Legal nuances ‘free’ dowry death accused

MUMBAI: Legal technicality came in the way of justice.

A sessions court on Monday acquitted four accused in a dowry death case because the victim’s dying declaration was not recorded by a special executive officer (SEO).

Rita Baricha, 23, married Hemant in 1997. She gave birth to two daughters. In the first information report (FIR) recorded by the investigating officer, Rita had said that Hemant, her father-in-law Dhanji, her
mother-in-law Madhu and brother-in-law Naresh taunted her regularly for being unable to bear a male child. The entire family lived in a Kanjurmarg chawl.

In her statement, Rita had said that her husband accused her of misbehaving with her in-laws. He also blamed her for ignoring household duties. When she met her parents in Andheri on September 11, 2000, they advised her to keep her husband happy instead of picking up fights with him. 

The next day she had a quarrel with her mother-in-law. While they were arguing, her husband allegedly slapped her and told her to set herself on fire because she had failed to bear a male child. She was doused in kerosene, allegedly by her mother-in-law, and given a matchbox too. Rita apparently set herself on fire inside the bathroom. When she realised she was burning she ran out of the bathroom, according to the prosecution. A neighbour, Sandeep Kadam, wrapped her in a blanket and took her to Rajawadi Hospital. Rita had suffered 85 per cent burns and she died on September 18, 2000.
Special executive officer Suvarna Karanje told the court that she had asked her ‘worker’ to record Rita’s statement. She later signed the declaration, which did not have Rita’s signature.

“The court accepted the first dying declaration (recorded in the FIR). The second one was not accepted because the SEO had not recorded it herself,” said additional public prosecutor Kiran Raykar.

Rita’s father Laxman Baria had filed an affidavit with the police about her daughter being harassed by her in-laws for a male child. But he later told the court that only her mother-in-law (she died during trial) had harassed her and not the other accused.

“If Baria had supported the prosecution, it would have corroborated Rita’s statement in the FIR which was accepted by the court. He backtracked possibly because his two grandchildren live with Rita’s in-laws,” said Raykar.

Source :>>

Parents-in-law can’t be forced to maintain daughter-in-law: SC

New Delhi: The latest round of `Saas-Bahu ki ladai’ has gone decisively in favour of the motherin-law. The Supreme Court has ruled that a woman, if neglected by her husband, cannot eye her
mother-in-law’s property for getting maintenance.
Maintenance of a married woman is her husband’s personal obligation and the property in her mother-in-law’s name can never be the subject matter of the obligation to maintain a daughter-in-law even after the death of her husband, said a Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and V S Sirpurkar.
A woman lawyer, who had filed several cases against her parents-in-law in Chincholi, Karnataka, had even taken recourse to litigation to see that their property was auctioned for getting the maintenance she was entitled to from their son.
Disapproving the extra-legal arguments taken by her and deprecating the trial court and the Karnataka High Court overstretching the law as well as their jurisdiction to go by her
pleadings, the Bench said a woman could seek attachment of properties only if her husband had a share in it.
This means, if the parents-inlaw’s properties were self-acquired and not inherited, then their daughter-in-law could institute suits seeking attachment of those properties which stood in the name of her husband and not against those owned by his parents.
Referring to the plea of the daughter-in-law, Sonalben, the Bench said she might be entitled to maintenance from her husband and the decree in her suit could only be against his properties.
“The decree, if any, must be executed against her husband and only his properties could be attached for that but not of her mother-in-law,” said Justice Sinha, writing the judgment for the
Bench. Referring to the HC order, which was challenged by mother-in-law Vimlaben, the apex court said it suffered from “total non-application of mind” and was “wholly unsustainable”.
“The said orders might have been passed only on consideration that Sonalben is a harassed lady, but the fact that Vimlaben is also a much harassed lady was lost sight of (by the HC),” the Bench said.
Directing release of the attached properties to Vimlaben, the court directed Sonalben to give Rs 50,000 to her mother-in-law as cost of litigation.

As a general guideline to the trial courts, the Bench said: “Sympathy or sentiment, as is well known, should not allow the court to have any effect in its decision-making process. Sympathy or
sentiment can be invoked only in favour of a person who is entitled to it. It should never be taken into consideration as a result whereof the other side would suffer civil or evil consequences.”

---

No Alimony
THE WORLD ACCORDNG to FEMNSTS
EMpower Women with FeminISM
GREAT INDIA GONE to DOGS
THE WORLD ACCORDNG to FEMNSTS
Marital Rape a Sabotage of Institute of Marriage
A THOUGHT for ALL FUTURE UNMARRIED MALES
PRE NUPITAL CONTRACT
Indian Mens Legal Torture

SMSes and emails can be used as evidence: Judge

Pune, December 31 Can a child’s testimony be used to verify his father’s hostility towards his mother? How can you prove if a wife’s death was accidental, a suicide or a consequence of marital harassment? What rights does a wife driven out of her husband’s house have, when their divorce is pending in court? These were some of the questions that were answered by the Pune Family Court judge Vinay Borikar as a part of a three-day workshop on the importance of the Indian Evidence Act in women related cases, held on Tadiwala on Sunday.“In the past couple of years, the number of divorce cases has gone up which is accompanied by the urgency to resolve marital disputes as well as deliver justice, if a women is being unfairly treated by her husband,” said Borikar who elaborated the amendments in the Evidence Act that may be used by a victim of violence to her benefit. “Often when women are driven to suicide by the harassment that they face or are killed by husband or in-laws, the victim’s parents and relatives are often unable to procure the evidence to implicate the offenders. However, recent amendments to the Evidence Act has permitted that electronic media can be used as evidence and the result has been that SMSes or e-mails have been submitted to the court, as evidence of harassment,” said Borikar.

“If a married woman commits suicide, which is suspected to have occurred due to harassment from her marital home and if she has confided to her parents about the harassment being meted out to her before her death, the testimony of her parents can be used to prove the case of abetment to suicide,” said Borikar.

According to the Act’s “presumption as to abetment to suicide” section also states that if a women dies ‘accidentally’ or commits suicide within seven years of marriage, and its proved that she was subjected to harassment, then its assumed that the husband and the in-laws must have incited her to take her life, until proven otherwise, he added.

Borikar related his experience in resolving a case of domestic violence when in an effective judgment, given last month, he had ordered a man who had driven out his wife and their two children, to house them in a separate accommodation. The man had refrained from going on higher appeal and had complied with the order.

“With a drastic increase in the crimes against married women, despite specific women-related laws like the Protection of Women against the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, several cases suffer because the victims’ families are unable to furnish the appropriate proof. Hence, we realised that it was essential that women’s organisations, who are the first agency that the bereaved women approach, need to be educated about what kind of relevant evidence will ensure that the women get relief,” said advocate Asuntha Pardhe of the Chetana Mahila Vikas Kendra, that organised the workshop, which was attended by representatives from several organisations in the State.
SOURCE >>

---

Truth About Dowry Law and Its Misuse
Violence at Home A Truth for The Indian Husband
Narcissists Modern Indian Woman?
Indias Legal Tools of Extortion
Reconciliation
TRUE Colour of Media and Women
My Vision My Dream
The Indian GenderBiased Domestic Violence Act
Indian Mens Legal Torture
PRE NUPITAL CONTRACT
Think before get marry Indian Women

Bitten by wife, cop seeks cover!

