Anti-dowry law makes it wife-biased, discriminatory,and poorly formulated. A complaint from your wife or her family member can land husband and his entire family in jail without any investigation.
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
- Winston Churchill
First of all if anyone thinks the Police or CBI will try to get Interpol to issue Red Corner Notice RCN against you, do not worry, read below. As you can see the Indian government is so messed up they are in the pockets of the Feminazi's Bed INTERPOL has figured this out and refused to issue RCN for Dowry or Family matters.
Thur June 30, 2011
The Interpol has refused to entertain issuing of red notices in cases of dowry and cruelty to a woman by her husband or relatives.
The move comes days after the CBI and Interpol officials met to rectify the recent goof-ups in the ‘most-wanted list’.
The extradition from any country can only be sought with the help of a red notice and the Interpol has told the CBI that it will seek legal opinion on the matter. Sources in the CBI said that since the offence does not come under ‘dual criminality’ in most of the member countries, the Interpol has expressed an inability to issue a red notice.
“The officials of Interpol told us that they cannot detain or stop a person under this law as it is not recognised by any of the 188 member counties,” said a CBI official. For red notices to be issued, which is done for ‘most wanted’, the offence should be recognised (dual criminality) in the country from where the extradition is being sought.
CBI officials said that since the misuse of dowry law is rampant, the international body is exercising caution in issuing the red notices. The families tend to misuse the same by getting a red notice issued restricting movements of the person against whom it is issued. Recently, the CBI was approached by a family from the US against whom red notices were issued.
Said a senior officer, without naming the person against whom the notice was issued, “The family told us that they have entered into a settlement with the girl’s family after which the complaint has been withdrawn against them. Despite that his name was not deleted from the ‘wanted’ list.”
The agency said there has not been a single case of extradition under the dowry law. “We have found that in a number cases in which red notices were issued through Interpol, families had entered into settlement and withdrawn their complaints,” said an officer, adding that in such cases many a times the complainant or the family had not informed the police. “In some cases, the police, even after receiving intimations, did not forward the same to the CBI due to which the international notices were not withdrawn. Such a scenario can lead to embarrassment for a person who is travelling and is caught by authorities for no fault of his,” explained an official.
Gujarat to seek Interpol aid in pirates case
Gujarat Police plans to seek Interpol’s assistance in connection with the 32 Somali pirates caught in Junagadh and Jamnagar districts over the last fortnight in two separate incidents, after they reportedly drifted to Gujarat coast in hijacked Yemeni fishing boats. The police want to rope in Interpol since both the cases involve abduction and hijack on the high seas.
“A database consisting details of these pirates and Yemenis will be sent to Interpol seeking leads on their background,” said Jamnagar SP Subhas Trivedi.
"Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage" ground for Divorce gets cabinet nod enabling wife to Instant Easy divorce. Will this also be miused by wife ? Geeta Luthra, Sr Advocate takes on Feminist Ranjana Kumari of CSR on Star News on 24 march 2012
NewsX discussion on the topic with Manish Mittal of SIFF and Madhu Kishwar, social Activist and Pinky Anand, Sr advocate on panel on 24 march 2012
RELATED TV MEDIA COVERAGE OF SIFF IN 2010-2011
1. IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE-GROUND FOR DIVORCE-BENEFICIAL OR NOT- P7 news 20jun10
3. Should property be given to wife at the time of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Divorce case (THE MARRIAGE LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2010 – Panel discussions on DD News Aamne-samne-20feb11
4. Irretrievable breakdown marriage as new proposed ground for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act and Feminist Abuse of IPC 498a, Domestic Violence, Child custody laws and Marital laws to Extort and blackmail husband and his family, a LIVE interactive panel discussion on p7 news Channel on Kanoon Special programme on 29 May 2011
'MEN'S RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD BE CONSULTED BY THE GOVERNMENT'
Read more at: h
by Rohit Karir 24 March, 2012
The union cabinet, on March 23, gave clearance to some changes in the Marriage Act via the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill 2010. While women's rights organizations have largely supported the cleared amendments, Virag R Dhulia, Head, Gender Studies, of Confidare India, a men's rights community center, has voiced grave concern about men's rights not being protected enough.
THE PROPOSED changes will, for the first time, legally recognize the right of a wife to property acquired by her spouse during their marriage. Equal rights to both adopted and biological children will also be provided. The cabinet also gave its go ahead to consider "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" as a new ground for granting divorce as against expecting the couple to carry out despite differences in what is named as a cooling off period. Though, the cabinet has left it to the courts to decide its time period. But at the same time, as per the amendments, while a wife can legally oppose her husband's plea for a divorce under the new clause of "irretrievable breakdown of marriage", a husband will not have similar rights.
