Saturday, August 21, 2010

Misuse of 498a and need for Amendment – panel discussion of SC judgment on misuse of 498a and dowry laws by women-IBN7 on MUDDA 21 AUGUST 2010

Misuse of 498a and need for Amendment – panel discussion of SC judgment on misuse of 498a and dowry laws by women-IBN7 on MUDDA 21 AUGUST 2010


PART 1/3





PART 2/3





PART 3/3





Misuse of 498a in rajasthan pattrika

Misuse of 498a in rajasthan pattrika page 11 of 21 aug 2010



Personal Laws (Amendment) Bill, passed unanimously ,Women’s Bill to be brought in LS soon: Govt

Personal Laws (Amendment) Bill, passed unanimously ,Women’s Bill to be brought in LS soon: Govt

NEW DELHI: The Government has said that the much-awaited Women’s Reservation Bill will be brought to the Lok Sabha soon.

“The Women’s Reservation Bill will be a reality soon under the Chairmanship of Madam Speaker. Any amendment will also be taken up at a subsequent period. The House should not reflect a male chauvinist approach,” the Law Minister, Mr M. Veerappa Moily, sa id in the Lok Sabha, replying to a debate on the Personal Laws (Amendment) Bill 2010.

The amendments to the proposed bill are required to meet the demands of parties like RJD and SP, who are seeking quota within quota for women belonging to scheduled castes, tribes, OBCs and minorities.

The Constitution (Amendment) Bill has already been passed by the Rajya Sabha with the Congress, BJP and Left joining hands much to the discomfiture of several other parties seeking a sub-quota.

Referring to a large number of pending cases which affected women and children, Mr Moily said his Ministry was working on classifying the pending cases pertaining to women and children.

“We will do prioritisation of such cases, whether they are pending in local courts or the Supreme Court. This needs to be done so that women and children do not have to wait too long to get justice,” he said.

With all parties supporting the Personal Laws (Amendment) Bill, the House unanimously passed the measure which paves the way for women to get equal rights in guardianship and adoption of children.

Among other things, the amendment would help “fit” mothers to become guardians of minor which was not the case so far.

The Bill, passed in Rajya Sabha earlier this week, amends the Guardians and Wards Act (GWA) 1890 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA) 1956.

It aims at including “mother along with father as a fit person to be appointed as guardian so that courts shall not appoint any other person as a guardian of minor if either of the parents is fit to be the guardian of such minor.” The measure, which would make the process gender-neutral, also aims at removing hurdles in the way of a married woman to adopt. She can also give a son or daughter for adoption. — PTI

मेरी पत्नी किन्नर है..

मेरी पत्नी किन्नर है..


मुरादनगर। मुरादनगर के एक युवक ने अपनी पत्नी को किन्नर कह कर उससे तलाक लेने का फैसला लिया है। युवक का कहना है कि उसके ससुराल वालों ने उससे 50 हजार के गहने लेकर अपनी किन्नर बेटी से उसका विवाह करा दिया।

युवक मुरादनगर स्थित एक इंजीनियरिंग कॉलेज में काम करता है। उसने कोर्ट में याचिका दायर की है कि राजनगर के एक कॉलेज में काम करने वाला शख्स अपनी बेटी का रिश्ता लेकर उसके पास आया और उसने यह बात युवक से छुपाई की उसकी बेटी किन्नर है।

शादी पक्की होने के बाद युवक ने पत्नी के पिता को 50 हजार रुपए के गहने भी दिए थे। इसके बाद 15 फरवरी को 2010 को युवक की उस लड़की से शादी करा दी गई। शादी के बाद युवक को जब इस बात का पता चला की उसकी पत्नी किन्नर है। यह जानने के बाद युवक ने कोर्ट का दरवाजा खटखटाया। दर्ज याचिका में युवक ने आरोप लगया है कि पत्नी के बाप ने उसके दिए गए 50 हजार के जेवर देने से इंकार कर दिया है।

Outgoing judge found Guj court staff slow

Outgoing judge found Guj court staff slow

TNN, Aug 21, 2010, 03.28am IST

AHMEDABAD: Justice Bhagwati Prasad of Gujarat High Court feels that the court department was too slow to keep up with the speedy disposal of cases. Justice Prasad has been transferred to the Jharkhand High Court and will take oath in Ranchi as chief justice soon.

The judge spent nearly two and half years in the Gujarat High Court and on several occasions he reprimanded the court registry because the department could not supply papers on time. At one point, he even expressed doubts in an open court if he was discriminated against because he was not from this state.

"I disposed of nearly 10,000 cases here in my stay of above two years. But in many criminal appeals, the registry could not provide paper books in time. They could not cope with the speed of the court," he said.

Justice Prasad last year refused to hear an appeal against Pota court order in Haren Pandya case. He expressed displeasure against conduct of the advocates, who did not supply English translation of documents in time. "I know English and Hindi, and the material was in Gujarati. I asked for translation, but they were supplying translated copies in instalments. I am not supposed to deliver my judgement in instalments. I refused to hear the case," the judge said.

During his stint, Justice Prasad had presided over in an important case challenging the Pota Review Committee recommendations in the sensational Godhra carnage case. He ordered for dropping terror charges in this case.