A cop of the ADGP cadre has sought the help of the Jeevan Bimanagar police against threats from his wife!
Sushanth Mahapatra, ADGP, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement wing filed a complaint before the Jeevan Bimanagar police on March 9 alleging that his wife, Sadhana (44) bit him on the left arm and cheek and attempted to stab him.
The sources told Deccan Herald that the couple has a son, aged around 30, working in the Income Tax Department in IAS cadre; and, a daughter, aged around 20, pursuing technical course. Sadhana stayed with her daughter at KPWD quarters, while Sushanth stayed with his son and his father who is a retired principal of a college at Attiguppe. The couple parted ways after Sadhana came to know about ‘other activities’ of her husband.
Sushanth wanted to see his daughter and went to Sadhana’s house on March 7. Sadhana didn’t allow him inside the house which led to the clash. The police were trying to unearth details of Sushanth’s ‘other activities’ which caused separation.

Source >>

---

Truth About Dowry Law and Its Misuse
Violence at Home A Truth for The Indian Husband
Narcissists Modern Indian Woman?
Indias Legal Tools of Extortion
Reconciliation
TRUE Colour of Media and Women
My Vision My Dream
The Indian GenderBiased Domestic Violence Act
Indian Mens Legal Torture
PRE NUPITAL CONTRACT
Think before get marry Indian Women

cruelty-to-wife cases can’t be settled out of court

MUMBAI: A high court bench comprising Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar, Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud and Justice J P Devadharowever has ruled that cruelty-to-wife cases can’t be settled out of court. However, the three judges also held that an HC can definitely exercise its power under its inherent jurisdiction, and quash a 498-A complaint in the larger interests of justice, to maintain matrimonial harmony and to prevent abuse of the legal process. The court specified the principles of criminal jurisprudence that need to be followed.

The judgment essentially says that a husband or his family facing a charge under 498-A of inflicting physical or mental cruelty on the wife cannot effect a settlement with her even if the two have patched up or the woman has agreed to forgive her husband or if the charges are based on flimsy pretexts to begin with and prima facie false. This means the husband can get arrested and even convicted and sent to jail for up to three years.

But there could be a way out from the legal quagmire that a husband may find himself in once a 498-A case is slapped on him. For that, however, only the HC can help. The HC has to be moved for quashing of the first information report (FIR), probe or criminal proceedings. The judgment has held that a HC has the power to quash such non-compoundable offences so as “to secure the ends of justice”. However, the judges also held that quashing of a complaint has to be on the basis of the facts of each case and the power must be “sparingly used”.

The 102-page verdict said, “An offence of cruelty under IPC 498-A is not merely a crime between husband and wife but a crime against society, and therefore the parties themselves cannot compound the offence.” The judges have, significantly, also held that not just offences under 498-A, but also other offences such as murder, rape, attempt to murder and causing grievous hurt—which are not specifically mentioned in the law as ‘compoundable’ offences—cannot be settled between the complainant and the accused. Section 320 of the CrPC lists offences that can be settled between parties at any stage of the prosecution.

The issue was referred to a full bench by a single judge of the Bombay high court who had to decide on an appeal filed by a Solapur-based husband Abasaheb Honmane who, after being held guilty of an aggravated form of bigamy and sentenced to jail for five years, had sought the leave of the court to compound the offence and also to set aside his conviction.

A full bench is normally formed in exceptional circumstances when there are conflicting judgments of two or more division benches. Here, it was a single judge who felt that a division bench judgment was not the correct interpretation of law and hence referred it to the Chief Justice since it was an important law point that needed to be settled.

Besides, before the court there were ten other similar cases on the question of compounding of offences such as robbery, dowry harassment, kidnapping, causing serious hurt with weapons, causing a miscarriage without the woman’s consent and so on. In each case, the prayer was that the FIR should be quashed, as the complainant had agreed to settle the matter. Most of these cases had arisen out of disputes in a matrimonial relationship.

The Chief Justice, who wrote the judgment for the bench, noted, “No statute can provide for all situations when the legislature enacts a law.” He said this as one of the points of reference was also whether the high court had the inherent powers to quash or compound complaints when this was not spelt out clearly in any law, including the CrPC, which is the procedural Bible for the criminal law courts.

The full bench held that Section 482 of the CrPC which speaks of the court’s “inherent power” to pass any order to “meet the ends of justice” has “intentionally” been worded widely by the legislature to ensure a larger impact on the procedural law governing investigations and criminal trials. “The inherent powers of the high courts are not meant to be static just like the law is not static and develops and varies according to the progress of time and need of society.”

The HC noted that until recently even a complaint of cheque bouncing was not compoundable but the government recently amended the law to allow parties to go in for “out-of-court settlements”.

Amit Desai, an expert defence counsel, said, “There is a need for criminal law to be amended to make an offence such as Section 498-A compoundable. It is time for the legislature to consider a change in the law since these are private disputes.”

The legislature has provided an alternative statute—the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to provide greater safeguards and protection to women by providing for a chance of “resettlement of matrimonial home and relationship prior to actual registration of crime under Section 498-A of IPC”.

But the legislature still did not make the Section 498-A offence compoundable. “While interpreting and implementing the law, legislative wisdom has to be given preference,” the judgment said, adding, “It can very well be presumed that the legislature, while enacting a law, is aware of the difficulties faced in implementation of such a law.”

Source :>>

Biased TOI published, Hubby can be jailed despite patch-up, Instead cruelty-to-wife cases can’t be settled out of court

---

Truth About Dowry Law and Its Misuse
Violence at Home A Truth for The Indian Husband
Narcissists Modern Indian Woman?
Indias Legal Tools of Extortion
Reconciliation
TRUE Colour of Media and Women
My Vision My Dream
The Indian GenderBiased Domestic Violence Act
Indian Mens Legal Torture
PRE NUPITAL CONTRACT
Think before get marry Indian Women

House wife slept with 18 yr old,still accused him with rape

A homemaker accused her 18-year-old servant of rape and stabbed him to death, but a narco test now reveals the shocking truth that she had been sleeping with him for five years

Rajni (name changed) stabbed her 18-year-old servant with a kitchen knife, claiming he was trying to rape her.

When the 36-year-old Mumbai homemaker was brought to Bangalore for a narco test, she stunned investigators by revealing that she had been sleeping with the boy for five years, since he was 13.

Rajni is the wife of a bar owner, and had developed physical intimacy with Anand (18), who hails from Bihar.

Anand had worked in Rajni’s house as a domestic help for 10 years, and also used to help out in the bar. He had been given a room in the couple’s apartment.

In April 2007, Rajni was sleeping in her room with her two-and-a-half-year-old child.
Her story was that Anand had barged in and tried to rape her after threatening her with a knife.

“Fearing he would injure my child, I snatched the knife and stabbed him,” she first told the police.
She said she had shouted for help to her husband and her brother-in-law. The latter lives on the second floor of the apartment.

They dragged Anand to the corridor and thrashed him. A profusely bleeding Anand was taken to hospital where he was declared brought dead, she said. Neighbours who witnessed the beating turned hostile in court.

Though Rajni pleaded that she had killed Anand in self-defence, the court directed the police to subject her to a narco test.

During the test, Rajni not only explained how she had stabbed Anand, but also gave details of their illicit relationship.

She confessed she had lost interest after a while, and and had started turning down his pleas for sex.
On the fateful day, Anand went to her for sex, but she refused since she was trying to put the baby to sleep.

Anand got agitated and threatened her with a table knife, she said during the narco. “I had no option but to defend myself and my child and jumped on him to snatch the knife,” she explained. “I stabbed him thrice on his abdomen and later dragged his body to the corridor and informed my husband and brother-in-law.”

Rajini also admitted she had to concoct the story of a rape attempt to conceal her relationship with him.
“I started beating him. My husband and brother-in-law joined me. They were so angry they beat Anand who was already profusely bleeding,” she said.

