Man to pay Rs 1.5 lakh to live-in partner
Posted by 498A_Crusader on May 23, 2007
New Delhi: The first ever ruling came recently under the new Domestic Violence Act asking the man to pay a Rs 1.5 lakh compensation to his live-in partner for walking out on her after holding out hopes of marriage. This ruling, delivered by city magistrate Jagdish Kumar last week, is on grounds of emotional violence, not physical abuse. It also marks the legal recognition of a certain responsibility in relationships too as it deals with a live-in arrangement between two adults.
The new Act provides for civil liabilities for the man and relief to the woman abused — both physically or emotionally — during the time they lived together. While this is aimed at guarding the woman against gender vulnerability, some legal experts also believe that it may tilt the balance unfairly against the man as it could open him up to prosecution if he walks out of a soured live-in relationship.
The woman stated she came in contact with Dr Amitava Mukherjee in 1999 when he was working as the country director of Action Aid India. In January-February 2003, he made her believe that he was no longer living with his wife and had already sought to annul his marriage.
Around May 2003, Mukherjee invited her to stay with him. Believing that he has separated from his wife, she started living with him. Mukherjee avoided marrying her and after three years into the live-in relationship walked out of it.
Amitava Mukherjee said
GROSS MISUSE OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT:
Men at the Mercy of Devious Women
This has reference to your news item “Man fined for abuse of live-in-partner” in the Times of India of 23 May 2007.
Given the high esteem in which your Newspaper is held, it would only have been proper for Your Reporters to have contacted my Lawyer-on-Record (Mr. Satish Tamta Phone 9810068477) and presented his side of the picture, instead of only printing the version of the Petitioner’s Lawyer. Secondly, if you opted to print my name, it would have been only fair to have printed the name of the woman, Ms. Sheeba Chowdhry also, so that people who know the nature and character of the person, would understand the story in the right perspective. Secondly, there is no fine imposed whatsoever. A compensation has been ordered to be paid.
I have full faith in the Judiciary and eventually, I shall get justice.
I maintain that the woman in question has sought to grossly misuse the newly enacted “Prevention of Domestic Violence Act Against Women” by misleading the Hon’ble Court. Her earlier attempts to extort wrongful gains and harm families of two other men have failed, which had resulted\in her being hospitalized in NIMHANS, Bangalore in 2002 and in a Government Hospital in Vizag in 2001-02.
I still maintain that I have never shared any household with the women in question, either in Jai Singh Road, New Delhi or in Bangkok at any point in time. Indeed in Bangkok, I have lived in my own independent accommodation with my family and friends.
I neither ever offered the woman any job nor was I in any position to do so in Bangkok. The mischievous allegation of having applied “sindoor” in the “mang” of the women in question is totally false. The totally false allegation that I had ever offered medicine to the woman in question has not been accepted by the Hon’ble Court. I never ever gave the woman any assurances of marriage as I am happily married for the last 27 years.
The women demanded extortion money of Rs. 2 Crore from me and my wife or else be implicated in false cases. A Police Case has been filed by my wife in the Local Police Station way back in October 2006 and a lawyer’s notice has also been served on the woman for defamation. Even as late as on 27th March 2007, (when the matter was sub-judice) the woman in desperation entered the UN Building in Bangkok by making false representation and demanded money from me and my wife, for which I have filed a Police Report with Bangkok Metropolitan Police.
It seems that if I, eventually, have to pay Rs.1, 50, 000 to the woman in question, it will be for trying my best to avoid the overtures, threats and intimidation of a devious woman.
To make the ends of justice meet, I hope your esteemed daily will publish this item at the same place where you published the news item today as mentioned above.
Yours truly
AMITAVA MUKHERJEE,
Binu S. Thomas said
Mr Mukherjee protests too much.
