Sunday, July 4, 2010

Police to file FIR against woman for filing False GANG RAPE allegation as Motivated and malafide to settle personal score.

NEW DELHI: A 26-year-old woman has alleged that she was gangraped by her employers but Delhi Police, instead of acknowledging her complaint, confined her to her residence in Dilshad Garden for 10 days.
According to the police, the woman, who is a folk singer and has acted in devotional movies, had come to Delhi from Jind in Haryana earlier this year and took up a job with a real estate company at Indirapuram in Ghaziabad. According to Bharat Dubey, the advocate of the victim, the woman was in her accommodation alone on May 21 when four company directors allegedly gangraped her.
"But when she went to the Seemapuri police station to lodge a complaint, she was told to settle the case,'' claimed Dubey. The woman has alleged that senior northeast district officials asked her to come down to the Seemapuri police station on May 22. "The area DCP, SHO and the investigating officer at the police station told me to `settle' the case. When I refused they kept me confined to my house. For the next four days, I was forced to spend several hours at the police station,'' claimed the victim.
The victim claimed that she didn't relent and forced the SHO to file an FIR. "However, four police personnel, including lady constables, forced me to stay indoors till June 10. Even one of the accused who had raped me was with the cops. My statement under CrPC 164 was not recorded,'' she claimed.
It was around this time, claimed Dubey, that her fiance contacted her. "Charging the cops with illegally confining her, we moved the court with the plea that she be produced in court. The court directed accordingly. We also moved the HC pleading for transfer of the case from the Seemapuri police. It has directed us to approach a lower court. The lower court accordingly asked the Delhi Police to submit a report,'' said Dubey.
The woman, who is now in hiding after she and her fiance were forced out of Dilshad Garden, told Times City that they have also moved the National Commission for Women.
Meanwhile, both the Delhi Police and Ghaziabad police dismissed the allegations. Sources said the allegations were baseless and "personally motivated to malign the image of some directors of a respected company''. "The woman has fallen prey to the vested interests of some people. Our probe has found that the accused men were at different locations when the incident took place. We are now planning to cancel the original FIR and instead lodge a case of supplying false information against the woman,'' said a source in the district. "It is only a property dispute which has turned ugly,'' said a Ghaziabad police officer.

'First Lady of Qaeda's' arrest highlights rising role of women in terror

'First Lady of Qaeda's' arrest highlights rising role of women in terror

Fri, Jul 2 04:30 PM

Washington, July 2 (ANI): The arrest of the 'First Lady of Al Qaeda,' Heila al-Qusayyer, has rung the alarm bells for the Saudi authorities, who have continued to turn a blind eye to women's participation in the terror outfits, till the recent discovery about her was disclosed.

"Al Qaeda has had problems recruiting more men, and women seem more willing to participate." ABC News quoted Dr. Mustafa Alani, an expert in terrorism and security studies at the Gulf Research Center, as saying. According to the report, Saudi Arabia believes that her capture signals a need to rethink counter-terrorism strategy and pay more attention to the activities and recruitment of female operatives. Qusayyer's arrest is an indication how al Qaeda's new strategy has moved women up the jihadi ranks. Earlier, women were kept on the sidelines, unless their husband had become a martyr and then they wanted to martyr themselves in a suicide operation.

However, the scenario is gradually changing. "They're adapting. They're nimble, they're quick, and sometimes they're quite sloppy." Theodore Karasik, Director of Research and Development at the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis (INEGMA) in Dubai said while describing the rise of jihadi women in Al Qaeda. Al Qusayyer used divorce and remarriage to get close to the men in Al Qaeda she wanted to emulate.

One of those men is Saeed Al-Shehri, a former Guantanamo detainee who is now deputy leader of Al Qaeda in the  Arabian Peninsula. Qusayyer helped his wife, Wafa' Al-Shehri, enter Yemeni territory and recruit 'young girls' -wives and sisters of jihadis who would join them in serving Al Qaeda in Yemen, the report said. She was arrested on charges of running a cell of 60 militants, and recruiting young women to its ranks. She also raised money as the mainfundraiser for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and used Islamic charities as a front to take donations of cash and jewelry that then went to funding jihad, or holy war, it added. (ANI)

Woman alleges husband pushing her into prostitution

Woman alleges husband pushing her into prostitution

Noida, July 3 (PTI) A 25-year-old senior HR executive at a multinational corporation in Greater Noida, has alleged her husband was attempting to push her into prostitution as her parents were unable to fulfill his dowry demand.
The husband is working as senior manager in a South Delhi company.
She alleged her husband used to bring friends and ask her to have group sex with them.
"On the complaint of the woman, a case has been registered and investigations are on", said Noida Senior Superintendent of Police A K Singh.