I have no option but to defend myself and my child from him and jumped on him to snatch the knife, she explained. I stabbed him thrice on his abdomen and later dragged his body to the corridor and informed my husband and brother-in-law, she said.
Source :>>

---

No Alimony
THE WORLD ACCORDNG to FEMNSTS
EMpower Women with FeminISM
GREAT INDIA GONE to DOGS
THE WORLD ACCORDNG to FEMNSTS
Marital Rape a Sabotage of Institute of Marriage
A THOUGHT for ALL FUTURE UNMARRIED MALES
PRE NUPITAL CONTRACT
Indian Mens Legal Torture

Delhi Police fined for illegal detention

New Delhi, Feb 29 (IANS) The Delhi High court Thursday slapped a fine of Rs.50,000 on the capital’s police force for illegally detaining a person last year.

The court also asked the Delhi Police commissioner to hold an inquiry against the officials responsible for the illegal detention.

Slapping a fine of Rs.50,000, judge S.N. Dhingra also asked the petitioner, Purshottam Ramani, to file a suit against the police officials for mental agony and harassment.

“You (petitioner) should sue Delhi Police for the mental harassment and agony they have caused you,” Dhingra said in his order.

Ramani was arrested by the Delhi Police Sep 25 last year under the Preventive Detention Act after a minor property dispute and was released Sep 30.

The high court last week slapped a fine of Rs.1 million on the Delhi Police in two other cases of illegal detention.

Truth About Dowry Law and Its Misuse
Violence at Home A Truth for The Indian Husband
Narcissists Modern Indian Woman?
Indias Legal Tools of Extortion
Reconciliation
TRUE Colour of Media and Women
My Vision My Dream
The Indian GenderBiased Domestic Violence Act
Indian Mens Legal Torture
PRE NUPITAL CONTRACT
Think before get marry Indian Women

STOP CHILD ABDUCTION TO INDIA, GIVE EQUAL RIGHTS TO FATHER

TO:

International Court of Justice Peace Palace Carnegieplein 2 2517 KJ The Hague The Netherlands

Chief Justice of India Supreme Court of India New Delhi INDIA. .

Borders Divide jurisdictions but families reunite them. The chain to this link is the global citizen. However, this inter-nation cross-flow has with the passage of time generated a new crop of legal issues in the realm of private international law which comprises rules a court would apply whenever there is a case involving a foreign element.

It is rather ironic that while the British Parliament is working its way through The Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill to legalize parentage from in-vitro fertilization births and recognize same sex couples as legal parents of children conceived through the use of donated eggs, sperms or embryos, in India, 27,000 children die each day, thousands of children go missing each month, many NRI/PIO/OCI/foreign citizen children are kidnapped from abroad and brought to India, and thousands of children are denied access to their father by estranged and vindictive Indian women.
However, India is yet to enact any concrete law that will help prevent childhood deaths, kidnappings, denial of visitation rights to fathers and stop International parental child abduction (removal or retention of a child across international borders by one parent). International parental child abduction to India, either in contravention of court orders or without the consent of the other parent, is sadly an increasing phenomenon that causes acute emotional distress to the abducted child.

A fugitive foreign citizen/permanent resident kidnapper who is declared a proclaimed offender in matrimonial and custody proceedings in his/her country of citizenship/domicile (because of the wrongs he/she did to her ex-spouse and in-laws) kidnaps the foreign citizen children of the marriage and is provided safe haven in India (sometimes enabled by kidnapper’s family’s political/bureaucratic/legal connections). The left behind NRI/PIO/OCI/foreign citizen parent cannot even see or talk to his/her children removed to India and is denied all access because the kidnapper is allowed to file false complaints with the Indian legal system using the easy to misuse laws.

The NRI/PIO/foreign citizen kidnapper is easily able to obtain injunctions from the Indian guardianship courts (despite the lack of jurisdiction) against the return of the kidnapped NRI/PIO/OCI/foreign citizen children to their place of habitual residence (because the Indian Courts ignore all current and even pre-existing custody orders from the foreign courts). These occurrences find daily mention but no straightforward solution for the NRI/PIO/OCI/foreign citizenunder any Indian law.

The Government of India is in the process of acceding to the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. However, before that is done, and India becomes a member of about 80 contracting convention nations, an appropriate Indian legislation will have to be enacted for its implementation. In this way children removed to and from India will be reunited with their aggrieved parent and India will no longer be a sought after destination for parking removed NRI/PIO/OCI/foreign citizen children from foreign jurisdictions. Also, foreign courts will be encouraged to permit NRI kids to freely visit India without fear of abduction. The draft of the Indian Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Bill 2007 meant to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully retained or removed to India proposes to ensure that the rights of custody and access under laws of contracting states are respected by providing for prompt removal of wrongfully removed children.

The salient features of this proposed law are as follows:

• A Central Authority for performance of duties under the Hague Convention for securing the return of removed children by instituting judicial proceedings in the High Court.
• The appropriate authority or a person of a contracting country may apply to the Central Authority for return of a removed child to the country of habitual residence.
• The High Court may order return of a removed child to the country of habitual residence but may refuse to make such an order if there is grave risk of harm or if it would put the child in an intolerable situation. Consent or acquiescence may also lead to refusal for return of a child by the court.
• The HC may refuse to return a child if the child objects to being returned upon it being satisfied that the child has attained an age and maturity to take into account his views.

Based on the experience from other countries that have ratified the Hague Convention, it is critical that all loopholes that will prevent the implementation of this be plugged. This (the exploitation of loopholes)is likely to be a serious problem in India and the political/bureaucratic/legal system will continue to provide a safe haven for the NRI/PIO/OCI/foreign citizen kidnapper, especially if the kidnapper is the mother. One example of a loophole is that abducting parent starts custody proceedings in India under the 30 year old laws before/in parallel with proceedings started by the left behind parent under the Hague Convention. Before India signs the Hague convention,appropriate laws will have to be enacted to prevent the exploitation of loopholes. In this way, children removed to and from India will be reunited with their aggrieved parent and India will no longer be a safe haven and sought after destination for parking removed NRI/PIO/OCI/foreign citizen children from foreign jurisdictions.
Furthermore, India should take steps to prevent child abductions within India, stop children being taken away from the gender that is denied custody rights, and penalize kidnappers and custodial mothers/fathers who deny visitation to the other parent.Mostly Indian women bargain child custody as blackmailing tool to get easy Divorce and huge sum of Alimony.Even Father is a natural guardian, but hardly 2% of Fathers get Child custody. Custody Should be Equal to both gender and child should be raised with both Parents love and Affection.

We request all of you to sign this e–petition to support the above-mentioned petition.

Please write letters separately to the President and Prime Minister of India, Law Ministry and Chief Justice of India with copies to us:

Thank you for signing,We also request you to forward it further amongst your partners, networks and friends.

For:Save Indian Society / MyNation

PLEASE SIGN >>  http://mynation.net/custody/ 

Manyatas ex files case against Sanju

MUMBAI: Mehraj Shaikh, former husband of Manyata, on Friday filed an application in the court against Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt and Manyata for allegedly getting married in violation of Muslim marriage norms.

Shaikh, incidentally, faces charges of sending vulgar SMS and threatening Bollywood personalities for extortion.

He moved an application before the Bandra metropolitan court praying for legal proceedings against Sanjay Dutt and Manyata for ‘violating the Muslim marriage norms’.

Metropolitan Magistrate Pankaj Shah has admitted the matter and posted the hearing for Saturday.

Shaikh stated in his application that he had married Manyata on April 5, 2003. He has a two-and-half-year-old son from Manyata who is presently staying with the latter’s mother at Hyderabad.

