Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Relief to woman booked in dowry prohibition case

Relief to woman booked in dowry prohibition case

Abhinav Garg, TNN, Apr 11, 2010, 05.19am IST

NEW DELHI: At a time when there is a new trend of courts booking the woman and her kin for giving dowry, the Delhi high court has stayed one such FIR lodged against a woman and decided to examine the law in this regard.

Justice Vipin Sanghi recently stayed an FIR registered on the orders of a magistrate against one Payal and her family for allegedly giving dowry in her marriage. Payal had been pursuing a dowry harassment case against her husband in the court.

However, taking a strict view of her admitting in the FIR that she and her parents gave a substantial dowry amount to the husband's family, additional chief metropolitan magistrate Sanjay Bansal had slapped dowry prohibition sections against Payal and her family too.

This prompted her to approach HC for relief, through her lawyers Vijay Aggarwal and Rakesh Makhija. They argued before HC that a court can't book a victim of dowry harassment under the Dowry Prohibition Act as this is explicitly barred in the Act itself. Seeking relief, the lawyers further claimed the lower court went beyond the law to slap another FIR against the girl and her family.

Pointing to section 7 (3) of Dowry Prohibition Act the advocates for Payal argued before HC that a girl's statement she had been forced to give dowry can't be held against her or her family to book her under the act as here the woman is the victim.

Payal got married in Nov 2006 and according to the FIR two years later the husband dropped Payal with their few months old son at her parental home. Though he had promised to take them back to his house he never appeared, that led Payal to lodge a complaint with the Crime Against Woman Cell. Later, efforts at mediation having failed, a case under the the Domestic violence Act was also lodged against the husband.

But to Payal's utter shock, the lower court said being an educated woman she should have shown a better judgment than to agree to give dowry and invoked sections of the Dowry Prohibition Act against her. The HC is expected to specify the law once it delivers a judgment on her petition.

Court asks police to lodge FIR against bride for giving dowry

Court asks police to lodge FIR against bride for giving dowry

Friday, March 19, 2010

New Delhi: A Delhi court has directed the police to register an FIR against a woman and her family members, who alleged dowry harassment by her husband and in-laws, for meeting their demands during the marriage.

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Sanjay Bansal directed the police to proceed against the woman and her parents under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

"In my considered view at this stage, it appears that the accused persons (woman and her parents) are accomplice and the present complaint discloses the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Thus, the SHO concerned is directed to register the FIR and conduct investigation as per law," ACMM Bansal said.

Sameer Saxena and his family members were accused of committing cruelty with his wife by harassing her for dowry.
The wife, in an FIR with Roop Nagar police station, claimed her family members had given huge dowry to Saxena at the time of their marriage.

Saxena's counsel Ganganpreet Singh and Karanbir Singh submitted that in the FIR the woman had herself admitted giving huge dowry, which was an offence under the statute.

They filed an application in the court seeking registration of the FIR against the woman and her family members.
The counsel also referred to a Delhi High Court judgement support their contention, besides a circular issued by the Commissioner of Police, which stated that a woman can be prosecuted if she allegedly gave dowry.

Judges have to maintain high benchmark of integrity: SC

Judges have to maintain high benchmark of integrity: SC

New Delhi, Sept 22(PTI):

Holding it was imperative for judiciary to maintain a high benchmark of honesty, accountability and good conduct, the Supreme Court has upheld the sacking of a District & Session Judge, Kargil for misconduct.

"Upright and honest judicial officers are needed not only to bolster the image of the judiciary in the eyes of the litigant, but also to sustain the culture of integrity, virtue among the judges.

"The public perception of the judiciary matters just as much as its role in dispute resolution. The credibility of the entire judiciary is often undermined by isolated acts of transgression by a few members of the Bench, and therefore it is imperative to maintain a high benchmark of honesty, accountability and good conduct," a Bench of Justices Mukundakam Sharma and A R Dave said in a judgement.
The apex court passed the judgement while dismissing the appeal filed by Rajesh Kohli who while being posted as the Principal

District and Sessions Judge, Kargil, J&K was discharged from service on the ground of misconduct of alleged defrauding of money and using abusive language against the staff.The order of termination was passed by a Full Bench of the J&K High Court on April 26, 2003.