The cabinet amendments have already triggered reactions with Ranjana Kumari of Centre for Social Research saying that majority of the women in the country were illiterate and were in no position to know their rights. The All India Democratic Women's Association has welcomed the amendments pertaining to women's right to property in case of dissolution of marriage.In an exclusive interview with merinews.com, Dhulia gives a 'gender' perspective to marriage and gender laws. Confidare India, Dhulia says, recognizes that men face domestic violence and false cases of harassment related to dowry and domestic violence but often find it difficult to prove their innocence and don’t get emotional support from society. Dhulia, 31, also works as an IT professional in Bangalore, and in 2009, was involved in a case of dowry in which he was jailed for two days and later filed a counter-case of dowry against his wife. Merinews: You personally went through a disturbing experience with your wife accusing you of taking dowry and spending two days in jail. But you maintain that the allegation was false as you did not ‘ask’ for dowry – it was given willingly. But then you also ‘accepted’ the dowry. You then filed a counter dowry case against your wife. Where do things stand today? Have you considered re-marrying?
Dhulia: I have never said that I “accepted” dowry or that it was “given”. In the case that I have filed against my wife and in-laws, it says, “Because they have themselves made a claim of giving dowry to me, which is an equal crime under the Dowry Prohibition Act, criminal proceedings be initiated against them. It is only an unproved allegation against me but they are admitting the crime, hence they should be punished before me.” The judiciary was more than happy to stay the proceedings of the case even before serving the notice to me and now the case is not coming up for hearing at all. I have gone through a lot of harassment and right now I have to focus on getting my innocence back. All other options are secondary. The way society treats men in marriages, has left deep psychological scars, which have to heal before I think of re-marrying.Merinews: Why do you object to the amendment that recognizes “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” as a ground for divorce, in the proposed Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010? Dhulia: We do not object to the ground of “Irretrievable breakdown of marriage” per se. If a relationship does not make a person happy, he/she should have every legal right to walk out of the relationship gracefully. That being said, it does not mean, the same step has to be achieved at the cost of the other person. Our objections particularly target property division clauses. This is a dangerous one. India is a complex society and definitely very different from the western society. In India, we still have a good mix of nuclear families, joint families, and the concept of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), etc. Still, there are large number of people who share common ancestral property. There may arise a lot of complications with this law coming in, which may even lead to more crime as people can go berserk when it comes to property. This law has the potential to wreak social havoc. Furthermore, the power of division of property wresting with the judiciary is far more dangerous provision. Indian judiciary is incompetent and people have lost faith on its integrity what with judges being caught cheating in exams and found indulging in massive corruption. This power will make a fish-market of the Indian criminal justice system especially in the arena of matrimonial disputes. Merinews: The belief in the country persists that women, especial in rural and semi-urban areas, are not empowered enough and need protection by law when it comes to a husband not filing a counter divorce against his wife. Do you think this protection is required or is it being more misused than serving its purpose? Dhulia: As the question itself says, it’s a belief. Some people believe in God, some do not. Can we have laws based on beliefs? There is a famous saying, “I may not die for my beliefs for they may not be true”. Jokes apart, laws must be based on actual ground research and data. The data is not available. In a country where only 3% of the population pays income tax, we can well imagine the condition of the Government when it comes to knowledge about its citizens. However, if we look at the suicide statistics, which include all areas – urban, rural, semi-urban, the story is clear. It’s the men who are suffering and not the women as men are committing suicides almost to the tune of 2 times compared to women, year over year, especially married men. Why would a young married man, full of life and aspirations, end his life? Something is definitely wrong which is being ignored. As far as economic problems in rural and semi-urban areas are concerned, it’s not a gender issue. It’s a social issue in which men suffer more as they are forced to bear the primary financial responsibility. Moreover, as of now, men’s rights organizations are still largely prevalent on the internet. Men in these areas do not have proper access to the Internet and thus they are not even aware that there is some help available. Hence, they suffer in silence and do not speak about their abuse fearing social ridicule. Women’s organizations are found more frequenting Pizza huts. Merinews: Do you think the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 should contain more conditional clauses when it comes to allocation of property after dissolution of marriage? Dhulia: This is a complex situation. We need to consider many factors such as the tenure of marriage, contribution of either partner towards the property, tenure during which the savings were made to build the property because property is never built overnight; it takes a lifetime’s savings to build a property. It will be foolish to think that a man can lose his property if his marriage breaks within months and he will lose his lifetime fortune. Moreover, now women will marry keeping this thing in mind and walk-out of marriages eyeing the man’s property. Men’s rights organizations should be consulted by the Government before finalizing the law and its clauses, else it might just end up annoying 50% of the population in order to appease the other half. Merinews: Feminists suggest that marriage laws might appear to be loaded in favour of women as this gender finds it much more difficult to re-marry compared to men after a divorce. Do you think this compensates for leaving dangerous loopholes that can be exploited? Dhulia: Statements of feminists need to be taken with a pinch of salt. For, from the way they are operating, it seems they are more inclined on harassing men than uplifting women. They leave genuine issues faced by women unaddressed like plight of widows, domestic violence faced by daughters in natal homes, and only focus on inventing ways to transfer tax-free wealth from husband to wife. But this method only promulgates parasitism in women and this law will become a legal channel for women to extort men. Earlier, it was only by lodging a false criminal complaint (under Section 498A) and getting few lakhs/millions from the man. Now, just file for divorce and walk away with a plush apartment. Merinews: Some of the proposals in the proposed Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 seem to suggest that women are less devious than men, and men are out to harm the interests of women. Do you think this is case? Dhulia: These proposals are a direct result of social misandry (hatred of males), which is an age-old social curse on men. Men face misandry day in and day out. Whether it is while working late night shifts so that women can go home early or taking more risks and endangering their lives or living in a society that celebrates anti-male and gender-biased laws. One more clause does not make much of a difference. It’s a different question altogether that there is absolutely no basis or data-backing for such claims. Such gender biases harm men beyond levels imaginable. Merinews: Should pre-nuptial agreements be made mandatory for all couples in India? Will this address some of the heartache post dissolution of marriage? Dhulia: Somehow Indians feels copying the West is a good idea. This may work as far as movies are concerned, but laws should strictly be made on the basis of our own societal constraints, structures and norms. Pre-nups may sound lucrative but we must keep in mind that when it comes to implementation, India has always underperformed. So, the best solution to this is that property matters must be kept completely away from marriage. Life will be much more peaceful then.