Shaikh claimed in his application that he and Manyata had started living separately but till today, neither of them had sought ‘talak’.

Source :>>

No Alimony
THE WORLD ACCORDNG to FEMNSTS
EMpower Women with FeminISM
GREAT INDIA GONE to DOGS
THE WORLD ACCORDNG to FEMNSTS
Marital Rape a Sabotage of Institute of Marriage
A THOUGHT for ALL FUTURE UNMARRIED MALES
PRE NUPITAL CONTRACT
Indian Mens Legal Torture

Seven Mumbai blast convicts granted bail, four denied

New Delhi, Feb 13 (IANS) The Supreme Court Tuesday granted bail to seven convicts of the 1993 Mumbai serial terror bombing case but denied the relief to four others,including fugitive underworld don and blast mastermind Tiger Memon’s sister-in-law Rubina Suleman Memon.

A bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan also ordered the Maharashtra government to constitute a medical board to examine whether one of the Memon brothers, Yusuf Abdul Razak Memon, sentenced to life in jail, is actually suffering from chronic schizophrenia and deserves bail on that ground.

The bench, which included Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice J.M. Panchal, decided to take up Yusuf Memon’ bail plea Feb 22 after examination of his mental condition by the medical board.

The bench dismissed the bail pleas of the four lifers, saying: “They do not have fit cases to be admitted for bail.”

The three lifers denied bail were Sardar Sahawali Khan, Muzamil Umar Kadri, Zamir Sayed Ismail Kadri.

The seven convicts who were eventually granted bail were Khalil Ahmed Sayed Ali Nazir, Shahnawaz Hajwani, Mujib Sharif Parkar, Sudhanwa Sadashiv Talavdekar, Ehsan Mohammad Tufel Qureshi, Sikkandar Issaq Hajhwane and Issaq Mohammed Hajwane.

Rubina and Yusuf Memon were convicted for allowing their houses to be used for conspiracy meetings and storage of arms and explosives. They had also given their van for the bombings that shook the metropolis on March 12, 1993 and killed 257 people.

Sardar Shahwali Khan was sentenced to life term and a Rs.100,000 fine for hatching the conspiracy, while Muzamil Umar Kadri was given life sentence and a Rs.125,000 fine for arranging arms landing in Shekhadi and for conspiracy.

Similarly, Zameer Sayyed Ismail Kadri was awarded life sentence and a Rs.125,000 fine for being a party to the conspiracy and arranging arms landing at Mumbai’s coastal area in Dighi.

The convicts, who were granted bail, were sentenced to 10 years or less for their respective roles in the terror attack and had spent a considerable period in jail.

For example, Khalil Ahmed Sayed Ali Nazir was given 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a Rs.125,000 fine for arms landing in Shekhadi area of Mumbai.

Source >> IANS

When These convicts, who suspected to mastermind to bomb and kill thousands of Innocent get bail, why not Falsely charged 498A and DV Act Victims…

Do Anyone need any more Proofs that Indian Judiciary is not only deaf and dumb but BLIND Too…?

Truth About Dowry Law and Its Misuse
Violence at Home A Truth for The Indian Husband
Narcissists Modern Indian Woman?
Indias Legal Tools of Extortion
Reconciliation
TRUE Colour of Media and Women
My Vision My Dream
The Indian GenderBiased Domestic Violence Act
Indian Mens Legal Torture
PRE NUPITAL CONTRACT
Think before get marry Indian Women

Indian Man in Pakistan jail for 35 years FOUND

Pakistan’s Human Rights Minister, Ansar Burney, says that he has traced an Indian who has been held in prison in Pakistan for 35 years.
Mr Burney said that Kashmir Singh was arrested in 1973 on espionage charges, the official APP news agency reports.

He said Mr Singh was sentenced to death in Pakistan under the Official Secrets Act by a court martial in Lahore.

But the Indian embassy in Pakistan says that Kashmir Singh is not among 55 PoWs officially listed as missing.

An embassy official told the BBC that they had received no word about him from the Pakistani authorities either before or after the minister’s statement.

He said the embassy cannot verify the identity of the prisoner without consular access to him. The official said that the names of prisoners can sometimes be changed.

Hundreds of servicemen and civilians were imprisoned by India and Pakistan during hostilities between the two sides in 1965 and 1971.

Death cells

Mr Burney said Mr Singh has been in a condemned prisoners cell ever since his conviction and has become mentally ill.

The minister was already known as a prominent Pakistani human rights campaigner before becoming human rights minister.

He says he was first informed about Kashmir Singh several years ago by members of the Indian community in London, APP reports.

But he was unable to locate Mr Singh, despite visiting over 20 prisons across the country in relation to his campaign for prison reforms and prisoners’ rights.

APP said that Mr Singh was finally discovered in the death cells during a visit by Mr Burney to the central jail in Lahore.

The minister said that Mr Singh had not received a single visitor or seen the open sky and, like other condemned prisoners, was locked in an overcrowded death cell for more than 23 hours a day in conditions which the minister described as “hell on Earth.”

At the time of his arrest, Mr Singh was reportedly a husband and a father of three young children.

Mr Burney urged anyone with information on the whereabouts of Kashmir Singh’s family in India to contact the Ministry of Human Rights in Pakistan or the Ansar Burney Trust.

Source : >>

No Alimony
THE WORLD ACCORDNG to FEMNSTS
EMpower Women with FeminISM
GREAT INDIA GONE to DOGS
THE WORLD ACCORDNG to FEMNSTS
Marital Rape a Sabotage of Institute of Marriage
A THOUGHT for ALL FUTURE UNMARRIED MALES
PRE NUPITAL CONTRACT
Indian Mens Legal Torture

Women facing harassment can write to us: SC

NEW DELHI: Women, facing harassment in their in-laws’ home or at any other place, can straightaway write to the Supreme Court and their letter would be entertained as public interest litigation (PIL), new eligibility guidelines published by the top court said.

Incidents of torture resulting from moral policing by village panchayats, generally in the news for ostracising couples in inter-caste marriages where one of them belong to a backward class, would also be entertained as PILs, it said.

Tired of dealing with the heap of PILs that crowd the list of cases to be heard daily, the court has come out with an eligibility test for PILs to limit their number and reduce the burden on judges.

No petition involving individual or personal matter shall be entertained as public interest litigation, said the recent guidelines posted on the apex court website.

“Letter-petitions (letters written by aggrieved parties to the apex court directly without filing a petition in the registry) will ordinarily be entertained as PIL,” said the guidelines putting the petitions into 10 categories.

The court, which had seen a flurry of public interest litigation on admissions to educational institutions, has completely banned PILs on the admission issue.

The categories under which letter-petitions would be entertained are:

• Atrocities against women, especially harassment of bride, bride burning, rape, murder, kidnapping etc.
• Harassment or torture of villagers by co-villagers or by police from persons belonging to SC or ST or economically backward classes
• Bonded labour matters
• Neglected children
• Non-payment of minimum wages to workers
• Harassment of jail inmates (not to include petitions for parole)
• Refusal of police to register case, harassment by police and custodial death
• Environmental pollution, wildlife and maintenance of heritage and culture
• Petitions from riot victims and those seeking family pension

All letter-petitions received in the PIL cell would be screened and if found meeting the eligibility criteria, would be placed before a judge nominated by the Chief Justice of India for scrutiny.

If the judge finds the letter PIL suitable, only then it would be put up for hearing in open court, the guidelines said.

