
July 23, 2010
Hyderabad-based Panchadarla Maheswari, 22, lodged a complaint aga-inst her husband Saripalle Venkateswara Prasad, 30, with the Three Town police here on Thursday, stating that she was being harassed for additional dowry.
Prasad works in New Zealand. She earlier lodged the same complaint with Hyderabad police a month ago soon after arriving from New Zealand.
Maheswari, a native of Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad married Prasad of Ramnagar in the city in 2007. Her parents gave a dowry of Rs 10 lakh of cash, a flat in Jubilee Hills and 70 tolas of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. They immediately left for New Zealand.
Soon after their arrival, Prasad began harassing her. The family members said he used to lock her up in a room, tie her hands and on many occasions threw hot water on her.
She walked out from home and took shelter in a government-run home. With the help of another Indian woman, she flew back to Hyderabad last month. Soon after arriving she lodged a complaint with the Jubilee Hills police against her husband and in-laws Mr S. Karunakar and Ms Varalakshmi.
The police have been searching for the in-laws as they have changed their address. Recently, they were spotted while trying to dispose off their property. Maheswar’s family members traced them in a house in MVP Colony and informed the Hyderabad police. A sub-inspector arrived here on Thursday but refused to arrest them. He said he needed permission from his bosses in Hyderabad as he was asked to arrest only Prasad.
Meanwhile, the Three Town police took into custody Prasad’s brother Gautam, his parents after a fresh complaint was lodged by Maheswari and at the insistence of women organisations. They released them after questioning. The local police said after a permission was sought from Hyderabad, Prasad's parents would be taken into custody and handed over to the Hyderabad police.
Hyderabad-based Panchadarla Maheswari, 22, lodged a complaint aga-inst her husband Saripalle Venkateswara Prasad, 30, with the Three Town police here on Thursday, stating that she was being harassed for additional dowry.
Prasad works in New Zealand. She earlier lodged the same complaint with Hyderabad police a month ago soon after arriving from New Zealand.
Maheswari, a native of Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad married Prasad of Ramnagar in the city in 2007. Her parents gave a dowry of Rs 10 lakh of cash, a flat in Jubilee Hills and 70 tolas of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. They immediately left for New Zealand.
Soon after their arrival, Prasad began harassing her. The family members said he used to lock her up in a room, tie her hands and on many occasions threw hot water on her.
She walked out from home and took shelter in a government-run home. With the help of another Indian woman, she flew back to Hyderabad last month. Soon after arriving she lodged a complaint with the Jubilee Hills police against her husband and in-laws Mr S. Karunakar and Ms Varalakshmi.
The police have been searching for the in-laws as they have changed their address. Recently, they were spotted while trying to dispose off their property. Maheswar’s family members traced them in a house in MVP Colony and informed the Hyderabad police. A sub-inspector arrived here on Thursday but refused to arrest them. He said he needed permission from his bosses in Hyderabad as he was asked to arrest only Prasad.
Meanwhile, the Three Town police took into custody Prasad’s brother Gautam, his parents after a fresh complaint was lodged by Maheswari and at the insistence of women organisations. They released them after questioning. The local police said after a permission was sought from Hyderabad, Prasad's parents would be taken into custody and handed over to the Hyderabad police.
How to get Anticipatory bail when no case is registered
If complaint is given orally(make out a case that complaint is given, thereby making out a ground for AB). Generally, unless complaint or FIR is registered no AB is given . In such circumstances then only option is to make out a fictitious complaint being made by wife because of threats made by wife before leaving home threatening 498a and DV - then there is a ground to raise a plea for Anticipatory Bail. Read below matter carefully. If no complaint is registered then how do they know the sections which they fall under ? You can get breathing time for AB later once you have knowledge of the registration.
http://hc.ap.nic.in/orders/crlp_1239_2010.html
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1239 of 2010
ORDER :
This criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners-Accused seeking to direct the Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District, to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with any report given by Vishnu Priyanka Marella against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 498A IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act.
2) Heard.
3) According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, no crime is registered against these petitioners in pursuance to the report given by Vishnu Priyanka Marella. Therefore, this criminal petition is dismissed. However, the Police shall not interfere with the liberty of the petitioners in any manner as long as no crime is registered and for a period of one week after registration of crime, if any, on a complaint given by Vishnu Priyanka Marella.
The Judge is showing us indirectly - How to get rid of this menace of arrest even before the girl lodges a complaint. It is possible to get 'time to avoid arrest and time to apply for AB' before she lodges a formal complaint.
The very word 'Anticipatory' means to foresee or realize something is going to happen or cause to happen in advance. Once the complaint is lodged where is the question of AB in IPC 498a ? - because the Police get spring in their legs and joy in their walk taking cognizance of everything; even if a dog named 'pinky' is named in the complaint. They are capable of torturing you that they will not feed the dog unless paid when you are lodged inside.
The fact that AB is the discretion of the Judge does not mean that every husband is arrested. That is not the objective of IPC 498a or DP Act.
There is more to it. That order does not say anything beyond the time.
See Gurbaksh Singh.
The order to grant AB must should yield something that complements - "likelihood of arrest".