Are you planning to marry Indian Girl? It is easy to get married (’Legal Trap’) in India if Boy is with handsome earning and have credible wealth.
“According to the Cabinet Note, while a wife can oppose a husband’s plea for a divorce under the new “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” clause, the husband will have no such rights to oppose if the wife moves court on the same grounds.”
The word husband/wife must be replaced by the word Spouse, otherwise it will lead a total Extrotion business of your hard earned money/property and as the more awareness will come, maximum men will stop saving and will spend their earling, result more and more crime/fraud/stress in society and yes a huge father less child society on the way, which today some male haters do not understand , but will value the contrubution of husabnds family the day they will take oath to die as debit man than credit man. We do not understand why so called educated and libiral Women and LAW makers afrid to make law on the Principal with the word “Spouse”, both get euall responsibility and Libility.
Confidare Research is the education and research wing of Confidare Consultancy that specializes in dealing with problems of men. Confidare Research strongly condemn the upcoming “Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill” that was supposed to be tabled today before the Cabinet.
This bill is a further evidence of the growing misandry (male hatred) in the society and how the society treats men as disposable entities. Even in this modern age when we talk of Gender Equality, the stereotypical patriarchal notion that the financial responsibility of a family should lay on a husband still prevails in the society, and this pervert social mindset is the root cause of abuse of men, especially husbands in a marriage.
In such a situation, where men are already burdened with so much of load, another law which makes divorce extremely costly for them is thoroughly unwelcome.
Highlights of the law:
This law recognizes “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” as a ground for divorce. While the law empowers the wife to oppose the divorce at any point of time if the husband has filed for divorce, it restrains the husband from doing so when the wife has filed for the same. This law also contains a clause by which courts will be empowered to snatch away half the property of husband and give it away to wife. This law only talks about women’s rights and has no considerations whatsoever for men. Brief Background:
Due to demand from various quarters, this ground for divorce was introduced by the Govt. of India by way of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 which sought to amend the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act. However, the bill contained clauses that facilitated financial extortion of men.
The bill read that courts would have power not to grant the divorce unless the wife was paid adequate amount of money under the cute name of “Financial Security of Woman”.
And the bill also mentioned about special powers being given only to wives to oppose the divorce if the wife was unhappy with the money she received from the husband.
Such clauses being outright anti-male and gender-biased in nature were vehemently opposed by various men’s rights activists and organizations, who even deposed in front of the Standing Committee on personnel, public grievances, law and justice. The panel, chaired by Shri Santaram Naik, was presented with the objections raised by men’s rights organizations who sought to make the bill gender-neutral and ensure that no man faced any kind of financial hardship because of gender-biased clauses in the bill.
Oppositions ignored:
However, the objections raised by men’s rights organizations have been conveniently ignored by the standing committee panel, that has gone ahead and recommended the very clauses to the Govt. of India for the bill to be tabled, to which the men’s rights organizations has raised objections against.
What will happen if?