Source :>>

// Lets Ask all our Mothers and sisters to write to SC, who are harassed with False 498A.LET THEM EAT THIER OWN SHIT

No Alimony
THE WORLD ACCORDNG to FEMNSTS
EMpower Women with FeminISM
GREAT INDIA GONE to DOGS
THE WORLD ACCORDNG to FEMNSTS
Marital Rape a Sabotage of Institute of Marriage
A THOUGHT for ALL FUTURE UNMARRIED MALES
PRE NUPITAL CONTRACT
Indian Mens Legal Torture

Judgements for DISCHARGE u/s 239

IN THE COURT OF SH. XYZ, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, XYZ

Argument

1. The allegations, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence under IPC 498-A or make out a case against the accused.

Section 498A reads as follows:

“498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation – For the purpose of this section ‘cruelty’ means -

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

   There is NO Injury reported by wife/complainant, So, No ‘physical’ cruelty.

The vagueness of mental cruelty is cleared by the Supreme Court of India by lying the following definition of “mental cruelty” in V.Bhagat Vs. Mrs.D.Bhagat AIR 1994 SC 710:

“the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together”. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put with such conduct and continue to live with the other party.”

Also, cruelty is defined in Dr.N.G.Dastane Vs. Mrs.S.Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326 and Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand , 2003, Cri LJ 2759 (Del) : 2003 (3) Crime 100

>> However, the wife/complainant wants to live with the husband/accused. She has filed a case u/s 9 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

•  
  • Both Parties are willing to LIVE together, so, there is NO CRUELTY.

Where there was allegation by wife against her husband but such allegations were not supported by any reliable evidence. Wife was prepared to live with her Husband. The accused was entitled for benefit of doubt. Lawrence Vs State of Kerala, 2002 Cri LJ 3458 (Ker.)

Supreme Court in Ajay Mitra Vs State of M.P. and others reported in 2003 (3) KCCR 2043 held that the FIR which does not allege or disclose essential requirement of a penal provision are prima facie satisfied , cannot form the foundation or constitute the starting point of lawfull investigation.

And, In the case of Ashok Chaturvedi and other Vs Shitul H Chanchani and another reported in ( 1998) 7 S.C.C. 698 it was held that allowing the criminal proceeding to continue even when the allegation of the complaint petition do not make out any offence would be tantamount to abuse of the process of the court.

1. Prosecution has blindly “denied” all the paragraphs of application for discharge u/s239, whereas applicant/husband has attached wife/ complainant’s own admittance/statements and prosecution’s own documents as a part of application from Annexure R1 to Annexure R 16
   • Prosecution has denied the Affidavit submitted in the Punjab and Haryana High Court by the Jagmohan Singh, DSP on behalf of SSP, patiala and State of Punjab.
     •  
       • How can Prosecution deny their own affidavit filed in HIGH COURT ??
   • Prosecution has denied all the para, even their own complaints and its contradictions,

For example, in the charge-sheet in line 33 of Page 2 reads as “Mr.SoAndso. left Zirakpur on 14-10-2005 for Gujarat and asked me that I can go to my parental house at Patiala and can live with my parents for about 10 days”

Contrary to above para, line 13 of page 2 (back side) reads as “he asked me that why I have not returned to Zirakpur, on this I asked that I am waiting for him as he while going to Gujarat in October 2005 asked me that until and unless he do not return back from to Zirakpur and not reached Patiala, I need not come to Zirakpur of my own”

•  
  •  
    •  
      • Can wife/complainant’s version/statement be relied upon?
      • Is wife/complainant speaking truth?
      • Is wife/complainant approached the Court with Clean hands?
  • In para 20, prosecution have even denied the Powers of the Hon’ble Court.

1. Prosecution has admitted in para 2 that investigation was carried out by Women Cell, Patiala
   • Women Cell report clearly states that “she (complainant) is determined to teach a lesson to her husband and his family by leveling serious allegations”
   • Women cell investigation concluded that “No action is required by Police, so, the complaint to be filed”

1. Wife /Complainant has not approached the court with clean hands, all bills all fake, prepared with an intension to procure the conviction.

How can anyone taunt for bring inferior/cheap articles, when the ‘claimed’ articles don’t have any existence???

1. Complainant/wife claims that the Bills of Gift articles are not Fake. If the bills are assumed to be true, It is pertinent to note that these bills are of LG brand products

      Is there any brand better than LG ?

      How can anyone taunt for a LG product? Is LG inferior brand???

As such “”Taunting is not Cruelty”” in Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand , 2003, Cri LJ 2759 (Del) : 2003 (3) Crime 100

1. Complainant/wife has filed petition for “Restitution of Conjugal Rights” under section 9 of HMA.

• How can complainant/wife live with a Criminal? This itself shows that complaint u/s 498a was filed to fulfill the uterious motives.

• Complainant has admitted that there were frequent picnic tours, more than 8 destinations have been admitted by complainant for her total stay of about 10 months.

So, the allegations doesn’t fall under the preview of mental or physical cruelty because “The mental cruelty can broadly be defined as  
that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain  
and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other”

1. NO SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS, even the allegations of Demand of dowry etc. is not quantified/ specified in the complaint. All allegations are VAGUE.

• In Krishan Jeet Singh Vs State of Haryana, II (2003) DMC 127 (P&H) it was held that “Where there is no specific allegations in complaint, charge could not be proved” also in Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF DELHI in CRL.M.C.7262/2006 on 23.02.2007 in Smt. Neera Singh Vs STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) and ORS held that “vague allegations as made in the complaint by the petitioner against every member of the family of husband cannot be accepted by any court at their face value and the allegations have to be scrutinized carefully by the Court before framing charge”.

1. Hon’ble Court shall refer to a leading decision of SC court reported in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Suppl. {1} SCC 335] in which SC court pointed out certain category of cases by way of illustrations wherein the inherent power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The same are as follows :-
   • Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
   • Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
   • Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
   • Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
   • Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
   • Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
   • Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
2. In the case of Pepsi Food Limited and another Vs Special Judicial Magistrate and others reported in AIR 1998 S.C 128 it was held that Summoning and Accussed in a criminal case is serious matter .Criminal Law cannot be set into Motion as matter of course .
3. in the case of Saritha Vs R.Ramachandra reported in (I) (2003) DMC 37 ( DB ) made an observation that “the court would like to go on record that for nothing the educated women are approaching the courts for divorce and resorting to proceedings against in-laws under section 498a , IPC implicating not only the husbands but also their family members whether in India or Abroad. This is nothing but misuse of the beneficial provision intended to save the women from unscrupulous husbands . It has taken a reverse trend now. In some cases this kind of actions is coming as a formidable hurdle in the reconciliation efforts made by either well meaning people or the courts. and the sanctity attached to the marriage in Hindu Religion and the statutory mandate that the courts try to save the marriage through conciliatory efforts till last , are being buried neck-deep . It is for the law commission and the parliament either to continue that provision ( section 498a IPC ) in the same form or to make that offense non cognizable and bailable so that ill-educated women of this country do not misuse the provision to harass innocent people for the sin of contracting marriage with egoistic women “