It cannot be just a possibility. There must be a showing something beyond for eg.
1. A & B file for divorce for mutual consent.
2. A or B retracts from the mutual consent.
3. Now A or B is threatening with a 498A.
4. If (1) and (2) had dragged the divorce for a considerable period of time, the 498A coming is very likely.
This is a scenario of a very likelihood of arrest. Hence there is no straight-jacket formula. There MUST be a solid showing of factual concern.
http://hc.ap.nic.in/orders/crlp_1239_2010.html
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1239 of 2010
ORDER :
This criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners-Accused seeking to direct the Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District, to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with any report given by Vishnu Priyanka Marella against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 498A IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act.
2) Heard.
3) According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, no crime is registered against these petitioners in pursuance to the report given by Vishnu Priyanka Marella. Therefore, this criminal petition is dismissed. However, the Police shall not interfere with the liberty of the petitioners in any manner as long as no crime is registered and for a period of one week after registration of crime, if any, on a complaint given by Vishnu Priyanka Marella.
The Judge is showing us indirectly - How to get rid of this menace of arrest even before the girl lodges a complaint. It is possible to get 'time to avoid arrest and time to apply for AB' before she lodges a formal complaint.
The very word 'Anticipatory' means to foresee or realize something is going to happen or cause to happen in advance. Once the complaint is lodged where is the question of AB in IPC 498a ? - because the Police get spring in their legs and joy in their walk taking cognizance of everything; even if a dog named 'pinky' is named in the complaint. They are capable of torturing you that they will not feed the dog unless paid when you are lodged inside.
The fact that AB is the discretion of the Judge does not mean that every husband is arrested. That is not the objective of IPC 498a or DP Act.
There is more to it. That order does not say anything beyond the time.
See Gurbaksh Singh.
The order to grant AB must should yield something that complements - "likelihood of arrest".
It cannot be just a possibility. There must be a showing something beyond for eg.
1. A & B file for divorce for mutual consent.
2. A or B retracts from the mutual consent.
3. Now A or B is threatening with a 498A.
4. If (1) and (2) had dragged the divorce for a considerable period of time, the 498A coming is very likely.
This is a scenario of a very likelihood of arrest. Hence there is no straight-jacket formula. There MUST be a solid showing of factual concern.
Suicide to save tortured men
July 24, 2010
A septuagenarian father has taken his own life to “save” his son and other tortured husbands.
Prasanta Kumar Ghosh blamed his death on his daughter-in-law’s threats to slap false torture charges and demanded a law to protect husbands and in-laws in such a predicament.
“My daughter-in-law is responsible for my death. I take the decision to end my life only to save thousands of husbands and their family members from the hands of cruel women like her,” the retired government employee in Hooghly’s Mogra wrote in a neatly folded three-page note he left behind in his shirt pocket.
Ghosh’s daughter-in-law was allegedly involved in an extra-marital affair with a cop in the area. “(But) neither me nor my son could protest as she threatened every day that she would lodge a complaint against us under section 498A,” wrote the 71-year-old.
In Calcutta High Court on Friday, Justice A.K. Banerjee read the note at least twice before the division bench, also including Justice R.N. Roy, dismissed the daughter-in-law’s plea for anticipatory bail. The police have charged the 31-year-old daughter-in-law with abetment to suicide.
“I know my letter will reach a judge one day. I would like him to consider my case. If there should be a law like 498A to protect housewives from cruel husbands and in-laws, there should also be a law to protect them from the hands of cruel women like my daughter-in-law,” wrote Ghosh.
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was introduced in 1983 to fight harassment for dowry. Under the law, a husband and his relatives can be jailed for life. The “cruelty” charge means immediate arrest and lawyers said the accused had no option but to wait out the investigation period. “Once the investigation reveals that a false complaint had been lodged, they can sue the woman and her kin,” said advocate and ex-mayor Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya.
Complaints about the misuse of Section 498A have been levelled before by in-laws at the receiving end of threats. Advocate Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee said such complaints were on the rise. “Around four out of 10 complaints of harassment against husbands and in-laws do not stand in court.”
Pratip Ghosh found his father hanging at their home in Mogra, about 65km from Calcutta, when he returned home after dropping his six-year-old son at school on June 25. The police found the note in Ghosh’s pocket.
Opposing the daughter-in-law’s plea for a reprieve, government counsel Pradip Roy furnished a copy of the FIR Pratip had filed after his father’s death. “My wife was adamant in nature and did not want to keep a good relationship with me and my father. In my absence, she used to meet a person (the cop)…. He sometimes came to our house in my absence…. My father had opposed all this... the matter has maligned us in society,” it said.
Pratip is married for eight years. Ghosh had initially opposed his son’s relationship with her “but he accepted her after some time”, Pratip wrote in the FIR.
Women’s organisations chose not to read too much into the tragedy. “It is not so easy to misuse the law,” said Indrani Sinha of Sanlaap. “Even if a woman is trying to misuse section 498A, her family, in this case her father-in-law and husband, could easily have taken precaution in the form of going to the police first and lodging a complaint. If they are innocent, they need not fear.”