The apex court rejected the argument of Kohli that the order of termination was stigmatic and that he had obtained two increments during his probation period which vouchsafed for his satisfactory service.

"The mere granting of yearly increments would not in any manner indicate that after completion of the probation period the full court of the High Court was not competent to scrutinise his records and on the basis thereof take a decision as to whether or not his service should be confirmed or dispensed with or whether his probation should be extended," the Bench said.

The apex court said the High Court had a solemn duty to review the service of a judicial officer before confirming him/her in service.
"The District judiciary is the bedrock of our judicial system and is positioned at the primary level of entry to the doors of justice. In providing the opportunity of access to justice to the people of the country, the judicial officers who are entrusted with the task of adjudication must officiate in a manner that is becoming of their position and responsibility towards society, the apex court.

The apex court said the services rendered by a judicial officer during probation are assessed not solely on the basis of judicial performance, but also on probity as to how one has conducted himself and rejected his argument that the termination caused a stigma on his career.

Exchange of garlands is not marriage: SC

Exchange of garlands is not marriage: SC

New Delhi, Sep 22 (IANS):

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the exchange of garlands between bridegroom and the bride in a temple could not be treated as marriage.

The marriage solemnised with full customary rites and ceremonies alone would get the sanctity of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the apex court bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice T.S. Thakur said.

The court made these observations in the course of the hearing of a petition by one K.P. Thimmappa Gowda challenging his conviction by the Karnataka High Court for repeatedly having sex with a lady and impregnating her on the false promise of marrying her later.
The victim subsequently gave birth to a boy in 1996.

The accused Thimmappa, who was a teacher, was acquitted of the charges by the session court but his conviction was reversed by the high court.Both, the victim and the accused, were residents of Pallavanamashalli village in Shimoga district of Karnataka.

The court said that in the case of inter-caste marriage, the marriage may be solemnised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either the bridegroom or the bride.Justice Katju said that if, according to customs, the marriage ceremony involves Saptapadi, then the marriage would be considered solemnised on the completion of the seventh step.

A teacher should be a role model but the petitioner Thimmappa is a stain on the profession of teaching, Justice Katju said. The court was appalled to note that the victim was Thimmappa's employee working on his agriculture fields. The court noted that Thimmappa exploited her poverty, repeatedly raped her and then abandoned her.The court said that the conduct of Thimmappa in refusing to accept the decision of the village panchayat to marry the victim was far from that of a gentleman.Subsequently, Thimmappa married another woman from whom he has two daughters.

Thimmappa's counsel offered Rs.2 lakh as alimony to the victim in return for his acquittal in the case. Justice Thakur said: “Let him save his two lakhs and spend seven years in imprisonment.” Describing the offer as ridiculous, Justice Thakur said that “no court would accept it”.

The court adjourned the matter by four weeks during which Thimmappa would tell the court as to what amount he could offer the victim in terms of cash and agriculture land by way of settlement.

The court took note of the fact the child of the victim was already 15 years old and she was a single unwed mother.

Bride, kin charged with giving dowry – Court orders FIR against woman for harassing husband-Delhi court

Bride, kin charged with giving dowry – Delhi court

19 sep 2010
Beware those who give hefty amounts in dowry even if there was no demand from the groom’s side. In an interesting case recently, a woman and his family were in the dock for giving hefty dowry even when it was not asked for. The woman later levelled charges of torture against her in-laws, despite giving a hefty dowry.

The woman landed in trouble when the court ordered to file a criminal case against her and her family members for giving dowry.
The additional chief metropolitan magistrate (ACMM) Lokesh Kumar Sharma also pulled up a Delhi police official for delaying action after receiving a complaint.
“It is a settled law that if a woman, who is well-educated, marries in a house inspite of dowry demands, she is accomplice to the crime,” the court said.
The ACMM also said that “It appears that the SHO prepares reply without applying his mind. Previously also, he placed on record certain communications which were uncalled and unwarranted.”
The ACMM ordered the Station House Officer (SHO) of Shahdara to register an FIR on a complaint filed by the harassed husband. The couple had got married in 2009 but the husband and wife strained relations soonafter.
The complainant husband alleged that he was given dowry by his in-laws at the time of marriage but he did not complain about the same and accepted the articles of properties of his wife.

also @

CITY | Tuesday, August 31, 2010 | Print | Close

Court orders FIR against woman for harassing husband

Shikha verma | New Delhi

A city court pulled up an official of the Delhi Police for delaying action against a complaint. The court directed the SHO concerned to register an FIR against the woman and her family in a matrimonial dispute and dowry case.