Judgments

• It is the duty of the court, even at the stage of framing the charge to consider whether there was sufficient material to go into trial. In other words, whether the evidence collected by the prosecution ,if rebutted, warrant any conviction. In doing so, the court can also consider the material on record in State of assam Vs. Achit Ranjan Dey, 1989 Cri LJ 1117 at 1118 (Gau), Sessions Judge Vs. I R redid, 1972 Cri LJ 1485, Abdul Aziz Vs. State of Mysore, 1975 Cri LJ 335 (kant)
• State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy , a three judge Bench of SC Court had observed that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. As framing of charge affects a persons liberty substantially, need for proper consideration of material warranting such order was emphasized.
• When offences not prima facia made out against accused person framing of charge not proper in Imtiaz Ahmed Vs State of m.P. , 1997 Cri LJ 1844 (MP)
• Allegations has to be specific in Krishan Jeet singh Vs. State of Haryana, 11 (2003) DMC 127 (P & H)
• General allegations are not sufficient to procure 498-A in Surajmal Barithia V. State of west Bengal 11 (2003) DMC 546 (Cal) (DB)
• Vague allegations are not acceptable in sher Singh V. state of Punjab 11 (2003) DMC 192 (P & H)
• Bhajan Lal Bhatia & ors. Vs. Sarita Neelam 2005 Vol I HLR 59
• Where evidence on record neither disclosed that there was cruelty on part o the accused which was of such a nature as was likely to drive victim to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life or limb or mental or physical health nor showed that she was harassed by accused with regard to any demand for additional dowry, section 498-A could not be attracted in such circumstances in Bomma Ilaiach Vs. State of U.P. , 2003 Cri LJ 2439 (AP)
• Where there is no specific allegations in complaint, charge could not be proved in Krishan Jeet Singh Vs State of Haryana, II (2003) DMC 127 (P&H)
• Conviction not sustainable in the absence of evidence of ‘torture’ or “harassment” in Benumadhab Padhi Mohapatra Vs State, 2004 (13) AIC 253 (ori.)
• Taunting is not Cruelty in Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand , 2003, Cri LJ 2759 (Del) : 2003 (3) Crime 100
• Dr. Sant Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 11 (2003) DMC 232 (P & H)
• Where there was allegation by wife against her husband but such allegations were not supported by any reliable evidence. Wife was prepared to live with her Husband. The accused was entitled for benefit of dobut. Lawrence Vs State of Kerala, 2002 Cri LJ 3458 (Ker.)
• State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335,
• Janata Dal Vs. H.S.Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305,
• State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, (1992)Supp. 1 SCC 222,
• Roopan Deol Bajaj Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194,
• State of U.P. Vs. O.P.Sharma, 1996(1) ALD (Crl.) 823 (SC) = (1996) 7 SCC 705
• State of Maharashtra Vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri, 1996(1) ALD (Crol.) 139 (SC) =(1996) 1 SCC 542
• Kumar Bhada, (1997 Rashmi Kumar Vs. Maheswh) 2 SCC 397
• Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State NCT of Delhi, 1999 (1) ALD (Crl.) 760 (SC) = (1999(3) SCC 259
• Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (1999)8 SCC 728,
• Jagdish Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 672 (SC) = (2004) 4 SCC 432,
• A.V. Mohan Rao Vs. M. Kishan Rao, (2002) 6 SCC 174,
• State of Karnataka Vs. M. Devendrappa, 2002(1) ALD (Crl.) 412 (SC) = 2002(3) SCC 89
• State of Orissa Vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005)13 SCC 540
• Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors – Jul 19 2005 JT 2005 (6) SC 266 it was held that by misuse of the 498A provision a new LEGAL TERRORISM can be unleashed.
• HIGH COURT OF DELHI in CRL.M.C.7262/2006 on 23.02.2007 in Smt. Neera Singh Vs STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) and ORS held that “vague allegations as made in the complaint by the petitioner against every member of the family of husband cannot be accepted by any court at their face value and the allegations have to be scrutinized carefully by the Court before framing charge”.
• In R.P. Kapur. vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), SC Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash proceedings.
  1.  
     1. Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance, e.g. want of sanction;
     2. Where the allegation in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
     3. Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
• Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. [1988 [1] SCC 692], SC Court has reiterated the same principle and laid down that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence.
• Pratibha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar and Anr. [1985] 2 SCC 370
• State of Bihar Vs. Murad Ali Khan & Ors. [1988 [4] SCC 655]  

By: MyNation

No Alimony

THE WORLD ACCORDNG to FEMNSTS

EMpower Women with FeminISM

GREAT INDIA GONE to DOGS

THE WORLD ACCORDNG to FEMNSTS

Marital Rape a Sabotage of Institute of Marriage

A THOUGHT for ALL FUTURE UNMARRIED MALES

PRE NUPITAL CONTRACT

Indian Mens Legal Torture

IN SUPPORT OF THE RECENT JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Please Sign Here >>

We support Supreme Court’s recent Judgment whereby it clarified that gifts are not dowry (as per news report in TOI)Demand for Gift after marriage is not Dowry Says Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court has ruled that demand for money and presents from parents of a married girl at the time of birth of her child or for other ceremonies, as is prevalent in society, may be depreciable but cannot be categorized as dowry to make it a punishable offence. This means, if a daughter-in-law is being harassed for customary gifts by parents-in-law, then they could be booked under ordinary penal provisions but not under the tough anti-dowry laws providing stringent punishments. Acquitting the parents-in-law of a woman who had accused them of harassing her for dowry, a Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and S Sathasivam took help of a 2001 judgment of SC to say that not all demands from the parents-in-law could be categorized as dowry under the Dowry Prohibition Act. It said though the Act covers payment of money or articles during, before or after marriage by the girls parent to her in-laws, the cash and presents given had to have a link with the marriage to become objectionable in law. Other payments which are customary payments, for example given at the time of birth of a child or other ceremonies as are prevalent in different societies, are not covered by the expression dowry, said Justice Pasayat, writing the judgment for the Bench.
A Haryana trial court had continued the dowry harassment charges against the woman’s husband while acquitting the parents-in-law, the married sister and brother of the husband. Though the high court allowed quashing of charges against the sister and brother, it said the parents-in-law were liable to be proceeded against. The apex court said that when the trial court had held that an attempt had been made by the woman to rope in as many relatives of her husband as possible, the HC should have given some reasons while reversing a well-reasoned order.
It said judicial discipline demanded the HCs to give clear reasons when reversing a trial court order backed by facts. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ‘inscrutible face of the sphinx’, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudicating the validity of the decision, the Bench said.

Prior to this ruling, our lawmakers as well as the radical feminist organizations had never opened their eyes or tried to understand the basis behind the same, and the result was more and more misuse of Dowry Laws. Thus far, we have been silent witnesses to the extortion of money or obtaining custody and a legal advantage in the divorce case in more than 98% of the false dowry complaints (as per the court records), where it is the wife’s family that is demanding and taking money from the husband’s family in open court (in return for them agreeing to have the husband/his family released from jail) and the same is not considered a crime.

The bride and groom’s family in every culture around the world give gifts. Dowry itself is a bogus word that did not exist in India prior to the arrival of the British who had been practicing it for centuries (without a single dowry complaint having been filed in England). However, the word ‘Dowry’ has been misused by the radical Indian feminist organizations and the greedy/money minded girls’ families who hide behind the word ‘Dowry’ and cheat their own daughter/sisters basic right on Streedhan and equal right in parental property and always treat the husband’s family as a free ATM machine.

The Save Family Foundation and their associate organizations, and even Ms. Madhu Kiswar, have continuously demanded and urged that if any one harasses others for any money or property the same should be termed as Extortion or Blackmail. However, our lawmakers failed to accept that. Finally, the Supreme Court of India has understood that each and every dispute should not be termed as Dowry Harassment which is one small step towards stopping the Legal Terrorism and rampant Misuse of 498A, DV act and CRPC125 maintenance act.

Every 4 minutes in India an innocent person (who never demanded any dowry or money from the wife/daughter-in-law) including old mothers/pregnant sisters/children are facing false and fabricated Dowry cases and sent behind bars without any evidence (since no evidence is required and 498A is non-bailable). Despite the Law commission and various judges’ recommendations to make 498A a bailable offence, our lawmakers have not made any effort to save the innocent people who are being victimized by the abusive women and their families. We must stop this legal terrorism (as termed by the Supreme Court of India) by our radical women organizations that openly advocates and legitimizes adultery by the wife and killing of the unborn child (against the husband’s wishes).