Husband purchases a property just 6 months after marriage out of his hard-earned savings earned before marriage and his marriage breaks and he loses half of the property. In that case the husband will be doomed. Men start fearing this law and stop buying real estate which adversely affects the economy of the country. Husband has dependent parents and owns a single property and if 50% of that goes to wife post-divorce, how will the husband take care of his old parents? Is the concept of family restricted to only husband-wife in the Indian context? What, if the family is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) owning a single joint property? Will the wife get 50% of that? What about other sibling’s share in it? Confidare’s objections:
Marriages are tumultuous for men. This fact reflects in the suicide statistics that are published year-over-year by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and it’s the married men who top the list of suicide. Suicide rate of husbands’ increases 4 times the rate of wives’ and 6 times the rate they are born. Every 9 minutes a married man commits suicide. This fact clearly proves how bad marriages turn out for men and if divorces are also made costlier by way of such laws, this will lead to further increase in suicides by men. Is the Government of India trying to facilitate the suicides of men? There is one more law in the pipeline – Matrimonial Property (Rights of Women upon Marriage Act), 2012 – which talks about making wife the co-owner of husband’s properties right at the time of marriage; then, why this law? Why is the Government hell bent on making redundant anti-male laws and convert marriage into an extortion industry thriving on men? In a democratic law making process, objections raised by a particular group or individual cannot be ignored without any proper justification. The panel has failed to give any just and proper reason as to why the objections raised should not be considered. As per Dowry Prohibition Act, any demand of cash/kind in relation to marriage is “Dowry”. Is not this law legalizing dowry to be paid to wife from husband under the cute name of “Financial Security of Wife”? Right to Equality is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India and cannot be disrespected under any circumstances. Current bill thoroughly violates it, as far as men are concerned. Feminists are claiming that nearly 80% of women do not have a place to live post-divorce. This is completely false because no such study has ever been conducted. India does not have any standard data collected as to how many divorces are happening, of those how many own a house and how many do not, how many are nuclear, joint and HUF families. Without any such data in place, any claims made are just airy claims without any data. Formulating a law on airy data is dangerous. Confidare’s demands:
Marriages and Divorces should not be made a property-transfer-bureau. If property division is to be done then wife’s share in her ancestral property must also be considered and then division must be done. Duration of marriage must be a crucial factor of consideration. The difference between a 2 month marriage and a 20 year marriage must be clearly understood. Property division must take into account contributions made by both the spouses and also the fact that the property was acquired from wealth earned post marriage and not from previous savings. Any and all outstanding financial liabilities on the property like loan for property, loan against property, mortgage etc. must also be equally divided and wife must be made to be equally paid for it. If she is not working then she should get her share from her ancestral property. Both the partners should have equal and unbridled right to oppose divorce and there should be no gender-bias in this. There should not be any power wrested with the courts to decide upon property transfer or stalling of proceedings as the Indian judiciary is highly incompetent and has not shown positive trends favoring men when it comes to disposing cases. The Indian judiciary is highly anti-male and does not consider twice before ordering a man to either “sell his kidney” or “beg, borrow or steal” just to pay maintenance to his estranged wife. What is the guarantee that the same judiciary will make judicious decisions when it comes to this law? Institute a National Commission for Men, that can systematically collect issues, concerns and problems of men, study them and recommend to the Govt. about measures to be taken to address those problems. If the Govt. of India does not take these considerations seriously then we have only one message for the hardworking Indian men, who think putting self before others, is a social norm –
Your hard earned property does not belong to you.
P.S. Long run effect as the more and more cases will come out :
“Also this bill will have a disastrous effect on the marriageability of non-working or low income men/women - as all women/men would like to marry high income men/women now. Will the govt. take responsibility to get these low-income or no-income men/women marrage? How is this bill useful when it helps high income men/women while at the same time makes the low-income men/women un-marriageable? This bill infact is contrary to women’s and men’s welfare”
So,what to do ?
1. This is nothing but legal terrorism and to stop that the First think to make more and more awareness. So, highlight the danger to all LAW makers MP, Society and Friends. Always demand as per constitution every one is equal in front of law , so the word men/women must be replaced by person and husband/wife must be replaced by spouse. 2. Those are in LAW filed must start collected the LAW of other country of the world and be ready to fight in Supreme court. No country have such biased law in place. 3. Before marriage must engage a Lawyers. 4. Book a low cost Home in some Village area , so that in old age you can have a place to live. 5. The moment you feel any smell of any problem without any second thought dispose-off all your movable or immovable assets . 6. Minimum Saving after marriage , enjoy the life instead of work like donkey and one day die in Heart attack and left huge assets. 7.Come out from all the emotion , today marriage is no longer a emotional bond, all this male haters LAW makers make the marriage a emotionless simple Business deal and a easy money earning business for wrong people.
Warning to all Male Haters :
To grab the Husbands money/property you have made several law start from DP3, 498A, DV act, CRPC125, Section 24 and now this new HMA act, with the Principal all wives born in Raja Harish Chandra Family , never lie and all Husbands born in Criminal Family.
All the law the basic motive is how to grab the money and property from Husbands family with the logic women had suffered so long, so now it is turn to men to suffer.
But forget two wrong can’t make a right think. If women is suffering that is not due to husbands family , it is due to the girls at their own home had not given equal right and responsibility give to a boy, instead of correcting the same started putting all burden/blame to husbands family .
Do not forget more then 90% women who have a home in this country , they got from their husbands family , not from their own family, correct that first or the day the is not too far when we will be witness when a man will die, the bank will come and take over all his assets , which we witness in western country .
The day Indian Husbands will learn to live a life as Debit man than credit man and stop making any saving in property or in other assets , then only you all will realize the real contribution of Indian husbands for this society.
Do not take Indian husbands family in ride and stop promotion of Legal Extortion of their hard earned money/property, make the LAW gender neutral the word husband/wife must be replaced by the word spouse and the share should be equal both liability and claim in assets.
The government's move to make divorce a quicker process has been largely welcomed as a long overdue step though some women activists and lawyers have voiced doubts over doing away with the six month cooling off period.
The common strain among the women was that law should move along with changing times and there should not be any mechanical import of western ideas.