Sinha also pointed to the domestic violence law that “does try to protect women” but can also “be used by the men, or any member of a family who is facing a problem at home”.
A septuagenarian father has taken his own life to “save” his son and other tortured husbands.
Prasanta Kumar Ghosh blamed his death on his daughter-in-law’s threats to slap false torture charges and demanded a law to protect husbands and in-laws in such a predicament.
“My daughter-in-law is responsible for my death. I take the decision to end my life only to save thousands of husbands and their family members from the hands of cruel women like her,” the retired government employee in Hooghly’s Mogra wrote in a neatly folded three-page note he left behind in his shirt pocket.
Ghosh’s daughter-in-law was allegedly involved in an extra-marital affair with a cop in the area. “(But) neither me nor my son could protest as she threatened every day that she would lodge a complaint against us under section 498A,” wrote the 71-year-old.
In Calcutta High Court on Friday, Justice A.K. Banerjee read the note at least twice before the division bench, also including Justice R.N. Roy, dismissed the daughter-in-law’s plea for anticipatory bail. The police have charged the 31-year-old daughter-in-law with abetment to suicide.
“I know my letter will reach a judge one day. I would like him to consider my case. If there should be a law like 498A to protect housewives from cruel husbands and in-laws, there should also be a law to protect them from the hands of cruel women like my daughter-in-law,” wrote Ghosh.
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was introduced in 1983 to fight harassment for dowry. Under the law, a husband and his relatives can be jailed for life. The “cruelty” charge means immediate arrest and lawyers said the accused had no option but to wait out the investigation period. “Once the investigation reveals that a false complaint had been lodged, they can sue the woman and her kin,” said advocate and ex-mayor Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya.
Complaints about the misuse of Section 498A have been levelled before by in-laws at the receiving end of threats. Advocate Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee said such complaints were on the rise. “Around four out of 10 complaints of harassment against husbands and in-laws do not stand in court.”
Pratip Ghosh found his father hanging at their home in Mogra, about 65km from Calcutta, when he returned home after dropping his six-year-old son at school on June 25. The police found the note in Ghosh’s pocket.
Opposing the daughter-in-law’s plea for a reprieve, government counsel Pradip Roy furnished a copy of the FIR Pratip had filed after his father’s death. “My wife was adamant in nature and did not want to keep a good relationship with me and my father. In my absence, she used to meet a person (the cop)…. He sometimes came to our house in my absence…. My father had opposed all this... the matter has maligned us in society,” it said.
Pratip is married for eight years. Ghosh had initially opposed his son’s relationship with her “but he accepted her after some time”, Pratip wrote in the FIR.
Women’s organisations chose not to read too much into the tragedy. “It is not so easy to misuse the law,” said Indrani Sinha of Sanlaap. “Even if a woman is trying to misuse section 498A, her family, in this case her father-in-law and husband, could easily have taken precaution in the form of going to the police first and lodging a complaint. If they are innocent, they need not fear.”
Sinha also pointed to the domestic violence law that “does try to protect women” but can also “be used by the men, or any member of a family who is facing a problem at home”.
Do not stigmatise housewives
Jul 23, 2010
In a scathing observation that underscores the government’s insensitivity to gender issues, the Supreme Court on Friday said the Centre’s move to equate 36 crore housewives with beggars, prostitutes in the 2001 Census was unfair and wholly uncalled for.
‘’In the Census of 2001 it appears that those who are doing household duties like cooking, cleaning of utensils, looking after children… collecting firewood, have been categorised as non-workers and equated them with beggars, prostitutes and prisoners,’’ said Justice A K Ganguly, in a dissenting judgment.
By its observations, the Court drove home the point that it was unfair on the part of the government to view housewives and home-making as old-fashioned and an economic burden to society.
While deciding a case on compensation to housewives in an automobile accident case, the Bench of Justice Ganguly and Justice G S Singhvi said it was highly unfair, unjust and inappropriate to compute the compensation payable to the dependents of a deceased woman (wife or mother) who did not have any regular income.
It would be unfair to compare her services with that of a housekeeper or a servant or an employee, who works for a fixed period, whereas a woman is part of the family and her contribution cannot be quantified, they observed.
‘’We hope and trust that in the ongoing Census operation this will be corrected,’’ the apex court said, asking the Centre to correct the wrong it had meted out to a majority of women in the country.
Justice Ganguly observed that there is a distinct gender bias against women in India despite the Constitution recommended for eschewing discrimination on the grounds of sex (Article 15) and it is also prevalent in various social welfare legislation and judicial pronouncements.
Expressing regrets, Justice Ganguly said that the census, a process that is carried out under an Act of Parliament, is not sensitive to the categorisation and puts the 36 crore (367 million) women engaged in home-making in the category that is derogatory and demeaning.
With words of appreciation for their priceless contribution, the judge said women are generally engaged in home-making, bringing up children, production of goods (food) and services which are not sold in markets.
The judgment reminded the government of its duty by pointing out that despite India being a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) on July 9, 1993, no law had been made for proper evaluation of the household work by women as homemakers.