I have worked with him for five years in ActionAid and know his real character. It is a fact that Mr Mukherjee was forced to resign from ActionAid India (he cited ‘health’ reasons for his resignation) after a corruption scandal involving him was exposed by me and some of my colleagues. It is another matter that ActionAid allowed him to get away quietly without taking action against him, despite documentary evidence being provided, as it should have.
It is amusing that Mukherjee says ‘I neither ever offered the woman any job nor was I in any position to do so in Bangkok.’ The problem, Mr Mukherjee, is that in this age of the internet you cannot lie and get away with it.
A simple google search on Amitava Mukerjee, Sheeba Chowdhry’ will reveal he and Sheeba Chowdhury worked together in UN Escap where they co-authored, somewhat ironically as it turns out given the apparent nature of their relationship, a document on HIV prevention. (I cannot post the link here as no links are accepted due to possible spam problem)
To quote the acknowledgement section of the document: ‘Mr Amitava Mukherjee, currently Chief Technical Advisor, Private-Public Sector Partnership, ESCAP, initiated the preparation of the guide, including its design, when he was with the Health and Development Section (HDS), Emerging Social Issues Division (ESID), ESCAP. Mr Mukherjee co-authored the original manuscript with Ms Sheeba Chowdhry, HDS consultant, who benefited from his overall technical guidance for the assignment.’
It is this Sheeba Chowdhry, obviously qualified in her own right, who he calls a devious woman, a mental case (note reference to NIMHANS) and tries to paint as someone he had nothing to do with. Come, come Mr Mukherjee, you better admit you have been caught with your pants down this time! And before the whole world at that!
Binu S. Thomas
thomasbinus@gmail.com
gender Justise said
1. TOI saying that this is the first ruling under Domestic violence act, is we all know a delibrate lie. Every day 1000’s ( thousands of cases under this LAW are being decided ).
We understand why the the evil feminists writer at TOI is saying this lie in first line itself.
99 % of domestic violence LAw cases will be just to occupy the house, this is a house occupation LAW , called Domestic violence law to fool the public and press. Yes there are lots of other things apart from the house part also. Feminists LAW maker at WCD( Women and child development ) want to through old persons from own houses they saved full life for. THE WCD funded NGO’s are attacking the supreme court ruling trying to save houses of old persons. How low the WCD and feminists can go.
2. Obviously TOI just talked to the women’s side, and not the man’s lawyer.
3. Just because a person writes a report in office with a person,( as per the comment above ) , this does not prove that the other person was his supervisor or was the one who recruited the women as he kenw her already for sexual favours.
So misuse of new LAW for blackmail also apart from trying to occupy houses is obvious.
bharati said
If this person Sheeba Choudhary is such person in her right then why is she askinig for money and for what reasons.
I am not sure .
People can decide to get married and then change their opinion about marriage for multiple reasons.
I do not understand the point why should anyone feel entititeld to money merely becuase someone does not marry me.
Vinayak said
EVEN if Mr. AMITAVA MUKHERJEE, had agreed to marry this woman and EVEN If he had a shared household, and EVEN if he changed his view later, does it mean he has to pay ??
There are 1000s of women – young college girls, BPO employees etc etc who have courtship, dating etc relationships with men and THEN CHANGE THEIR MIND and do NOT marry the men they original promised
Do they all pay ??
Why is that only men need to pay ?
Regards
Vinayak
channelspace said
Very well said, Vinayak!
How long are we going to continue complaining about injustice to women when infact the reality shows otherwise? If justice is to be ensured, then it has to be ensured in its entirety. While the constitution talks about the right to equality, what needs to happen is that the talk needs to be walked. We cannot have different laws for men and women – the law has to be common if we are to claim that there is no indifference and no partiality.