"I welcome it. Divorce should be made easier and the laws should keep pace with the changing times," Rekha Palli, a Supreme Court lawyer, told IANS.
Welcoming the move to make divorce easier, lawyer Meenakshi Lekhi slammed the move to make "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" as ground of divorce. This would amount to giving the husband an excuse to walk out of the marriage for a much younger spouse, she said.
The union cabinet on Friday approved the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill 2010 by which "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" was included as a ground for dissolving the marriage.
Besides this, the cabinet also approved giving the divorced wife a share in husband's property that he had acquired after marriage, and the adopted child getting same rights to property as are available to biological offspring of the couple.
It also left the existing cooling off period of six months to the discretion of the court. "I think it is a welcome move. We have been demanding it for long," Ranjana Kumari of Centre for Social Research told IANS. "Share in the marital property is a very welcome move because as it stands today when a wife walks out of difficult marriage she has nothing to start afresh.
"But her share in marital property should have been specified and not left to the courts as it would mean more and more endless litigation," Ranjana Kumari said.
The cabinet under the approved amended bill has provided that the wife would have a right to wave a red flag in the event of the husband pressing for divorce on the grounds of "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage", but the same was not available to the husband in case the wife decides to seek dissolution of marriage on grounds of irrevocable breakdown of marriage.
Welcoming the incorporation of "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" as ground for divorce, Ranjana Kumari says that doing away with the six months cooling off period is not good.
"A hold on period at times helps in cooling frayed tempers and the marriage is saved," she says, adding that "after all in our society marriage is sacred thing".
Giving the right to property to the adopted child at par with that of a biological offspring is also a welcome step as under the present dispensation this equality of right is not there, she added.
Apex court lawyer Aparna Bhat says the cabinet decision has not made anything easier. "All that has been done is that irreconcilable difference has been added as another ground for divorce.
"How has the entire process becomes easier," asks Bhat, posing what would happen if a wife opposes the husband's plea for divorce.
"Perhaps this (irreconcilable difference) may make divorce process easier for the women as husband cannot oppose it," she says.
"What has happened was long overdue. I don't know why India took so long to do what other civilized countries had done long ago," lawyer Rebecca John told IANS. The proposed amendments would make divorce law more humane and sensitive to the contesting couple and adding irreconcilable difference as a ground for divorce is good, says Rebecca.
Meenakshi Lekhi, who is fighting the case of women officers seeking permanent commissions in the army, wonders how could the rights of a legally adopted child be different from a biological offspring of a couple.
She describes as "complicated" the provision giving the wife a right to property that she and her husband had acquired during their married life. She also asks "would a wife who is just one year in marriage be entitled to property inherited or earned by her husband? "How could a wife walking away with whatever share of husband's property be reconciled with the maintenance that she is entitled under the existing law," asks Lekhi. "The proposal to leave to the courts the waiting period before divorce is actually granted is in tune with an earlier provision which was wrongly interpreted by the Supreme Court giving it a fixed term which over a period of time became the law of the land," she says. Lekhi says that "what is evident from the proposed changes in the law is that its authors have no grounding in law, nor are they the practitioners of law".
Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage clause to be made Gender Neutral demands Swarup Sarkar vehementally on CNNIBN's Face The Nation programme with Sagarika Ghosh on 26th March 2012.
Panelists
Swarup Sarkar ( SIFF)
Flavia Agnes (Feminist Lawyer)
Malvika Rajkotia (Feminist lawyer)
Poornima Advani (Former NCW chief)
More on
"Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage" ground for Divorce gets cabinet nod- Another Legal Extortion tool for Wife. Mens rights organisation Ignored again
Does Media and LAW maker learnt any think from Latest Nisha Sharma Dowry Case? few seconds ago 3-Years Back some of my good Friends of INB7 was very angry on me , when I write this article: Worst programme of Zindagi Line (IBN7) and Promotions of Yellow Journalism in the name of dowry death More than 56000 married men end thier life every year,... Continue reading this article ...
Worst programme of Zindagi Line (IBN7) and Promotions of Yellow Journalism in the name of dowry death
More than 56000 married men end thier life every year, does the killing the Husbands to be termed in this country as "Social Service'?
More than 15000 unmarried women end thier life, before marrage...why the same not termed as dowry death? Why only when a married woemn end thier life , the same termed as dowry death? Have you ever checked that?
With reference to your telecast on Sunday regarding the dowry givers sitting in your programme and they have only verbal allegations, no evidence from their end to justify their claim, we surprised, when as per law the "Dowry giving is a offence" and when the person is accepted they had "given the dowry" , means the crime had been proved behond reasonable dought , why they have not send behind the bar?
How they are in your studio, instead of behind the bar?
Unable to understand, why your team failed to raise this valid questions, when they done the crime, how many days they had been put in jail?
Does a criminal who accept his crime to be given special treatment?
More than 15000 unmarried women also end their life every year as per crime bure Report , but why we do not term the same dowry death and send the girl's parents behind the bar?
Why it should be balmed the husbands family , whenever the married women end their life, it is dowry death?