The judges said that the services of a woman in a household are very important and monetary value could be fixed by quantifying various jobs such as cooking, taking care of children etc. ‘’It is possible to put monetary value of cooking for family members and it could be assessed in terms of what it would cost to hire a cook or to purchase ready cooked food or by assessing how much money could be earned if the food for the family were to be sold in the locality.’’
In a scathing observation that underscores the government’s insensitivity to gender issues, the Supreme Court on Friday said the Centre’s move to equate 36 crore housewives with beggars, prostitutes in the 2001 Census was unfair and wholly uncalled for.
‘’In the Census of 2001 it appears that those who are doing household duties like cooking, cleaning of utensils, looking after children… collecting firewood, have been categorised as non-workers and equated them with beggars, prostitutes and prisoners,’’ said Justice A K Ganguly, in a dissenting judgment.
By its observations, the Court drove home the point that it was unfair on the part of the government to view housewives and home-making as old-fashioned and an economic burden to society.
While deciding a case on compensation to housewives in an automobile accident case, the Bench of Justice Ganguly and Justice G S Singhvi said it was highly unfair, unjust and inappropriate to compute the compensation payable to the dependents of a deceased woman (wife or mother) who did not have any regular income.
It would be unfair to compare her services with that of a housekeeper or a servant or an employee, who works for a fixed period, whereas a woman is part of the family and her contribution cannot be quantified, they observed.
‘’We hope and trust that in the ongoing Census operation this will be corrected,’’ the apex court said, asking the Centre to correct the wrong it had meted out to a majority of women in the country.
Justice Ganguly observed that there is a distinct gender bias against women in India despite the Constitution recommended for eschewing discrimination on the grounds of sex (Article 15) and it is also prevalent in various social welfare legislation and judicial pronouncements.
Expressing regrets, Justice Ganguly said that the census, a process that is carried out under an Act of Parliament, is not sensitive to the categorisation and puts the 36 crore (367 million) women engaged in home-making in the category that is derogatory and demeaning.
With words of appreciation for their priceless contribution, the judge said women are generally engaged in home-making, bringing up children, production of goods (food) and services which are not sold in markets.
The judgment reminded the government of its duty by pointing out that despite India being a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) on July 9, 1993, no law had been made for proper evaluation of the household work by women as homemakers.
The judges said that the services of a woman in a household are very important and monetary value could be fixed by quantifying various jobs such as cooking, taking care of children etc. ‘’It is possible to put monetary value of cooking for family members and it could be assessed in terms of what it would cost to hire a cook or to purchase ready cooked food or by assessing how much money could be earned if the food for the family were to be sold in the locality.’’
Kumble warms the benches, for once
July 23, 2010
Anil Kumble was made to wait outside the court for two hours on Thursday, where his wife was fighting for the custody of her child from her first marriage
It was one place where the normally self-effacing Anil Kumble really wanted to be, but was not allowed. On Thursday, the former Indian captain was made to sit outside the family court in Bangalore where his wife Chethana was fighting for the custody of her only child from her first marriage.
The case is being conducted in-camera at the request of the Kumbles, but after Kumar Jahgirdar, Chethana’s first husband, and his lawyer objected to Kumble’s presence in the court, the judge ordered him to go out. Kumble sat outside the court from around 3pm till 5pm.
Jahgirdar and Chethana’s daughter, who is 15, is currently staying with the Kumbles. The two were married for 13 years since 1986, and divorced by mutual consent. Chethana married Kumble two months after she got the divorce. The couple fought for primary custody of their only child, and it went all the way up to the Supreme Court. Jahgirdar lost, but the court said the child should spend her weekends and half her vacations with him.
The court also ruled that the father could ask for modifications should the circumstances change. Jahgirdar is married again, and is seeking a review under the “changed circumstances” clause.
The next hearing of the case will take place on July 31. “Jahgirdar can go to court but all the charges he is making against the Kumble family are false. Kumble’s presence is not really required in the court room,” his lawyer C V Nagesh said.
Chequered history
» 1986: Chethana marries Kumar Jahgirdar
» 1998: They are divorced, and Chethana marries Anil Kumble
» 2003: Supreme Court grants her custody of her eight-year-old daughter
» 2007: Jahgirdar files for review of custodial rights
» 2008: Kumbles get a stay, but Jahgirdar wants it vacated
» In 2009 High Court orders case be heard by family court
Anil Kumble was made to wait outside the court for two hours on Thursday, where his wife was fighting for the custody of her child from her first marriage
It was one place where the normally self-effacing Anil Kumble really wanted to be, but was not allowed. On Thursday, the former Indian captain was made to sit outside the family court in Bangalore where his wife Chethana was fighting for the custody of her only child from her first marriage.
The case is being conducted in-camera at the request of the Kumbles, but after Kumar Jahgirdar, Chethana’s first husband, and his lawyer objected to Kumble’s presence in the court, the judge ordered him to go out. Kumble sat outside the court from around 3pm till 5pm.
Jahgirdar and Chethana’s daughter, who is 15, is currently staying with the Kumbles. The two were married for 13 years since 1986, and divorced by mutual consent. Chethana married Kumble two months after she got the divorce. The couple fought for primary custody of their only child, and it went all the way up to the Supreme Court. Jahgirdar lost, but the court said the child should spend her weekends and half her vacations with him.