We applaud the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India whereby it clarifies that gifts are not dowry. We request the Supreme Court of India to set up an in-depth review by a panel of happily married lawyers, retired judges, elders and representatives from the men’s organizations that should also look into the complaints regarding the misuse of these laws. All laws that affect families should also take into account that mothers and sisters are women too, and it takes two to tango.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Batra v Batra rightly decided that the right should only available to a woman in a household owned by the husband and not in the household owned by the in laws, even though it may have been the shared household. In a country where the joint family pattern of residence is then norm, any other judgment virtually gives a license to women to throw out senior citizens from the own home with the help of a bad law. Every family has a right to live free from abuse. Denial of the right to reside in their own home for senior citizens is one of the most extreme forms of abuse, rendering the parents and grandparents homeless and insecure. There are numerous concerted efforts being made among the radical women’s groups to abuse these badly drafted gender baised laws.

We, the undersigned, therefore support the Supreme Court of India whereby it clarified that gifts are not dowry and request the following:

· Review the complaints of all those crying of misuse of these laws and by taking appropriate steps in the Supreme Court of India.
· Appoint full time qualified Investigating Officers (who should be held responsible if any misuse of the law is reported) and notifies Service Providers and medical facilities.
· Impose legal sanctions all women (and their helpers) who are misusing the law.
· We request all of you to sign this e – petition to support the above-mentioned ruling of the Supreme Court of India. Please write letters separately to the Chief Justice of India with copies to us:

We also request you to forward it further amongst your partners, networks and friends.

Please support our cause, Those anti social Women organisation influenced by wester ideas, Which are total against Interest of Indian Family system

JAI HIND.

Thank you for signing

For:Save Indian Society / Asha – Kiran / Save Family / MyNation

Please Sign Here >>

Criminal case registered against APC in Ahmedabad

Bhopal, January 21 (Pervez Bari): An Ahmedabad court has registered a criminal case against Mrs. Parikshita Gurjar (Rathod), Assistant Police Commissioner of City Crime Branch of Ahmedabad City of Gujarat State. The court issued summons for the accused to appear before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 21 on February 18.
The Court proceedings were initiated by the All India Christian Council due to unlawfully detaining a Backward Class youth named Dhirajbhai, his elder brother Advocate Rasikbhai, his sister-in-law, and his aged father and, thereafter, beating severely Dhirajbhai in the office of the Crime Branch.

“By detaining the family of Backward Class staying in the Ahmedabad City, the capital of Gujarat state, without any reason, and threatening to kill and creating fear, a great injustice was done. A police complaint has been lodged against Mrs. Parikshita Gurjar, Asstt. Police Commissioner of Crime Branch, and summons have been issued to her to remain present for an upcoming hearing,” said Samson Christian, All India Christian Council, (AICC), National Executive member and general secretary in a Press statement.

According to the Press statement Advocate Rasikbhai Muljibhai Waghela, residing at Ranip, Ahmedabad City of Gujarat state, was residing with his family. The marriage of Dhirajbhai, younger brother of Rasikbhai was performed with Harshaben Dimple in the year 2000.

However, after marriage instead of staying at the in-laws house, Harshaben was staying at her parent’s house and was pressurising Dhirajbhai to come to her parent’s home. But Dhirajbhai did not oblige. Finally, Harshaben Dimple came to her in-laws for few days and after celebrating a ‘SEEMANT’ ceremony, she returned to her parental home. After the birth of a child, she did not return to her husband, who was still living with his parents. Therefore, Dhirajbhai applied for a search warrant in the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 13 of Ahmedabad to have both in his home. But Harshaben Dimple told the court that she does not want to go to her husband’s house and will stay at her father’s home and the custody of the son was her right.

Then, Harshaben, the wife of Dhirajbhai, planned to get a divorce. She filed an application before the Mahila (women) Police Station, Ahmedabad alleging there was a lot of harassment by Dhirajbhai, his elder brother Advocate Rasikbhai, and others. The accused family members were called to Mahila Police Station on March 6, 2006 at 11.00 am when Harshaben and her family members were also present. They levelled false allegations of being tortured by Dhirajbhai and his family members, demanded the divorce and Rs. 50,000/- household utensils, other ornaments and amount of life-time maintenance. Dhirajbhai and his family members did not agree to this. Then Harshaben Dimple registered an offence in the Mahila police Station against her husband Dhirajbhai and his family members.

On March 23, 2006 at about 11.00 pm, Asstt. Police Commissioner Mrs. Parikshita Gurjar went to the house of Rasikbhai in plain clothes and in a private vehicle with two unknown persons. He took Rasikbhai, his wife and father in the vehicle, brought to the Mahila police Station and said, “Tell your brother Dhirajbhai to get a divorce. The other party is demanding Rs. 2,00,000/- of expenses, but I will complete in Rs. 50,000/- if you give me Rs. 20,000/- for my expense”.
After hearing this, Advocate Rasikbhai reportedly said, “We have not committed any offence. We are not able to give such a huge amount. Whatever legal proceedings has to be done, must be done.” At this Asstt. Police Commissioner Mrs. Parikshita became angry and threatened Advocate Rasikbhai. She said she could cancel his degree, arrest him illegally, and take away the mobile phone of Rasikbhai.

Thereafter, two days later on March 23, a phone call of ACP Mrs. Parikshita Gurjar came on the mobile phone of Police Constable Natvarsinh, writer of the said Police Station, and Advocate Rasikbhai was threatened for not giving money. ACP Parikshita Gurjar talked with Advocate Rasikbhai in a very abusive language, the statement said.

Meanwhile, on March 26 a press reporter came in the said Police Station, and gave his own mobile to Rasikbhai. Rasikbhai told ACP Parikshita Gurjar that the illegal arrest of him and his family and the demand of a bribe was being watched by the media. Advocate Rasikbhai was presented before the Metropolitan Magistrate. By seeking a remand of two days, Advocate Rasikbhai and his family members were jailed in Gaikwad Haveli Police Station with hardened criminals. Due to hunger and thirst during detention, the health of Advocate Rasikbhai deteriorated. On March 27, 2006 wife of the Advocate Rasikbhai and his father were released. Next day on March 28 Advocate Rasikbhai was released on bail.

Advocate Rasikbhai Waghela and his family sought the help of AICC due to continuing fear. The AICC lodged a written complaint of the incident to higher police officers of the State. On July 21, 2007, a FIR (First Information Report) No. 12/08 was registered in the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 21 under Section 323, 504 and 506(1) of IPC. A summon has been issued to ACP Mrs. Parikshita Gurjar to appear before the court next month on February 18.
“The AICC welcomes the case registered against ACP Mrs. Parikshita Gurjar (Rathod) by the Metropolitan Magistrate, and the summon issued to her. We appeal to the court to initiate proceedings as such a case is alarming. Police, who are protectors, should not be harassing citizens,” said Samson Christian.

Invoke Sec 482 of CrPC sparingly: HC

Madras High Court today held that the inherent powers of the Court under section 482 of CrPC for giving direction to the police to register a case should be invoked sparingly and only in heinous crimes.

Justice M Jeyapaul also held that the High Court shall not entertain a petition under section 482 of CrPC, alleging commission of offences of lesser gravity.

The judge disposed of a batch of 258 petitions, seeking a direction to the Station House Officer (SHO) concerned to register their cases as the allegations reflected cognizable offence.