More than 70% cases it is the husbands family proved their innocence and rest 30% punished as they have not preserved their evidence of innocence or police destroyed their evidences , when they was in jail, do you know that?
Now when the Judgement came the News we find :
Rebel bride's dowry charge junked
GREATER NOIDA: She hit the headlines nine years ago after calling off her wedding in front of 200 guests, alleging the groom's family had demanded a massive dowry at the last minute. But on Wednesday, all the fame and media adulation Nisha Sharma cornered in 2003 seemed misplaced when a court here declared she had fabricated the dowry charges to wriggle out of the nuptials.
Calling Sharma's action pre-meditated, the chief judicial magistrate at Gautam Budh Nagar district courts, Vipin Rai, acquitted all the four accused in the case - the groom Munish Dalal, his mother Vidya Dalal, his aunt Savitri Sharma, and Nisha's former classmate Navneet Rai.
After examining the evidence produced in court, the CJM ruled that Sharma was close to her classmate Navneet Rai and wished to marry him. Her family had discussed the alliance with Rai's family but it did not work out. Sharma's father then betrothed her to Dalal. The order says Sharma was unhappy with the match and had set her heart on marrying Navneet, so she cooked up the dowry story.
During investigation, Rai himself had testified against Sharma. Munish Dalal had claimed at the time that Navneet met and told him about his relationship with the woman.
So, today the question is Does media and Law maker learnt any think and ready to accpet that "The verbal alligation of a women can't be taken as truth , as no one born in Raja Harish Chandra Family" and a person is Innocent till Proven Guilty ?
Unfortunately the last two days my exprence is Negative as in last 2-days we wittness to cover up thier earlier worng doing, now again thay had started to telecast a lot of Anti-Husbands story by taking one sided Story of wives and there is no mention of thier Husbands version or aligation.
Many more Manish Dala is created even today and News Bordcasters keeping Blind eye on them. They do not show any Husbands suffering story one sided, they want evidence, Judgment copy and also the wife side version , but when wives give thier one sided version, media do not even brother to take the Husbands side story and term thm criminal and forget all women do not born in Raja Harish Chandra Family and a Person is innocent till Proven Guilty.
Last 60 years more and more duplications of LAW made in the name of dowry and still we are crying the same not stopped and increasing , the basic questions is are our government or NCW and IBN7 team , really want to stop this so called Dowry System?
If the Answer is "YES", then the first step to be taken on: Section 8B on Dowry Prohibition Officers.
· Any marriage involve with Dowry to be termed as illegal and void marriage and special task force of Dowry Prohibition officers to be appointed and start raid in marriage functions and all the Dowry articles to be taken in custody and the fine to be imposed on both the party and all the same should go to Government fund and the same will be used for the real empower of women , like their educations/jobs and make them self dependent , instead of treating the Husbands family as Free ATM machine.
· Parents should give the equal rights to their boy and girls in their assets/property/business share, instead of treating the Girls as a burden and dispose off and then after marriage hide behind the word dowry.
We argue , give us this power for one year , we will prove it beyond reasonable drought , what your NCW and their associated organizations not able to achieve , we will achieve at faster process and will eliminate the whole "Natanki" of so called Dowry system.
Who misused Dowry/ 498A/DVAct most?
· Wife want to teach a lesson to Husband's family: 32.5%
· Wife want easy Divorce/Child Custody and fast money: 29.5%
· Wife who can't adjust in Husband's family.: 18.1%
· Wife having illegal relationship with other Man.: 10.8%
· Wife done marriage by hiding truth, like health, age, qualification .etc: 8.2%
SFF members are committed and will continue their fight in the next level to stop the Legal Terrorism of India where in the help of so called women friendly LAWS misused to treat Indian men as Free ATM machine to extorted the money/property and such gender biased laws (498A/DV/CRPC125/Child custody) are responsible for creating a huge father less child society in India and seek your kind support as a Honest Citizen of India.
1) My wife made me and my father as the party in DV case
2) Summons were served to my father as he was in India. Summons were sent to me at my work place. Since it was a company address, somebody else signed for it and then later dropped it in my mail box. I refused the package (without opening) and gave it back to the company mail guy (shouldn't have refused them). They went back to India as refused. But the judge still didn't consider them as being delivered and issued fresh serving of summons. This time I had already talked to my company's mail guy. I sent back the summons and wrote on them "Addresse not found". The judge issued fresh summons. Again they were sent back. The whole process takes some time so we were getting a months date each time. Also, since the summons were never served on me, the DV process didn't make any progress. Finally, after one year, the judge accepted the serving of the summons (even though the delivery report specifically stated that somebody else signed for them), and ordered to proceed ex-parte on me.
3) We were monitoring all the events very closely through my father's lawyer.
4) My wife never explicitly pressed for interim maintenance even though she has sought 1lakh per month in her original complaint. (she could not get it from my father anyways)
5) Now next date was set for her statement. Now round 2 of delay started. We submitted and application from my father's side on the very day she appeared for giving her statements. This application was to dismiss the DV case against my father citing "No Domestic" relationship. So the judge set another date for opposition's reply. On next date the judge dismissed our application. We then moved to the sessions court and the file went there. The application was dismissed there too but it consumed some time.