The court also ruled that the father could ask for modifications should the circumstances change. Jahgirdar is married again, and is seeking a review under the “changed circumstances” clause.
The next hearing of the case will take place on July 31. “Jahgirdar can go to court but all the charges he is making against the Kumble family are false. Kumble’s presence is not really required in the court room,” his lawyer C V Nagesh said.
Chequered history
» 1986: Chethana marries Kumar Jahgirdar
» 1998: They are divorced, and Chethana marries Anil Kumble
» 2003: Supreme Court grants her custody of her eight-year-old daughter
» 2007: Jahgirdar files for review of custodial rights
» 2008: Kumbles get a stay, but Jahgirdar wants it vacated
» In 2009 High Court orders case be heard by family court
It’s a dog’s life
July 23, 2010
A Family Court order directs Adnan Sami’s third wife Roya Fariyabi to leave the house he’s living in since it belongs to his second wife Sabah Galadari
Adnan Sami’s marriage woes have surfaced again. In a few days from now, his third wife Roya Fariyabi will have to leave the Oberoi Skyheights flat in Lokhandwala for good. She is currently living there with Adnan.
Recently, Roya and Adnan returned from Islamabad after meeting his parents, only to receive an order fom the Family Court stating that only Adnan can live in their flat.
Since the flat Adnan is currently living in belongs to his second wife Sabah Galadari, divorcing her will actually have fewer benefits for him. He might just be homeless, unless of course he finds an alternative accomodation by that time.
Strangely, Adnan has not paid heed to the Family Court order. A source says, “If Roya does not leave the flat, Adnan’s second wife Sabah Galadari will file legal proceedings against him. Thereafter, the law will ensure that he vacates the flat.”
The Family Court’s order has come in the wake of an application filed by Sabah under the provision of the Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act, “Sabah has started another war now. She is not going to take anything lying down,” says the source.
Sabah discovered Roya’s presence in the flat when she went to check on her pet dogs. Adnan had left them unattended (reported by Mumbai Mirror, June 14, 2010). “Sabah saw that the dogs were not getting adequate food. Also, they had been kept chained for long periods of time.
The animals were in a terrible state. Sabah decided that she would free the dogs and get them to her place, but after consulting her well-wishers, she decided against it. Her friends told her that she might get into serious trouble as Adnan might levy false allegations of theft against her,” adds the source.
Is it just the dogs or does Sabah have a problem with Roya living with Adnan in that house? “Sabah doesn’t have any problem if Roya lives with Adnan,” says the source, “Frankly, she is least interested in Adnan’s life now. All that she wants is that Adnan should obey the law.
When the Court had told Adnan that nobody except him was allowed in the flat, what right did he have to disobey the directive? This is breach of order. Sabah is the owner of three flats in Oberoi Skyheights.”
Explaining the deal, Sabah’s friend says, “Adnan was very keen to get plush flats in Oberoi Skyheights. Sabah gave him a loan of Rs 5.3 crore. But Adnan was unable to repay the loan. So, he gifted all these flats to Sabah. This happened in 2008 much before Adnan and Sabah’s marriage hit the rocks.”
Sabah’s lawyer Mrunalini Deshmukh neither confirms nor denies the story. She says, “As the matter is subjudice, I can’t talk about it.”
Adnan’s lawyer V Krishnan however confirms and says, “Yes, Adnan has received the Family Court order saying that only he can reside in that flat. He will fight it out. We have filed an appeal against that order.”
When told that Sabah may file legal proceedings if he refuses to vacate the flat, Krishnan adds, “The matter is now pending at High Court. I can’t talk any further about this.”
A Family Court order directs Adnan Sami’s third wife Roya Fariyabi to leave the house he’s living in since it belongs to his second wife Sabah Galadari
Adnan Sami’s marriage woes have surfaced again. In a few days from now, his third wife Roya Fariyabi will have to leave the Oberoi Skyheights flat in Lokhandwala for good. She is currently living there with Adnan.
Recently, Roya and Adnan returned from Islamabad after meeting his parents, only to receive an order fom the Family Court stating that only Adnan can live in their flat.
Since the flat Adnan is currently living in belongs to his second wife Sabah Galadari, divorcing her will actually have fewer benefits for him. He might just be homeless, unless of course he finds an alternative accomodation by that time.
Strangely, Adnan has not paid heed to the Family Court order. A source says, “If Roya does not leave the flat, Adnan’s second wife Sabah Galadari will file legal proceedings against him. Thereafter, the law will ensure that he vacates the flat.”
The Family Court’s order has come in the wake of an application filed by Sabah under the provision of the Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act, “Sabah has started another war now. She is not going to take anything lying down,” says the source.
Sabah discovered Roya’s presence in the flat when she went to check on her pet dogs. Adnan had left them unattended (reported by Mumbai Mirror, June 14, 2010). “Sabah saw that the dogs were not getting adequate food. Also, they had been kept chained for long periods of time.
The animals were in a terrible state. Sabah decided that she would free the dogs and get them to her place, but after consulting her well-wishers, she decided against it. Her friends told her that she might get into serious trouble as Adnan might levy false allegations of theft against her,” adds the source.