“It appears that the SHO prepares reply without applying his mind. Previously also, he placed on record certain communications which were uncalled and unwarranted," said Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Lokesh Kumar Sharma.

The court ordered the Station House Officer (SHO) of Shahdara to register the FIR on a complaint filed in the court by the harassed husband within 48 hours of the order.

The woman had complaint of being tortured by her in-laws despite giving a hefty dowry. However the woman landed in trouble after the court ordered to file a criminal case against the woman and her family members for giving dowry. The SHO submitted before the court, "Due to delayed reporting of the matter, I was unable to takes cognisance in this case."

Annoyed with the reply of the SHO, ACMM Sharma said, "I fail to understand as to under which provision of law, the SHO has been empowered to take cognisance of the cases. Additional Commissioner of Police (ACP) Shahdara DV Joshi has been called along with the SHO."

In the complaint filed through counsels Gagan Preet Singh and Karan Bir Singh, the husband referred to the allegations made by his wife before the Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell of the Delhi Police that a huge dowry was paid by his wife family without being asked for the same.

The couple got married on December 2, 2009 and as apparent from the complaint, differences between the husband and the wife developed soon after the marriage. The complainant husband alleged that he was given dowry by his in-laws at the time of marriage but he did not complain about the same and accepted the articles of properties of his wife. Whereas, the wife had made similar allegation in her petitions filed in the court for seeking maintenance and prosecution of her husband and his family members under Domestic Violence Act.

"It is a settled law that if a woman, who is well-educated, marries in the same house inspite of dowry demands, she is accomplice to the crime," the court said. In her complaint before the CAW, she had alleged that her mother and brother had spent Rs 10 lakh in the marriage and given handsome dowry articles, gold jewellery and Rs 50,000 cash, the counsels Gagan Preet Singh and Karan Bir Singh submitted before the court.

The court acted on the complaint filed by the man seeking registration of the FIR against his wife and family members as police had refused to act on his plea earlier.

More DP 3 case on wife and gang news @

Reasons for judgment must: SC

Reasons for judgment must: SC

21 sep 2010

The Supreme Court has now put it in black and white on why recording reasons while giving a judgment is important and crucial for “sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system”.

Outlining as many as 15 points, the court held the reasons as an “indispensable” component of a decision-making process by not just judicial but even quasi-judicial and administrative bodies.

Insisting that reasons must be part of every judgment, the SC asserted that recording reasons is “a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency”.

Recording of reasons operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power, observed the court. It added that reasoned judgment reassures that discretion has been exercised without any extraneous considerations.

It emphasised that reasons accompanying decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. “A pretence of reasons or rubber-stamp reasons is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process,” it said in a case perusing two appeals filed by a builder and another by the Corporation Bank.

Both had questioned an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Woman unable to choose between parents, husband

Woman unable to choose between parents, husband

CHENNAI: Caught between her husband and her parents, a 25-year-old M Phil degree-holder expressed contrasting views — one inside the court and another as she was coming out of it — on Monday, and ended up in a Government Home in Mylapore.

It was high drama on the Madras High Court premises when Deepa, who was produced before a division bench comprising Justice M Chocka­lingam and Justice M Sathya­nara­yanan, following a habeas corpus writ petition by her husband Manimaran, told the court that she wanted to go with her parents but changed her mind when she came out.

When her father, Sakthivel, and some relatives tried to drag Deepa towards a car despite her protests and cries, advocates on the premises intervened. Deepa was again produ­ced bef­ore the judges in their chambers, where Advocate R C Paul Kana­karaj told them she wanted to join her husband but was being prevented by her father and his henchmen.

The bench, in its second brief order, said, “In appraisement of the situation and in view of the safety of the detenue”, Deepa will stay at the government home “until further orders” — and made it clear that neither Manimaran nor Sakthivel should disturb her.