Child custody disputes: Whose interest is paramount?

Child custody disputes: Whose interest is paramount?


By S Susheela Chinthamani

Disputes between spouses for the custody of their child is taking the form of a battle fought with vengeance inside and outside the court rooms.

In the midst of groups of fathers, mothers, lawyers and the judges — talking, screaming, shouting, listening and ordering — the children are seen hearing about their ‘paramount interest’ being discussed at length.
Someday, these children will look back and question what was their ‘paramount interest?’ Was it independent of the interest of the father, mother, lawyers or the judge? Why were they not allowed to enjoy their childhood and left to be unsafe? Was it not interference with their rights in the guise of protection of their ‘paramount interest?’ The troubling answer may make them lose respect for society, including their parents.

Each of the separated parents suffering from ‘parent  alienation syndrome’ tries to have exclusive custody of the child, highlighting how dangerous it is for the child to be with the other parent. Children are asked to tell lies, forced to write letters to judges about their unwillingness to go with the other parent, compelled to give their opinions about their choice of a parent, etc. The volition of the children are given more importance than their actual paramount interest.
The parent, having limited custody rights, tries to play the role of an ‘entertainment-provider’ for the child in order to attract the child. The children are compelled to pose for hectic photo and video sessions to collect evidence to be placed before the courts. They are lured by expensive gifts and foreign trips, excellent holidays provided by a parent as against the other with whom they have to stay, study, be disciplined and learn the hard lessons of life. Without giving much thought, the children often express their wish to stay with the ‘entertainment providers.’

Children are treated as joint properties and demand for shared parenting and equal rights is common. The situation is worse when both the parents are busy with their career goals and the children stay with care-takers or grandparents. Grandparents, who develop attachment to the young children, fight for custody through their children. Everyone is focusing on parenting rights — rights of parents, of father, of mother, sentiments of grandparents, duty of a judge, etc — brushing aside ‘the paramount interest of the child.’

The child’s rights over parents begins with its birth. No one, much less a parent, can curtail this right over the other parent. The child has a right not to choose between the parents, not to judge its parents. It has a right to live in its little world full of fun, play, enjoyment, studies and unobstructed growth, unmindful of the mutual dislike and hatred between the parents. No one has a right to trespass and encroach upon their rights. Who can compensate the mother’s sweet kiss, screams, scoldings, warnings or the father’s hugs, kicks, or shouts?

Subjects of dispute

Frequent shuttling of children between the parents under the directions of the court, repeated contempt petitions between the parents alleging ‘disobedience’ instill a sense of panic among the children who do understand that they are made the subjects of dispute between their parents, and that the fight was against each other through them.

Only in the absence of dispute between the parents can the child stay happily with one of the parents, understanding it as a family arrangement. Each disputing parent fails to understand the indispensable need of the contribution of the other for the welfare of the child.

They forget that they are the only ones standing together who can safeguard the paramount interest of the child. When one of them doubts the bonafide of the other and suspects that the other would not stick to the accepted terms, problems arise. It is in this scenario, that the role of courts becomes indispensable in giving a binding force for the arrangements regarding the custody rights between the disputing parents.

The legislature in its wisdom has left the solution uncovered in the statutes. Even the courts find it difficult to choose between the equally capable and responsible parents of the unfortunate children. Any order passed by the court irritates either of the parents. Judges are often called ‘pro-women’ or ‘anti-women’ or those addressing to please the gallery.

It is high time the parents move from their interest towards the paramount interest of the child. All that a parent has to consider without prejudice is “is the company of the other parent dangerous to my child?” Shared parenting is a misnomer. Parenting cannot be shared with any one much less with the other parent. Each parent plays a unique role in the life of a child.
Ultimately, both the parents need to understand that notwithstanding their relationship as husband and wife no longer being cordial or having come to an end, they continue to be a father and a mother for the child and no statute can change that status.
(The writer is an advocate at the Karnataka High Court)