Is it just the dogs or does Sabah have a problem with Roya living with Adnan in that house? “Sabah doesn’t have any problem if Roya lives with Adnan,” says the source, “Frankly, she is least interested in Adnan’s life now. All that she wants is that Adnan should obey the law.
When the Court had told Adnan that nobody except him was allowed in the flat, what right did he have to disobey the directive? This is breach of order. Sabah is the owner of three flats in Oberoi Skyheights.”
Explaining the deal, Sabah’s friend says, “Adnan was very keen to get plush flats in Oberoi Skyheights. Sabah gave him a loan of Rs 5.3 crore. But Adnan was unable to repay the loan. So, he gifted all these flats to Sabah. This happened in 2008 much before Adnan and Sabah’s marriage hit the rocks.”
Sabah’s lawyer Mrunalini Deshmukh neither confirms nor denies the story. She says, “As the matter is subjudice, I can’t talk about it.”
Adnan’s lawyer V Krishnan however confirms and says, “Yes, Adnan has received the Family Court order saying that only he can reside in that flat. He will fight it out. We have filed an appeal against that order.”
When told that Sabah may file legal proceedings if he refuses to vacate the flat, Krishnan adds, “The matter is now pending at High Court. I can’t talk any further about this.”
Police station turns into war zone as cops fight over bribe booty
July 23, 2010
All it took was one glimpse of Rs one lakh in crisp currency notes and the Mico Layout Police Station had turned into a battleground with two officers exchanging expletives and almost coming to blows.
Police inspector CN Janardhan Rao at his office in Mico Layout Police Station
The high-decibel drama between Police Inspector C N Janardhan Rao and Sub-Inspector (SI) Narasimhaiah of the police station that started at 7 pm on Wednesday night was triggered by the arrival of a bribe of Rs One lakh. Sources said, “A few days ago Mico Layout's crime team went to Thiruvannamalai in Tamil Nadu and picked up seven persons in connection with a theft case registered with the station. Though the police knew that the accused were involved in criminal activity, they were released.” While the official version claimed there was no link between these men and the case in question, the secret to the release was a deal allegedly struck between the cops and the criminals.
A few constables from Mico Layout police station were despatched to collect the bribe.
However, the arrival of the cash at the station opened a Pandora’s box. “While 80 per cent of the booty was kept back by the inspector, the remaining was given to other members of the team including the SI,” adds the source.
Feeling shortchanged, the men are said to have muttered, “We do the ground work, but you (inspector) take away a large share of the booty.” What followed was a literal free-for-all with both sides hurling the choicest abuses at each other for over 30 minutes. Before leaving office, the miffed inspector even wrote down in the station diary that the SI was not cooperating with him in discharging his duties. The same copy was handed over to the Police Commissioner’s office.
In the meantime, the SI lodged a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner of Police (south-east) BNS Reddy against the inspector.
When contacted, Reddy admitted there was a fight at the police station, but maintained that there was no formal complaint with him. “The SI said he is finding it difficult to work there and that he wants to be transferred,” Reddy said.
Police Commissioner Bidari said, “I don’t know what has happened at the DCP level. I have not received any complaint in this regard so far.
The warring cops
C N Janardhan, a former Christ College student is a 1990 batch sub-inspector. Before being posted to MICO Layout police station, Janardhan was serving as a inspector in a traffic police station in Bangalore. During his stint as the traffic inspector, Janardhan was known as ‘carbon Johnny’ in the police circles. Janardhan allegedly prepared fake challans for traffic violators, hence the sobriquet. For any traffic violator, he used to collect the fine amount and issue fake challans, causing loss to the ex-chequer. After this fraud surfaced, an inquiry was constituted against Janardhan which is said to be still pending. After he was deputed to MICO Layout police station, Janardhan had frequent fights with Narasimaiah, the promotee sub-inspector. Narasimaiah, who was an alcoholic, used to hurl abuse at his inspector Janardhan for collecting bribe from all corners. The inspector and sub-inspector had regular tiffs at the police station, said an officer.
All it took was one glimpse of Rs one lakh in crisp currency notes and the Mico Layout Police Station had turned into a battleground with two officers exchanging expletives and almost coming to blows.
Police inspector CN Janardhan Rao at his office in Mico Layout Police Station
The high-decibel drama between Police Inspector C N Janardhan Rao and Sub-Inspector (SI) Narasimhaiah of the police station that started at 7 pm on Wednesday night was triggered by the arrival of a bribe of Rs One lakh. Sources said, “A few days ago Mico Layout's crime team went to Thiruvannamalai in Tamil Nadu and picked up seven persons in connection with a theft case registered with the station. Though the police knew that the accused were involved in criminal activity, they were released.” While the official version claimed there was no link between these men and the case in question, the secret to the release was a deal allegedly struck between the cops and the criminals.
A few constables from Mico Layout police station were despatched to collect the bribe.
However, the arrival of the cash at the station opened a Pandora’s box. “While 80 per cent of the booty was kept back by the inspector, the remaining was given to other members of the team including the SI,” adds the source.