Regards,
Sufferer of the sin of marrying a girl who and whose parents “wanted” to extort my salary and properties.
anita said
Iam in complete agreement with Bharti. By virtue of being a woman, it does not mean that we totally crush the rights of a man. My feelings are with Sheeba Chowdhry because she feels that she has been cheated in the relationship. But lets also understand that she and Mr. Mukherjee are two adults and most of them in the above remarks also feel that one cannot force someone in a live in relationship. Now I do not want to enter into a debate whether or not they lived together or not, what Iam saying is that in case either of the partner decides that he or she is not the right one then they should be given the liberty to walk out gracefully. Today even the institution of matrimony is shaking, so fighting over a live in contract is baseless. How can there be a compensation for emotional abuse? Love cannot be imposed. Whatever is done under the threat of law or something else is not natural and the fun is lost. Therefore women should be more sensible and refrain from taking legal action for emotional reasons. Ofcourse if the woman has responsibilities and children from the man then yes the man just cannot get away without paying. But in Sheeba’s case there is nothing like that. She is a working woman capable of looking after herself then why the demand for money? Is it necessity or is it just venomous vengeance…??
There is a possibility of people misusing the right. Vinayak is also correct, when he says that so many are living in these days and times have changed. Therefore life is not ending up in marriage and …live happily everafter…Such things dont even happen in bollywood masalas these days which is a romantic disneyland then how can one expect such idealism in reality.
Anita
keviv said
i cant help but to laugh and enjoy the post and all the more the whole thread following it..
prbbly i m not so sensitive, but damn, it sounds like some soap opera stuff with some seriously intended comments in reply which r so not required…
MOHIT said
hELLO
I KNEW SHEEBA CHOUDHARY FOR A VERY SHORT PERIOD IN 1999. SHE WAS OBVIOUSLY GOING THROUGH A VERY DIFFICULT PHASE OF HER LIFE. IN THE SHORT PERIOD THAT I WAS WITH HER, I UNDERSTOOD HER TO BE A VERY SENSITIVE PERSON WHO WOULD EASILY TRUST ANYONE AND BE HURT IN THE PROCESS. THAT SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH A MARRIED MAN, I WOULD NOT COMMENT ON, BUT THAT SHE WOULD BE EMOTIONALLY DEPENDENT ON SOMEONE WHO SHOWED HER LITTLE AFFECTION IS ONLY TOO NATURAL. I HAVE A DAUGHTER WHO IS LIKE THAT AND MY WIFE AND I WORRY ABOUT HER CONSTANTLY. BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT SHE HAS TO MAKE HER MISTAKES, EVEN GRAVE ONES AT THAT AND WE HAVE TO STAND BY HER. YOU DID JUST THAT FOR SHEEBA. LIVING IN IS ONE THING AND LIVING IN WITH ANTICIPATED HOPE TO BE MARRIED IS ALTOGETHER ANOTHER ISSUE.
498A_Crusader said
Mohit; as per you if she is so innocent and sensitive; she should have made it clear that he is divorced; before sleeping with amit;
a seperated man can invite 1000 prostitutes; its upto them sleep with him or not;
that is also in INDIA.
for me she enjoyed all her stay with him; and never asked him to marry her;when he finished she asked money.
i seen many indian women can do anything for few buks.
SA Kuruvilla said
Mr. Amitava Mukherjee was well known for his womanising ways. But the truth is that amongst the NGOs there were women( the same women who fight vociferously for women’s rghts)who knew this and still willing to exchange favors for keeping their jobs. Some even had affairs with him not for his looks or for his non existent alpha male appeal, he just knew how to let ‘power’ work for him. Around the time of his forced resignation from Action Aid interviews with many women in Action Aid revealed that he was a dangerous man for women to work with. He was at that time living in with his personal secretary. My short exposure to the NGo world was really an eye opener to the way NGO’s thrive on corruption and how both men and women use each other. The wily Amitava basked in the shadow of his wife’s reputation( A trainer of the IAS cadre) and never really did anything worthwhile for an esteemed organisation like Actionaid except for spreading a culture of decadence and wasteful practices.He resigned on health grounds after a scandalous corruption exposure (some of his colleagues tried hard to cover his tracks )… i think it is justice that he is in the spotlight once again(with his pants down)…. revealing even more clearly to the world who he really is.
