(Aust.) Court urged not to jail genital burner

 Why the Male bias in dispensing the law, had the husband murdered his wife they would be asking for his head? Since the women has committed the crime she is always the victim, time and again the same old Feminazi crap takes center stage. 
Justice is suppose to be blind to all its citizens, this is injustice, a shame. 

Nov 24, 2010

A court has been urged not to jail a woman who burnt her husband to death in what her lawyer has called a momentary lapse of control.

Rajini Narayan was found guilty of manslaughter for dousing her husband, Satish, in petrol and lighting it with a candle at their home at Unley in Adelaide two years ago.

Defence lawyer Lindy Powell said the woman should be sentenced on the basis that she had planned to burn his penis as a minor circumcision after learning he had been having an affair.

Ms Powell said Narayan did not mean to kill the man but made a split-second mistake after he had insulted her.

"She had indeed what might be called a loveless marriage, a marriage devoid of love and affection," she said.
"It goes without saying that Mrs Narayan was devoted to her husband and family. She is deeply remorseful.
"The nature of this particular case is such that one might think or ask 'What is actually to be served by imprisoning Mrs Narayan?'

"If the fundamental purpose of punishment is protecting society then Mrs Narayan doesn't present any risk whatsoever."

Two of their three children gave evidence for the defence about years of physical abuse family members had suffered at the hands of Mr Narayan.

Daniel, 21, said the household had had a hostile atmosphere.
He told of intervening on one occasion during family violence.

"At that time my father was punching my mother and so I made him stop," he told the court.
Daughter Jessica, 23, said her mother had rejected her pleas to leave her father because of the violence.
"It was so hard living in such a hostile environment I ended up leaving home, she said.

"It was the hardest decision I ever had to make. It was very easy to live with because my life was much better leaving the house."

The prosecution is yet to make submissions on penalty but Mr Narayan's family has called for the maximum sentence.

Source: ABC.net.au

(Judgment) Del HC – False implication of husband’s relatives in 498a is ground for divorce (cruelty) to husband

MAT APP No. 98/2010                                                                                  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI  

        MAT APP No. 98/2010 

Judgment delivered on: 19.11.2010

Smt. Nitu Aggarwal              ..... Appellant
Through:  Mr.Rajiv Shukla, Adv.

        Versus

Sh.Gireesh Gupta              ..... Respondent
        Through:  Mr.Gyan Prakash, Adv.

CORAM:  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR,

1.  Whether the Reporters of local papers may  be allowed to see the judgment?                      Yes  
2.  To be referred to Reporter or not?      Yes
3.  Whether the judgment should be reported  in the Digest?

                     Yes

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral:

1. By this appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the appellant seeks to challenge MAT APP No. 98/2010 Page 1 of 11 the judgment and decree dated 27.4.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby a decree of judicial separation was passed. 

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the parties got married on 5.11.03 at Noida according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and a female child was born out of wedlock on 14.9.04. The matrimonial relations between the parties were stained right from the very beginning of their married life and distressed by the behaviour of the appellant, the respondent filed a petition under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of judicial separation on the ground of cruelty which vide judgment dated 27.4.10 was granted. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 

3. Mr. Rajiv Shukla, counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial court has wrongly assumed that the appellant had consumed some poisonous substance with a view to commit suicide. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the respondent used to compel and force the appellant to consume certain medicines under the pretext that the same were good for her health and for the child in the womb. Counsel further submits that the respondent also failed to prove on record that an attempt of suicide by the appellant was made with a view to coerce the respondent to accede to any of her demands and in the absence of any such assertion on the part of the respondent, no logic or rationale behind the alleged attempt of suicide by the appellant could be established by the respondent. Explaining the contradiction on the part of the appellant in the FIR lodged by her under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, counsel submits that even if the appellant in the said FIR took a stand that the respondent had given her something to drink, the same will not make any difference vis-a-vis her stand in the matrimonial proceedings where she had stated that the respondent used to administer some medicines. Counsel thus submits that there was a minor variation in the stand of the appellant which would not amount to any kind of self contradiction on her part. Counsel thus states that there is clear infirmity and perversity in the findings of the learned trial court on this aspect and the same should be set aside. 

4. Assailing the impugned judgment on another ground, counsel submits that the learned trial court has wrongly observed that the implication of the relatives of the respondent is in itself an act of cruelty against the respondent. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the mere fact that the said relatives were not charge sheeted by the police would not show that the allegations leveled by the appellant against the relatives of the respondent were false. The contention of the counsel is that at the stage of framing of charges, it would be for the concerned Criminal Court to see whether based on the allegations leveled by the appellant in her criminal complaint such relatives are required to be proceeded against or not. 

5. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand refutes the submissions made by the counsel for the  appellant and submits that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself as the appellant has failed to point out any material illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned trial court. 

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 

7. The petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act was preferred by the respondent husband so as to seek a decree of judicial separation from the appellant on the ground of cruelty. The marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 5.11.2003 and both the parties are well educated academically. One of the allegations leveled by the respondent against the appellant is that the appellant had consumed some poisonous drink on 18.8.2004 and her condition became very critical in the morning of 18.8.2004 and she was immediately taken to Kailash Hospital, Noida and it is only on account of the timely action taken by the respondent and his parents that life of the appellant and the unborn child could be saved. It is an admitted case of  the parties that subsequent to the filing of the said petition by the respondent husband the appellant wife got registered one criminal complaint under Section 498A/406/34 IPC vide FIR No. 498/2005 not only against the respondent but his parents and some other relatives as well. Some of the relatives implicated by the appellant in the said complaint case were the residents of far off places like Saharanpur and Baroda. It is also an admitted case of the parties that the relatives of the respondent were not charge- sheeted by the police as no incriminating material was found against them during the course of investigation. The respondent has taken this false implication of his relatives on the part of the appellant as a ground of cruelty. Learned trial court has also granted decree of judicial separation in favour of the respondent and against the appellant taking the said two grounds clearly establishing the cruel conduct of the appellant towards the respondent. Before the learned trial court as well as before this court the appellant has failed to disclose as to what kind of medicines were being administered by the respondent to her during the stage of  pregnancy on the pretext of the same being good for her health and that of the unborn child. It is incomprehensible to accept the argument that the appellant who is a well qualified lady having a degree of Chartered Accountancy and Company Secretary would take the medicines without even knowing what kind of medicines she was taking. The appellant has also clearly taken a contradictory stand in her criminal complaint, wherein she stated that she was given something to drink by the respondent and his parents on the pretext that it is good for her pregnancy. The appellant has also not denied the fact that she was admitted to Kailash Hospital in the morning of 18.8.2004 where she was treated after having consumed some poisonous substance. It is also not in dispute that the appellant did not lodge any police complaint against the respondent or his parents complaining about administration of some poisonous medicines by her husband or his parents. The learned trial court has duly taken into consideration all these circumstances into account and thus has arrived at a finding that such an attempt by the appellant to commit suicide is an act of cruelty on her part upon her husband. 

8. The concept of cruelty is of wide amplitude and has not been defined in the act. The Apex Court through various judicial pronouncements has explained the concept and scope of cruelty. It would be useful here to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A. Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur AIR 2005 SC 534 where it was held as under:

"12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be "grave and weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than "ordinary wear and tear of married life". The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party.

13. The Court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in a spouse's conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However, insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It has to be considered whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a part of normal human life. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-violent."

Cruelty therefore is to be garnered taking the cumulative effect of all the factors into play. The parties are well educated and such an attempt to end her life by the appellant would certainly cause mental agony to the respondent. It would aggravate the case when the appellant tried to commit suicide in the state of pregnancy. A highly educated lady claiming that she was administered poisonous substance which she was unaware of does not help her case. No doubt in the petition the respondent did not give any specific reason or cause behind such suicidal attempt but it goes without saying that such an act even in the absence of any reason certainly would constitute an act of cruelty on the respondent husband.

9. Even on the second argument of the counsel for the appellant, this court does not find any merit in it. The complaint under Section 498A/406/34 IPC was lodged by the appellant during the pendency of the said petition filed by the respondent for judicial separation. In her complaint the appellant roped in various relatives of the respondent which include his uncle and aunt residing at Saharanpur and brother and sister in law residing at Baroda. The learned trial court is right in taking a view that false implication of relatives who were residing at far off places from the matrimonial home of the appellant and against whom there are no specific allegations of cruelty in itself is an act of cruelty by the appellant towards her husband. However, as these relatives were not charge-sheeted by the police the same would clearly show that the police did not find any incriminating material against these relatives during the investigation and this by itself is sufficient enough to show that the appellant had roped in and implicated all these relatives with vengeance to cause unnecessary harassment to them and such act certainly would cause cruelty to the husband with whom they are related. Implicating the relatives with a motive to harass the relatives, residing in different parts of the country, is nothing but a ruthless act of harassment. Therefore, the respondent husband has successfully proved cruelty on the part of the appellant on both the counts.

10. In the light of the above, this court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings arrived at by the learned trial court. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 

November 19, 2010 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J mg 

http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/KG/judgement/26-11-2010/KG19112010MATA982010.pdf

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/477931/

Plea to recall ruling where woman was described as ‘keep'

Feminazi hypocrites in action, the second anything is said against women these witches come out and bark at the moon. What is wrong with the word keep? Would they rather these women be called Whores? 