Feeling shortchanged, the men are said to have muttered, “We do the ground work, but you (inspector) take away a large share of the booty.” What followed was a literal free-for-all with both sides hurling the choicest abuses at each other for over 30 minutes. Before leaving office, the miffed inspector even wrote down in the station diary that the SI was not cooperating with him in discharging his duties. The same copy was handed over to the Police Commissioner’s office.
In the meantime, the SI lodged a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner of Police (south-east) BNS Reddy against the inspector.
When contacted, Reddy admitted there was a fight at the police station, but maintained that there was no formal complaint with him. “The SI said he is finding it difficult to work there and that he wants to be transferred,” Reddy said.
Police Commissioner Bidari said, “I don’t know what has happened at the DCP level. I have not received any complaint in this regard so far.
The warring cops
C N Janardhan, a former Christ College student is a 1990 batch sub-inspector. Before being posted to MICO Layout police station, Janardhan was serving as a inspector in a traffic police station in Bangalore. During his stint as the traffic inspector, Janardhan was known as ‘carbon Johnny’ in the police circles. Janardhan allegedly prepared fake challans for traffic violators, hence the sobriquet. For any traffic violator, he used to collect the fine amount and issue fake challans, causing loss to the ex-chequer. After this fraud surfaced, an inquiry was constituted against Janardhan which is said to be still pending. After he was deputed to MICO Layout police station, Janardhan had frequent fights with Narasimaiah, the promotee sub-inspector. Narasimaiah, who was an alcoholic, used to hurl abuse at his inspector Janardhan for collecting bribe from all corners. The inspector and sub-inspector had regular tiffs at the police station, said an officer.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Man told to pay maintenance to wife and son
Pune: In an order which has been described as rare, a magistrate court has awarded interim maintenance of Rs 28,000 to a working woman under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act. The woman had proved that her earnings was not sufficient to meet her and her son’s expenses comparing her husband’s salary.
The court of judicial magistrate first class P K Kulkarni, on July 14, ordered the husband to pay maintenance of Rs 15,000 to his wife and Rs 5,000 to his son along with a house rent allowance of Rs 8,000 per month. The husband has also been directed to return her dowry.
The woman was working at a BPO and drawing a salary of Rs 22,000 per month. On January 23, 2007, she got married to a man who was working as a project manager in a software firm. The husband, who was drawing a salary of over Rs 1.19 lakh per month, made her leave the job.
Later, the husband started suspecting his wife and had harassed her for trivial reasons. On February 24, 2009, the woman filed a complaint against him at the Chatushrungi police station under section 498 (a) of the Indian Penal Code for subjecting her to cruelty. The victim’s lawyer Trevor Issac told TOI that his client was forced to move the court after she was driven out of the house.
The victim then joined another BPO for a salary of Rs 12,000 per month, but she was facing severe financial problems.
Issac said he had submitted her salary slip before the court and raised the issue of maintenance of Rs 55,000 per month to her as she was unable to meet the expenses of herself and her 22-month-old child, who is studying in a play group.
Issac termed the order as rare as the court has taken a view that her salary was less compared to the salary drawn by her husband who was staying in a 2 BHK flat and was also owning a Logan car.
The court of judicial magistrate first class P K Kulkarni, on July 14, ordered the husband to pay maintenance of Rs 15,000 to his wife and Rs 5,000 to his son along with a house rent allowance of Rs 8,000 per month. The husband has also been directed to return her dowry.
The woman was working at a BPO and drawing a salary of Rs 22,000 per month. On January 23, 2007, she got married to a man who was working as a project manager in a software firm. The husband, who was drawing a salary of over Rs 1.19 lakh per month, made her leave the job.
Later, the husband started suspecting his wife and had harassed her for trivial reasons. On February 24, 2009, the woman filed a complaint against him at the Chatushrungi police station under section 498 (a) of the Indian Penal Code for subjecting her to cruelty. The victim’s lawyer Trevor Issac told TOI that his client was forced to move the court after she was driven out of the house.
The victim then joined another BPO for a salary of Rs 12,000 per month, but she was facing severe financial problems.
Issac said he had submitted her salary slip before the court and raised the issue of maintenance of Rs 55,000 per month to her as she was unable to meet the expenses of herself and her 22-month-old child, who is studying in a play group.
Issac termed the order as rare as the court has taken a view that her salary was less compared to the salary drawn by her husband who was staying in a 2 BHK flat and was also owning a Logan car.
NGO headed by former judge fined Rs 1 lakh for 'frivolous' PIL
July 20, 2010
Three months after the Chief Justice of India warned public interest litigants of heavy costs for frivolous petitions, a former Delhi High Court judge and an NGO of which he is “patron-in-chief” are the first casualties.
The Delhi Citizen Forum For Civil Rights was today directed to pay Rs 1 lakh as fine for espousing, as public interest litigation (PIL), the “private cause” of two “disgruntled” serving district judges of Delhi.
As for Justice J K Mehra, retired Delhi High Court judge and patron-in-chief of the NGO, the Supreme Court wondered aloud why a “retired judge, one who was part of the judiciary, should be party to this campaign”.