When asked about his views regarding the Naxalism-affected region where he is going, Justice Prasad said that violence is not something that the state of Gujarat does not witness. "Just few days ago, one person was brutally killed outside this high court only," he said referring to the murder of RTI activist Amit Jethava. The judge said that courts are not meant to reduce violence in society, but to adjudicate in criminal cases.

Live-in lovin

Live-in lovin

A couple of generations ago the idea of a live-in relationship was practically unheard of. Today the institution of marriage is still fundamental to the very fabric of society -- holding together families, tradition and marking one of the most important moments in people’s lives -- but increasing numbers are choosing to live together without getting married. So much so, even the law now has a view on the matter. TOI-Crest explores

It drives me absolutely mad when Joe leaves his clothes lying on the floor!" Rebecca complains of her boyfriend of one year. "He also tends to have mood swings when he's very tired," she grumbles. Joe and Rebecca, 25, have been living together for the last six months. This period has given them a chance to find out each other's foibles before they decide whether to marry and commit to each other for life. "Living together for a bit is a great chance to test the water," says Rebecca. "Joe may have a few bad habits but I now know I can live with them. At least there'll be no surprises after we're married."

The live-in dream

Increasing numbers of couples around India are opting for the benefits of a live-in relationship over marriage. In some respects, living together offers couples the perfect relationship. It allows all the benefits of marriage - without the hassle of commitment. If things turn sour, either partner can always just walk away. Couples have the chance to get to know each other without the pressures of family, the law and formality getting in the way.

Relationship consultant Rachna Kothari explains: "A live-in relationship is like a trial marriage. It gives the couple a good graph on their compatibility. It's like a dream relationship, with no strings attached. If you need to end the live-in, you just walk out. Whereas if you need to end your marriage, the divorce procedure is long and hassling." Such are the benefits of living-in that some couples do not feel the need to switch to marriage at all.

Meena Shah, 63, and Dinubhai, 73, have been together for 25 years. They find being unwed a happy alternative to marriage and see no need to tie the knot. "Rather than fight and get a divorce, I knew it was better to live together and part ways if things soured," says Meena. "If a marriage does not work, it does not work. Law can force people to live together but happiness cannot be enforced."
Trouble in paradise

Live-ins may offer freedom and equality, but there is a gloomier side to choosing a relationship out of the boundaries of law and social conformity. What if things go wrong? Will the law offer any protection to either party? If a partner in a live-in decides to walk out, could the other be left homeless? Will children born into a live-in be recognised by the law? The answers to these questions seem to be changing on a regular basis.

Bar code

Despite couples like Meena and Dinubhai, the concept of live-in relationships is still relatively new in India, and the courts are still deciding how to treat them. The Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act - which acknowledges live-in relationships - was first introduced in 2005. It gives protection to the woman in case of the breakdown of a livein relationship.

Last week, the Delhi High Court ruled that there are no legal binds in a live-in relationship. Justice SN Dhingra described them as "walk in and walk out relationships" where there are "no strings attached". A few days later, the Supreme Court overruled this decision, stating that live-ins can be presumed as marriage if they are continued for a long time. With the courts interpreting differently, it can be hard for people in live-in relationships to understand what their rights are. So where do they stand at the moment? Gyanendra Misra, a practicing lawyer in Delhi High Court, explains that the law is very fluid on the issue of live-ins and there is no clarity on the issue of a child that is born out of such a relationship.

"Courts tend to take a different stand on this situation from time to time. A baby born to a couple who are not married is called a love-child. Such children are treated as illegitimate, and denied any legal rights from the father's side," says Misra, adding, that it's time for the law to give clarity on the status of these relationships. "With change in social fabric, the legislature should codify the law to remove all ambiguity, " he says. But with the different judgements coming out of various courts, Misra feels that this sort of ad-hoc approach is creating confusion and causing harm to the legal fabric rather than sorting out the issue. From a rights perspective, choosing live-in over marriage is a risky business. Should things go wrong, it is unclear whether children from the relationship will have any inheritance rights or whether either party will have any legal protection. For some, this is simply not the point.
For Murali and Jennifer, advertising professionals in Chennai, the latest court rulings won't make a blind bit of difference to their relationship of three years. "It is we who have decided to live together. We are both mature individuals and no court can come in between us on our decisions," says Jennifer. Some couples would be happier if the law kept its nose out of their relationship! "The point of living-in is to escape the legalities that have epitomised an institution like marriage," explains Nancy, who has been living with her partner Saawan for the past three years. She believes opting for a live-in relationship depends on the individual and people who go in for such a relationship are not really concerned about whether it gets legal sanction or not.

A safer alternative

Most people, however, decide not to take the risk. When weighing up the freedoms of a live-in relationship against the security of marriage, for most, tying the knot comes out on top. One such couple is Anamika and Rahul (names changed) from Kolkata. They toyed with the idea of living-in, but decided it was too risky. They have now been wed for two years. "Marriage is more secure," Anamika explains. "Also, I think people try harder to keep a relationship going when they are married instead of flippantly walking out." Clinical psychologist and psychotherapist Varkha Chulani agrees that couples will put in more effort to save a marriage than a live-in relationship. "Divorce still has many more social ramifications than the ending of a live-in, so marriage weighs couples down more. They think twice before separating and work harder at staying together."