At the end of the day men are just used as free ATM's, cash on demand! 

Nov 28, 2010

Contending that the use of the expression ‘keep' in a recent judgment to describe a woman was highly derogatory and a discrimination against women on grounds of marital status, Mahila Dakshta Samiti, a women's organisation has moved the Supreme Court for its recall. 

On October 21, a Bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra in a judgment had said, “not all live-in relationship will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005. If a man has a “keep,” whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a “relationship in the nature of marriage. Merely spending weekends together or a one-night stand would not make it a ‘domestic relationship.” 

Offended by the expressions used, the very next day, Additional Solicitor-General Indira Jaising voiced her protest before Justice Katju, who wrote the judgment, and indicated that women's organisations would be filing review petitions for recall of the ruling. 

In its review petition, Mahila Dakshta Samiti said, “the expression such as ‘keep' which specifically refer to woman is based on social and cultural prejudices which need to be eliminated in order to prevent discrimination against woman. The expression would perpetuate social and cultural prejudices and is based on the idea of stereotyping woman. 

It submitted that “Article 2(f) of the Convention for Elimination of Discrimination against Women calls for change in the traditional roles of men and women in bringing about gender equity. Article 2(F) provides that States should take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices, which constitute discrimination against women.” 

It said, “in law only chattel can be “kept” and not human beings. Slaves could be “kept” as they are considered chattels in law and owned by the master. Hence the word ‘keep' is inappropriate in a constitutional regime such as ours which guarantees fundamental rights and the dignity of woman. The use of the expression ‘keep' violates Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India as it is not gender neutral and applies only to women. Further the expression ‘servants' is derogatory of the dignity of labour and they are now known as domestic help.” 

The petitioner said, “while deciding the nature of the relationship, which meets the requirement of a relationship in the nature of marriage, the Supreme Court has also laid down certain relationship which do not qualify for being described as relationship in the nature of marriage. 

It said the court had recorded its findings based on Wikipedia, which is an online encyclopaedia and information can be entered therein by any person and as such it may not be authentic and cannot be used for the purpose of determining the content of relationship. It was of the view that the Supreme Court was not called upon to give such observations in the facts and circumstances of the case as emerging from the judgment. The petitioner while seeking to recall the order in so far as the use of these expressions was concerned sought an oral hearing.

Source: Hindu 

Top judge says mothers should have children taken away if they don't let fathers see them

Nov 27, 2010

 

Mothers who refuse to let separated fathers see their children should have them taken away, a senior family court judge said yesterday.

The children should be handed over to the full time care of the father if the mother persistently defies court orders, Mr Justice Coleridge said.

He called for a ‘three strikes and you’re out rule’ by which children would be taken away if mothers ignored three court orders.

The judge said that family courts are losing their authority because so many people take no notice of their judgments.

Around 5,000 new cases a year come before the family courts in which parents – almost always mothers – defy orders to let the other parent have contact.
Judges are extremely reluctant to jail such mothers because of the damaging effects on the children, so many continue to get away with it.

Mr Justice Coleridge, 61, said: ‘If I were to call it three strikes and you’re out it sounds insensitive but something like it perhaps should be the norm.’

He added that occasionally it might be necessary to send a mother to jail.

Source: DailyMail

 

(PDF)COMMITTEE ON PETITIONS Petition praying for amendments in Section 498A of IPC + Letter to Rajya Sabha 1-2

Here is the Petition for Amendments in Sec.498A IPC, you can read it and do what is necessary to take immediate action to see that the government makes strong amendments to this draconian law. Also find: Memorandum on Amendments of IPC 498A Letter to Rajya Sabha 2010, the second PDF at bottom.

# 1Amendments in Sec.498A IPC

#2 Memorandum on Amendments of IPC 498A Letter to Rajya Sabha 2010

National Coalition For Men Flyer

National Coalition For Men Flyer

Men's Rights Magazine Issue # 2

MRm! - Issue 2

 Recommended Reading

(Video) The Plague of Modern Masculinity 1-3

Must watch video's talks about different types of men. 

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Source:Avoiceformen

Israeli Arab Man Convicted of Rape For Assuring Lover He is Jewish

July 21, 2010

A man has been sentenced to 18 months in prison after telling a woman that he was also Jewish.

A Palestinian man has been convicted of rape after having consensual sex with a woman who had believed him to be a fellow Jew.

Sabbar Kashur, 30, was sentenced to 18 months in prison on Monday after the court ruled that he was guilty of rape by deception. According to the complaint filed by the woman with the Jerusalem district court, the two met in downtown Jerusalem in September 2008 where Kashur, an Arab from East Jerusalem, introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship. The two then had consensual sex in a nearby building before Kashur left.