“If he wants publicity, he should do something else. This is vexatious litigation in the name of PIL to espouse the private cause of judicial officers who were not appointed as judges in the Delhi High Court,” a bench of Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly observed.
The NGO has not had a successful run, to say the least. The Delhi High Court dismissed the same case on March 8, 2010 and imposed a fine of Rs 10,000. Today, the Supreme Court said the High Court fine was “too conservative”. It clarified that the Rs 1 Lakh is in “addition” to the High Court’s.
This is the first such instance after the CJI, on May 12, announced the apex court’s zero-tolerance for “frivolous and vexatious public interest litigation”.
“We are convinced that this is a frivolous litigation. A sum of Rs 1 lakh is imposed as additional costs to that of Rs 10,000 ordered by the Delhi High Court. The petitioner (NGO) shall deposit this amount with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Authority within one month,” the court ordered.
Advocate Joginder Tuli, who is the NGO’s chairman, struggled to convince the Bench of the good intentions involved as regards the two senior judges.
But the court countered Tuli: “They are law graduates, they are literate. So why can’t they come on their own instead of through you? What is your locus standi and why do you intervene here?”
The two judges are PS Teji, District Judge, Karkardooma courts and IS Mehta, District Judge, Dwarka courts. Tuli argued that both were denied appointment to the Delhi High Court on the basis of an “arbitrary and unconstitutional procedure”.
“The names of two senior District Judges belonging to SC/ST Shri PS Teji, District Judge, Karkardooma courts and Shri IS Mehta, District Judge, Dwarka courts have not been considered for elevation to the Delhi High Court. This arbitrary and unconstitutional procedure adopted by the Delhi High Court has created great disgruntlement among SC/ST officers from the Delhi Judicial Services as well from other services in the country,” Tuli argued.
To Tuli’s comment that there was already complaints against the appointment of another district district judge to the Delhi High Court, the bench asked him how he got “that information” and went on to suspect that his source was his “patron-in-chief”.
“How did he (Justice Mehra) get hold of the records? He has abused his past position as judge of the high court. This is the grossest abuse of the process of court,” the bench said.
But advocate Tuli is still optimistic: “The court just wanted to know why we were in support of the two judges. Now, this means that court wants the two judges to themselves approach the court. This turns out good for them.”
Three months after the Chief Justice of India warned public interest litigants of heavy costs for frivolous petitions, a former Delhi High Court judge and an NGO of which he is “patron-in-chief” are the first casualties.
The Delhi Citizen Forum For Civil Rights was today directed to pay Rs 1 lakh as fine for espousing, as public interest litigation (PIL), the “private cause” of two “disgruntled” serving district judges of Delhi.
As for Justice J K Mehra, retired Delhi High Court judge and patron-in-chief of the NGO, the Supreme Court wondered aloud why a “retired judge, one who was part of the judiciary, should be party to this campaign”.
“If he wants publicity, he should do something else. This is vexatious litigation in the name of PIL to espouse the private cause of judicial officers who were not appointed as judges in the Delhi High Court,” a bench of Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly observed.
The NGO has not had a successful run, to say the least. The Delhi High Court dismissed the same case on March 8, 2010 and imposed a fine of Rs 10,000. Today, the Supreme Court said the High Court fine was “too conservative”. It clarified that the Rs 1 Lakh is in “addition” to the High Court’s.
This is the first such instance after the CJI, on May 12, announced the apex court’s zero-tolerance for “frivolous and vexatious public interest litigation”.
“We are convinced that this is a frivolous litigation. A sum of Rs 1 lakh is imposed as additional costs to that of Rs 10,000 ordered by the Delhi High Court. The petitioner (NGO) shall deposit this amount with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Authority within one month,” the court ordered.
Advocate Joginder Tuli, who is the NGO’s chairman, struggled to convince the Bench of the good intentions involved as regards the two senior judges.
But the court countered Tuli: “They are law graduates, they are literate. So why can’t they come on their own instead of through you? What is your locus standi and why do you intervene here?”
The two judges are PS Teji, District Judge, Karkardooma courts and IS Mehta, District Judge, Dwarka courts. Tuli argued that both were denied appointment to the Delhi High Court on the basis of an “arbitrary and unconstitutional procedure”.
“The names of two senior District Judges belonging to SC/ST Shri PS Teji, District Judge, Karkardooma courts and Shri IS Mehta, District Judge, Dwarka courts have not been considered for elevation to the Delhi High Court. This arbitrary and unconstitutional procedure adopted by the Delhi High Court has created great disgruntlement among SC/ST officers from the Delhi Judicial Services as well from other services in the country,” Tuli argued.
To Tuli’s comment that there was already complaints against the appointment of another district district judge to the Delhi High Court, the bench asked him how he got “that information” and went on to suspect that his source was his “patron-in-chief”.
“How did he (Justice Mehra) get hold of the records? He has abused his past position as judge of the high court. This is the grossest abuse of the process of court,” the bench said.
But advocate Tuli is still optimistic: “The court just wanted to know why we were in support of the two judges. Now, this means that court wants the two judges to themselves approach the court. This turns out good for them.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)