6) My wife's statements were recorded in two-three dates. Then her cross-examination started. I prepared the cross and sent it to my father.
7) Regarding ex-parte, it was only that the case will go on without my presence. I could have gone later on and challenged the ex-parte order on very simple argument that as per the delivery report the summons were signed by another person and hence were not properly served on me. And eventually would have got the ex-parte order set aside. I think (but am not sure) that you can do this only before your wife's cross-examination.
8) My wife pursued the DV case very aggressively. After the case was ex-parte on me, they were getting a weeks or 10 days date. But we fought well. In all we were able to delay the process by almost 2 years without even giving her a single penny.
9) In the whole process I was not represented by any counsel. In fact for legal reasons I didn't even know that such a case was going on me
10) Meanwhile I figured out where she was working and how much she was earning. She lied blatantly in her cross-examination that she was not working and needs monthly maintenance of 1 Lakh. My father filed crpc 91 to call records from the company where she was working. I think this scared her as she didn't want anybody in her company to know that she was involved in these cases and that she had lied on oath in the court. After this they started taking long dates (> 2 months) in the case.
So try to find some weakness that she might have. Also, for this whole time I was preparing my and my father's defense, gathering proofs, finding discrepancies in her complaint, preparing cross etc.
I also want to add 1 point "to delay DV" in addition: SEEK MEDIATION, it works dear!
Read about Famous FRAUDSTER Nisha Sharma, this women back in 2003 became a world wide Heroin for her strong stand against Dowry and the Evil demands of her In-Laws, she even was invited to the USA to be featured on The OPRAH show, which is broadcast around the world to Millions of house holds. Let us skip ahead Nine (9) years now, on March 1, 2012 the Courts have found that Nisha Sharma Lied about all her charges. Read entire article below. Plus read the, 2004, OLD OPRAH article at the end. Why doesn't Nisha Sharma come on OPRAH now?
March 1, 2012
GREATER NOIDA: She hit the headlines nine years ago after calling off her wedding in front of 200 guests, alleging the groom's family had demanded a massive dowry at the last minute. But on Wednesday, all the fame and media adulation Nisha Sharma cornered in 2003 seemed misplaced when a court here declared she had fabricated the dowry charges to wriggle out of the nuptials.
Calling Sharma's action pre-meditated, the chief judicial magistrate at Gautam Budh Nagar district courts, Vipin Rai, acquitted all the four accused in the case - the groom Munish Dalal, his mother Vidya Dalal, his aunt Savitri Sharma, and Nisha's former classmate Navneet Rai.
The court noted that there was "insufficient evidence to prove that the demand of Rs 12 lakh had been made by the Dalal family a night before the wedding". The witness introduced by Sharma's counsel was "not related" to the family and had died during the course of investigation, opening up room for "benefit of doubt for the accused", the CJM said. TOI has a copy of the order.
After examining the evidence produced in court, the CJM ruled that Sharma was close to her classmate Navneet Rai and wished to marry him. Her family had discussed the alliance with Rai's family but it did not work out. Sharma's father then betrothed her to Dalal. The order says Sharma was unhappy with the match and had set her heart on marrying Navneet, so she cooked up the dowry story.
During investigation, Rai himself had testified against Sharma. Munish Dalal had claimed at the time that Navneet met and told him about his relationship with the woman.
On Wednesday, Sharma couldn't be contacted and her father DD Sharma refused to comment without seeing a copy of the order. "I haven't seen a copy of the court's decision and I simply can't comment upon the matter until I have seen it. Nisha still doesn't know about the order and I am not going to be the one who tells her. Let the court's order come tomorrow and then we will see. But if what the media is saying is true, we will definitely be appealing against the decision," he said.
A relieved Munish Dalal said the court had vindicated his position. "Nine years of my life were ruined and there is nothing that can make up for it and the amount of suffering that my family and I faced as a result of this. I was a government employee and just a month shy of completing my probation, but after these allegations my whole life and career were ruined."
Nisha Sharma and Munish Dalal would have tied the knot on May 11, 2003. But the wedding was called off when Sharma alleged the Dalals had demanded Rs 12 lakh cash and a car in dowry. She called the police and a case was registered against Munish, his mother and his aunt.
Read this article from 2004 a period when Nisha Sharma was a Feminazi's Poster Child, the next person who was heading for Sainthood. I am surprised she didn't receive the Nobel Prize?
Oprah and the Indian bride who said 'no'
Jan. 15, 2004
NEW DELHI - When an Indian is flown specially from India to feature in the Oprah Winfrey show in the United States it becomes an occasion to revisit all that the person stands for. Such is the case of 22-year-old Nisha Sharma.
Nisha did something different, she dared to fight back when threatened with possible death, in this case, a dowry death. Ever since, she has become a symbol of the new Indian woman.