As for Ms Chaudhary… she seems yet another woman used and abused in the NGO world…However, Kudos to her, ill treated women like her can now seek redressal in courts.
M. Sen said
I can understand the anger of Binu Thomas and Kuruvilla against Amitava since Binu lost his job from ActionAid India just after Amitava left ActionAid (though Binu may think that it was because of Amitava) and Harsh Mander joined as ED in 1999. I also came to know that Binu led a vicious media crusade against Harsh (now doing the same for Amitava) alleging different things on different web sites. Binu seems unhappy with every ED whether Salil, Amitava, or Harsh. We hear that Binu was removed from ActionAid, India because he had almost become a ‘dead wood’ and on grounds of some pending corruption charges. I feel sympathetic for Binu being aware about what axe he keeps grinding.
I had chance to closely watch Amitava – a spiritually devout Hindu, a scholar (he has many books and papers) and always being kind and generous to people. I know for certain that in Bangalore as ED of ActionAid, he was living with his engineer brother employed in the same city and later his mother also joined him in 1997. So Kuruvilla’s imagination is indeed fertile that Amitava was living with his secretary in Bangalore. I also heard that some “Kuruvilla” could not continue in ActionAid because of poor skills. I hope Kuruvilla does not have an axe to grind against Amitava.
I have observed Sheeba stalking Amitava in Bangkok office several times and asking for huge sums – poor Sheeba. However, she failed to get money she desired. Later, she also made calls to his family for the money saying that Amitava was not helpful and she needed the money badly. Interestingly, leave aside the so called ‘live-in’ relationship Sheeba did not even know the address where Amitava resided in Bangkok. Unfortunately, her application was the only ground for the lower judiciary to pass an order of compensation for Rs. 1.5 lakhs. All believed her because she appeared to be a woman in great distress.
I feel very sorry for ‘naïve’ Sheeba. Despite all her lies, intimidation and high media drama she could achieve little. I have come to know that the decision on payment of Rs. 1.5 lakhs to Sheeba has now been set aside since there was no recording of evidence or cross-examination. If Sheeba has been abused by other NGO men as per Kuruvilla’s note then isn’t it time that she should be exposing the other men and thereby strengthening her case?
Manoj Singh said
Probably it is not known that the order of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, Delhi asking Amitava Mukherjee to pay Rs. 1.5 Lakhs has been set aside by the Appeal Court.
Manoj Singh said
Order under discussion has been set aside.
Giriraj Singh Tomar said
I am sure that the justice had the taken the one sided dision . I asked you all when we MAN & WOMEN both are equal in the eye of law . when a women live with the man or man live with the women together for X duration of the time to share the basic & secondary need of their . Than why only the women had given interest of the service she rended to the man why not the 3.0 lacs to we given to the male he too had worked hard mentally – Physically .If the Sheeba say that the Mr A Mukergee had able to make her fool for year’s than this is not digestable for any one .
I feel reality of these kind of the ladies is that they get wore by staying with single man .I too know the such kind of the women who are same like this lady seeba i.e Richa Grung . Arti etc were some staying at noida , raigarh etc. these women wanted to remain & maintain the unmarried title for the life nbut try to emjoy the life but they usually enjoy only one side of the life i.e self life portipon only the other side living for other i.e childrens for husband etc . In end I hope that sheeba now can learn the leason that she was doing the very big mistake noungely & voluntarley so she herself shoud suffer
Giriraj Singh Tomar said
it is one sided desion by the court if given
Manoj said
The Orde which is being trumpetted so much has been totally set aside by the Apeals court.
Manoj said
Has Mr. Girriraj Singh Tomar raed the whole file? If not is he aware that such blanket statement lead tocontempt of court?.
masculist said
Domestic violence act should be repealed. Men has to stand unitedly for its repealment. As long as men will continue to accept such legislation, extortion and attemt to extortion will continue.