The judge said, “If a complaint reflects commission of murder, dowry death, attempt to murder, where the victims sustained grievous injuries, robbery, decoity, rape and attempt to rape and the SHO refuses to register the complaint on such allegations, then the High Court would have to necessarily give a direction to SHO to register a case invoking the jurisdiction under the section 482.”

There are cases where immediate inspection of the scene of crime, recovery of material objects and collection of every potential evidence in heinous crimes may be highly warranted.

If the SHO exhibits supine indifference and callousness in registering such cases which warrant immediate attention for the purpose of saving the very case from collapse, then inspite of the alternative remedy available under the scheme of CrPC, the aggrieved party can very well invoke the section 482 to secure ends of justice, the judge added.

Source >>

Demand for gifts after wedding not dowry: SC

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that demand for money and presents from parents of a married girl at the time of birth of her child or for other ceremonies, as is prevalent in society, may be deprecable but cannot be categorised as dowry to make it a punishable offence.

This means, if a daughter-in-law is being harassed for customary gifts by parents-in-law, then they could be booked under ordinary penal provisions but not under the tough anti-dowry laws providing stringent punishments.

Acquitting the parents-in-law of a woman who had accused them of harassing her for dowry, a Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and S Sathasivam took help of a 2001 judgment of SC to say that not all demands from the parents-in-law could be categorised as ‘dowry’ under the Dowry Prohibition Act. It said though the Act covers payment of money or articles during, before or after marriage by the girl’s parent to her in-laws, the cash and presents given had to have a link with the marriage to become objectionable in law.

“Other payments which are customary payments, for example given at the time of birth of a child or other ceremonies as are prevalent in different societies, are not covered by the expression ‘dowry’,” said Justice Pasayat, writing the judgment for the Bench.

A Haryana trial court had continued the dowry harassment charges against the woman’s husband while acquitting the parents-in-law, the married sister and brother of the husband. Though the high court allowed quashing of charges against the sister and brother, it said the parents-in-law were liable to be proceeded against.

The apex court said that when the trial court had held that an attempt had been made by the woman to rope in as many relatives of her husband as possible, the HC should have given some reasons while reversing a well-reasoned order.

It said judicial discipline demanded the HCs to give clear reasons when reversing a trial court order backed by facts. “Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ‘inscrutible face of the sphinx’, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudicating the validity of the decision,” the Bench said.
source >>

Wanted: Someone to kill my boyfriend’s wife

WASHINGTON, jAN 28: A US woman was arrested this week after she allegedly tried to hire a hitman to murder her married lover’s wife by posting an ad on the popular website craigslist, law enforcement officials said Sunday.

Anne Marie, 48, from Grand Rapids, Michigan offered www.craigslist.org users the chance to kill Carol, a 56-year-old woman in California, in a vaguely worded free ad under the category of “Freelance,” according to court documents.

Two women and one man responded to the ad, with at least one applicant believing it to be an offer for freelance writing work. During subsequent emails, Anne Marie divulged that the task was actually a hit.

“Marie informed (one of the people who responded) that she was looking for ‘silent assassins’ and she asked him to eradicate a targeted victim,” offered 5,000 dollars for the job and provided the address, name, age and occupation of the man’s wife.

“Asked what she meant by ‘eradicate,’ Anne Marie said ‘Duh. Well to have her killed,” the court documents said.

The woman, who also goes by the name Anne Marie Linscott, was charged with three counts relating to murder for hire and using interstate commerce to commit a felony.

“This complex investigation was initiated in November 2007 and we have been very concerned for the well being of the victim,” said Butte County Sheriff Perry Reniff, according to a statement released by the Sacramento FBI.

The potential victim’s husband “acknowledged meeting Linscott through an on-line college course in 2004 or 2005,” and said “he and Linscott developed a very deep and intimate online relationship,” the FBI statement said.

The pair met for sex on at least two separate occasions in 2005 and 2007, and “have continued to communicate via telephone and email.”

Asked by law enforcement officials how she would feel if her target were murdered by a respondee on craigslist, the suspect “stated she would be scared that law enforcement would track it back to her,” court documents said.

Source :>> AFP

AVANI

Present family name: AVANI
Forename: AVANI
Sex: FEMALE
Date of birth: 17 November 1975 (32 years old)
Place of birth: AHMEDABAD / GUJARAT, India
Language spoken: English, Gujarati, Hindi
Nationality: India
Physical description

Height: 1.56 meter <-> 61 inches
Weight: 53 kg <-> 117 pounds
Colour of eyes: BLACK
Colour of hair: BLACK
Categories of Offences: FRAUD
Arrest Warrant Issued by: AHMEDABAD / GUJARAT / India

Report Here If you See Her >>

BHARTIBEN RAJESH PATEL

Present family name: BHARTIBEN RAJESH PATEL
Forename: BHARTI
Sex: FEMALE
Date of birth: 25 January 1979 (29 years old)
Place of birth: GANGADHARA, India
Language spoken: English, Gujarati, Hindi
Nationality: India
Height: 1.55 meter <-> 61 inches
Categories of Offences: COUNTERFEITING/FORGERY
Arrest Warrant Issued by: NAVSARI, GUJARAT / India

Report Here If you Know her >>

DOSHI Bhavna

Present family name: DOSHI
Forename: BHAVNA
Sex: FEMALE
Date of birth: (unknown)
Place of birth: India
Language spoken: English, Gujarati, Hindi
Nationality: India
Height: 1.62 meter <-> 64 inches
Categories of Offences: COUNTERFEITING/FORGERY, FRAUD
Arrest Warrant Issued by: MUMBAI / India

Report Here If you see her >>

DOSHI RUPAL

Present family name: DOSHI
Forename: RUPAL
Sex: FEMALE
Date of birth: (unknown)
Place of birth: India
Language spoken: English, Gujarati, Hindi
Nationality: India
Height: 1.62 meter <-> 64 inches
Categories of Offences: COUNTERFEITING/FORGERY, FRAUD
Arrest Warrant Issued by: MUMBAI / India

Report Here If you See Her >>

EDADAN OMANA

Present family name: EDADAN
Forename: OMANA
Sex: FEMALE
Date of birth: 24 November 1953 (54 years old)
Place of birth: PAYYANUR / KANNUR/ KERALA, India
Language spoken: English, MALAYALAM
Nationality: India
Height: 1.60 meter <-> 63 inches
Colour of eyes: DARK
Colour of hair: BLACK
Categories of Offences: CRIMES AGAINST LIFE AND HEALTH
Arrest Warrant Issued by: OOTY / India

Report Here If you See Her >>

HETAL AMBRISHBHAI VYAS

Present family name: HETAL AMBRISHBHAI VYAS
Forename: HETAL
Sex: FEMALE
Date of birth: 30 November 1969 (38 years old)
Place of birth: AHMEDABAD / GUJARAT, India
Language spoken: English, Gujarati, Hindi
Nationality: India
Colour of eyes: BLACK
Colour of hair: BLACK
Categories of Offences: COUNTERFEITING/FORGERY, FRAUD
Arrest Warrant Issued by: MEGHANINAGAR / AHMEDABAD / GUJARAT / India

Report Here If you see Her >>

JAY RAM, Shobha

Present family name: JAY RAM
Forename: SHOBHA
Sex: FEMALE
Date of birth: 11 November 1964 (43 years old)
Place of birth: CHENNAI, India
Language spoken: English, Hindi, Tamil
Nationality: India
Colour of eyes: BLACK
Colour of hair: BLACK
Categories of Offences: FRAUD CONSPIRACY
Arrest Warrant Issued by: AGRA / UTTAR PRADESH / India

Report Here If you see Her >>