Nisha called the police when the family of her husband-to-be demanded extra dowry on the day of her marriage in June last year, and turned into an overnight heroine in India. Nisha chose to stand up to a man who was to be her husband, and also took on his family. In India, this can be close to staring death in the eye. For such behavior, girls have been ostracized by their own families and killed by their husband's family. According to government figures, in 2001, angry husbands and in-laws killed over 7,000 women over small dowry payments. Nisha's not-to-be husband has been quoted as saying that if he had ended up marrying her he would probably have thrown her off the terrace.
In Nisha's case, events unfolded as dramatically as in any Bollywood potboiler. The irony is, just as in the movies, it was the mother of the groom (the emphasis here being that she is woman),who masterminded the plot. It did not matter that her son was just a lowly paid teacher who probably would have lived off his software-professional wife's income, or even that of her father, from the successful business he runs.
He was born a man, and that's often enough in India. There was already plenty on offer, arranged by the bride's family. Photographs of Nisha with the dowry were splashed across the media - fridge, air-conditioners and TVs. She was to drive off in a new black Maruti Esteem that cost US$10,000, bought by her father for the use of her husband's family, the rights duly transferred in their name.
But, they wanted more. The baraat (marriage procession), with the groom's mother as master of ceremonies, asked for cash ($30,000) to be hand-delivered at the reception area itself, before her son, who followed on a traditionally bedecked horse, would condescend to alight. The father of the bride demurred, and was therefore pushed, abused and finally slapped by the groom's mother.
When Nisha, in her traditional finery and mehendi (temporary henna tattoos) heard the commotion, she reached for her cell phone and called the police. The rest is history.
It should be noted at this point that Nisha and her family had accepted the original dowry. The problem arose when the groom's family suddenly demanded more. Both families were in breach of the law. In India, the punishment for demanding a dowry is imprisonment for not less than six months and up to two years, and/or a fine that is up to 10,000 rupees ($215). The punishment for giving or taking dowry is worse: imprisonment for not less than five years and a fine of 15,000 rupees, or the value of the dowry, or more. In this case, the groom's family is in jail, but Nisha's is not.
What followed though was an outpouring of emotion, support, commercial interest and now Oprah, whose show featuring Nisha was scheduled to be run on Tuesday. Bollywood bigwigs and television producers wanted Nisha's story; politicians of every leaning lined up at her house to congratulate her, inviting her to join their party. TV news channels ran a ticker to accommodate the thousands of salutations from a fan club that has cut across class, geographic and gender barriers. Many men have written letters offering their hand in marriage.
Traditionally in India the script for Nisha's story would have gone another way. The father would probably have died of a heart attack on hearing of the fresh demand for money, or worse, begged the boy's family to go ahead with the marriage, allowing him some time to somehow arrange the money. He would have gone to any extent to save his izzat (honor) as nobody would marry his daughter after they found that she had been lined up to marry someone else. The girl, to protect the izzat of her father, would marry, then be tortured, probably killed. Nisha had other ideas.
Nisha, now married to software engineer Ashwini Sharma, considers the invitation to the Oprah show as an opportunity to be heard on an international platform. She, along with her husband and brother, have been in Chicago for the past few days for the recording.
As expected, Nisha was excited and said: "I am happy I have a chance to be heard internationally. No one should submit to social blackmail, anywhere in the world," she said. "I agree with her basic message and will be honored to help spread it," her husband said.
Two things stand out in this episode. One, it was purely Nisha's decision to do what she did, and she did so with her own cell phone, a modern gadget used as a window to the rest of the world that she had access to and knew about.
In India, commercials portray women with cell phones incessantly, in big cars and at board meetings. They aren't seen being beaten by prospective husbands. Nisha called the police without alighting her bridal seat, without seeking anybody's advice. Given the delicate situation, she might have been stopped had she sought advice. Her mother, like many mothers in the past, could have said: "Beti[daughter], think about your father, the husband is like god, you have to learn how to keep quiet, who will marry you." With a cell phone, however, it was a matter of seconds once she made the decision to call the police.
Indeed, Nisha is the new face of Indian woman, exemplified by the cell phone she carries and the software degree she is studying. She must have faced a dilemma before she took the split second decision. The thoughts inside her turbulent mind must have been sharply divided into two: of a life in which she could probably never text-message her friends again, with her new home a dungeon she could never escape. Or another life as an independent woman, a successful professional and a husband who deserved her, respecting her for what she is.
Two, Nisha also knows that she has the power to emancipate herself through her skills. Her family has stood by her, but it was they who needed her strength, not she. Her father did what he had been brought up to believe, his daughter did what she thought was right.
The strings of tradition did tie her down in the beginning. As she said in an interview, she kept quiet while the initial demands for dowry were being made. She knew her parents considered it their duty to marry her and she did not want to make the job difficult for them.
In the end, Nisha chose her own path. Many have gone the other way; probably they didn't have a choice. Some might have had, but didn't or couldn't exercise it. Nisha did. Now the world wants to know about it, although it will be interesting to see whether Nisha's initial acceptance of the concept of dowry will become an issue, or conveniently forgotten as it does not quite fit the image of Nisha that is now being projected around the world.