Make your own rules

Of course, when considering something as personal as relationships, there can be no hard and fast rule. Ultimately it is impossible to generalise. As Kothari puts it: "It depends how devoted or committed the couple is, because that will determine the levels of trust and commitment. If an individual is fully into his partner, then the label of their relationship will not affect him."

Gay not happy

Some people are not at liberty to choose marriage over living-in. Although homosexuality among consenting adults cannot be treated as a crime in India, gay couples do not have the right to marry. This means their relationships do not have the protection that the law offers to heterosexual couples. "I don't know how I will be able to pick up life's threads now," broods Abhijeet Mukherjee (name changed). "My life depended on keeping house for Charles and creating recipes in my free time. Now there is just this unending feeling of emptiness." After nine years of living together at Charles' home, Charles told Abhijeet their interests were no longer alike. For Abhijeet, the option of marriage had not been available at all.

What lies ahead

Who knows what the experience of Charles and Abhijeet would be if they had been born a couple of decades later. Perhaps, in the future, couples like Charles and Abhijeet will be allowed to marry. Or, maybe the law will give the same standing to live-ins and marriage, reducing the incentive for people to wed and thus changing the very fabric of society.

However, the concept of marriage is so intrinsic to Indian society that any changes are likely to take a long time.
According to matrimonial lawyer Mrinali Deshmukh, societal views and the law evolve together. "As society has become more accepting of live-in relationships the law has changed to recognise them, and as the law acknowledges live-in relationships, so do society's attitudes start to adapt." However, attitudes vary so much around India from state to state, family to family, person to person, that Deshmukh's rule is not infallible. The law may change to accept live-in relationships, but some families never will.
Supratim and Ananya (names changed)), for example, are having a hard time convincing their parents to allow them to live together, Supreme Court acceptance or not. They have been dating for the past three years and their parents have been pressuring them to marry. "We are not very keen on marriage right now," says Supratim. "Perhaps we may ask our parents to find out more about the Supreme Court ruling so that we can start living under the same roof!"

The law on live-in relationships around the world

No matter how long the relationship, unmarried couples do not have the same legal standing as those who are married
Both parents are financially responsible for their children regardless of whether they are married, co-habiting or separated
Partners in live-in relationships do not generally have inheritance rights over each other's property, unless they have been named in a will. This, however, can be contested.

Live-in couples are not legally obliged to support each other financially, even if they are sharing a home or raising a family together. Unlike married couples they are not entitled to receive maintenance payments from their partner, even if they have lived together for a number of years or given up their career to look after the home and children

There is no legal procedure required in China to end a live-in relationship
Under Chinese law children born out of wedlock have equal rights to those born to parents who are married
Contracts can be made between couples in a live-in relationship


Partners in a live-in relationship do not have the right to inherit each other's property, as is the case for married couples. However, property can be willed to each other

In the USA, the proportion of births outside of marriage has risen to almost 40%, according to recent federal data cited by USA Today Couples can agree to a Cohabitation Agreement, which outlines their financial responsibilities towards each other as well as remedies for a split

Some states have common-law marriage laws. These refer to legal marriage by default due to an unmarried couple's actions. These normally involve living together for more than a year and presenting themselves to the outside world as husband and wife
(Inputs from Radha Sharma and Ashleshaa Khurana in Ahmedabad, Swati Sengupta in Kolkata, Daniel P George in Chennai, Jayashree Nandi in Bangalore and Shikha Mishra in Delhi)

Supreme Court suggests changes in IPC section 324

Supreme Court suggests changes in IPC section 324

Aug 21, 2010, 0:25 IST

The Supreme Court (SC) has recommended making IPC section 324, which relates to voluntarily causing injury, compoundable to lessen the burden on courts.

Justices Markandey Katju and TS Thakur said the section and “many other offences” should be made compoundable. They have already suggested to the law commission and law ministry that suitable amendments be made in CrPC section 320 to make several non-compoundable offences compoundable.

This, the judges said, would “greatly reduce the burden of the courts”. They, however, added that settlement or compromise was not permissible in serious criminal acts.

Compoundable offences are those which can be settled outside court. When an offence is compoundable, the aggrieved party can allow compromise against compensation.

According to the original CrPC of 1973, an offence punishable under IPC section 324 could be made compoundable with the leave of the court. A 2005 amendment made the section non-compoundable, which means a case will continue even if the parties arrive at a settlement.

But last year, a bench of justices Arijit Pasayat and AK Ganguly offered another interpretation of the amended law. It noticed that the amended CrPc Act of 2005 had not been brought into force yet.

“Therefore, the offence under section 324 IPC is still compoundable with the permission of the court,” the bench said, while allowing a petition by Diwaker Singh who had been sentenced to two years by a Patna court. The court rejected a plea by Singh and the complainant, who was the aggrieved in the case, to amicably settle the dispute. The high court too declined to scrap his conviction. However, SC granted him bail in 2004.