According to Manimaran’s advocate Y Deva Arul Prakash, the couple got married on October 10, 2008, but started living together only this June as they had been pursuing their studies –– Manimaran was doing his BL. On August 13, Sakthivel took his daughter away by force, prompting the habeas corpus petition seeking that she be produced in court. Both Deepa and Manimaran are Dalits but he is a Christian, whereas she is a Hindu.

Facing flak from court, police transfer case to women’s cell

Facing flak from court, police transfer case to women’s cell

NEW DELHI: With Prasad Nagar police station facing flak for poor handling of the siblings sex abuse case, the central district police have decided to transfer the case to the womens' cell of the district. They will also write to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) to assign an independent member who will assist the investigations, claimed sources in the central district deputy commissioner of police's office.

The decision comes after a local court directed the police to assign a senior police officer, along with the investigating officer, in the shocking gangrape and sodomy case so that all the accused are apprehended at the earliest.
Sources in the police said the victims and their mother met DCP (central) Jaspal Singh late on Monday night and demanded the case be handed over to the CBI or the crime branch for a ''fair inquiry''.

However, when Times City contacted him on Tuesday, Singh refused to say much.

''We are doing the needful. We cannot comment on an investigation where both the accused and the victims are mostly minors. Once a rape case is registered, it cannot be annulled, not even if the victim's party apply for it unless the court agrees to it. We are trying to ascertain the identity of the two other accused as we did not find anyone with that name studying in Class IX of that school,'' said the officer.

However, Subhas Nagaar, the social worker who helped the victims' mother lodge the case, said: ''It's true that the identity of one of the absconding minors is difficult to establish as he does not study in the same public school where the victims' studied. But the other accused is the son of a teacher in the same school. We have information that this minor is attending school every day."

Nagar added: "As for the other accused, they are all residents of Karol Bagh and their families own successful businesses in the area. There is an obvious attempt to cover up the incident by only projecting the driver as a monster.''

Bahu (Daughter inlaw) in dock after Sasur (Father inlaw) commits suicide – Delhi HC

Bahu (Daughter inlaw) in dock after Sasur (Father inlaw) commits suicide – Delhi HC

22 Sep 2010

NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Tuesday issued a notice to a woman accused of driving her father-in-law to commit suicide.
Justice S N Dhingra issued the notice on an appeal filed by the Delhi
police through its prosecutor O P Saxena challenging the woman's acquittal by a trial court.

In its appeal, police decried the approach of the trial court, which even while recording that the woman abused and harassed her husband and her in-laws, refused to read any intention in her to drive the father-in-law to commit suicide.

‘Adjournments necessary part of complex legal proceedings’-Delhi HC

‘Adjournments necessary part of complex legal proceedings’-Delhi HC

22 Sep 2010

While one hears several orders by the courts slamming the practice of seeking adjournments, a Delhi High Court judge has an intriguing take on the same.

Adjudicating an appeal filed, not by the state or the complainant, but by an accused complaining of the several adjournments sought by the prosecution, Justice S N Dhingra observed it was being realistic in understanding the essential nuances of court proceedings in the manner they actually worked.

The judge defined adjournments in a trial as the “sine qua non” — a Latin legal maxim meaning an indispensable and essential action or condition— of the Indian justice delivery system. “Adjournments have become the sine qua non of our judicial system. When the trial court refuses to give adjournment, even on fake grounds, the other party approaches the next higher court. The next higher court normally allows such petitions and more delay in the trial occurs,” noted Justice Dhingra.

Given the tricky situation, it was better to defer the proceedings for a reasonable period, as it was the only “practical” move available, according to the judge. “Under the circumstances, I consider that the trial court always considers it better to give an adjournment instead of letting the case get delayed for several months. No fault can be found with this practical approach being adopted,” said Justice Dhingra.

Justice Dhingra was deciding an application by an accused, charged with murder and robbery, who claimed unnecessary adjournments were being sought by the prosecution. The judge called for the trial court records and asked the state prosecutor to give a chart detailing what had happened on every date of hearing. The chart showed that on several occasions, adjournments had been sought by both the prosecutor as well as the defence counsel jointly, hence no party could be blamed. Justice Dhingra then dismissed the petition. A senior prosecutor concurred, saying if the court was satisfied with the reasons, the Code of Criminal Procedure allowed adjournments to serve the ends of justice.