When she later found out that he was not Jewish but an Arab, she filed a criminal complaint for rape and indecent assault.

Although Kashur was initially charged with rape and indecent assault, this was changed to a charge of rape by deception as part of a plea bargain arrangement.

Handing down the verdict, Tzvi Segal, one of three judges on the case, acknowledged that sex had been consensual but said that although not "a classical rape by force," the woman would not have consented if she had not believed Kashur was Jewish.

The sex therefore was obtained under false pretences, the judges said. "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated," they added.
The court ruled that Kashur should receive a jail term and rejected the option of a six-month community service order. He was said to be seeking to appeal.

Segal said: "The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price – the sanctity of their bodies and souls. When the very basis of trust between human beings drops, especially when the matters at hand are so intimate, sensitive and fateful, the court is required to stand firmly at the side of the victims – actual and potential – to protect their wellbeing. Otherwise, they will be used, manipulated and misled, while paying only a tolerable and symbolic price."

Gideon Levy, a liberal Israeli commentator, was quoted as saying: "I would like to raise only one question with the judge. What if this guy had been a Jew who pretended to be a Muslim and had sex with a Muslim woman?

"Would he have been convicted of rape? The answer is: of course not."
Arabs constitute about 20% of Israel's population, but relationships between Jews and Arabs are rare. There are few mixed neighbourhoods or towns, and Arabs suffer routine discrimination.

Israeli MPs are considering a law requiring prospective Israeli citizens to declare loyalty to Israel as a "Jewish, democratic state". Many Arabs would balk at swearing allegiance to a state which they see as explicitly excluding or marginalising them.

Dan Meridor, a deputy prime minister in Binyamin Netanyahu's government, is opposed to the proposal. "Why does every bill need the word 'Jewish' in it – to show the Arab citizens that it doesn't belong to them? Then we're all shocked when they radicalise their stance.

"The majority doesn't need to remind the minority that it is in fact a minority all the time," he added.

Source: Gurardian

Death in a hospital because the ward boy was not bribed

 Very sad reality in 2010 India, this only proves that corruption is at all levels in society, even the lowest persons on the pole would rather you die, if he is not bribed. 
A human life is not even worth $4.37 which is 200 Rupee's bribe. Read on.

Nov 27, 2010

They play with the lives of men and have no apparent regret if someone dies because of their greed.

The incident of a man dying at the Government Chest Hospital at Eragadda on Monday when a ward boy refused to put him on a nebuliser as he did not get a Rs 200 bribe, highlights the rampant bribery that goes on in hospitals. Odd jobs and small chores all come at a price and helpless families have no choice but to bribe ward personnel.

Prasanna Prakash, a professional, says, “When my brother met with an accident, we were asked to take him to Gandhi Hospital. There were people everywhere asking for money, starting with the gate keeper. I had to pay to get in and then the clerk at our ward would ask for money for every little thing. It’s really annoying. One is in enough trouble as it is and these people make matters worse.”

Patients who are battling for their lives in hospital beds hardly get the care and attention that they need. Instead of helping the patients, ward boys and aayahs ask for extra money from family members knowing that they are in a tight spot and will pay up to get the job done.

Rakesh Kumar, a family member of a patient at Nilofer Hospital, says, “My wife is admitted in the hospital and the people at the ward are very rude here and don’t treat us properly. For every other thing the warden asks for money. We don’t have so much money, we cannot take this harassment. Sadly, even our complaints to higher authorities fall on deaf ears.” 

Staff nurses in government hospitals agree that these incidents happen often. Sangita Reddy (name changed on request), a staff nurse at a government hospital says, “The ward helper here does ask people for money. They don’t do so in front of us but when we are not around, they do expect a bribe to get things done.”

Most of these cases are reported only at Government Hospitals. However, the ones responsible are hardly ever taken to task. Dr S. B. Prasad, Superintendent of Chest Hospital, says, “The patient died because of a serious lung problem, but I agree that the ward boy had asked for money for oxygen. We have suspended him till the enquiry on the case is completed. If he is found guilty, we will take action. we have also suspended the nurse because she should have supervised the patient. it is good that this incident came out in the open, at least now people will start taking their work seriously.” 

When contacted, E.Ashok Kumar, Superintendent of Gandhi Hospital however, shrugs off the issue. “I don’t want to comment,” he said. Health minister Danam Nagender admits, “It is very unfortunate that these things happen in hospitals.” He adds, “I did ask for action to be taken on the people responsible for the patient’s death. As soon as the new portfolios are decided, I will make sure that I keep such irregularities in check.”

 Source: Deccan Chronical