Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Irretrievable breakdown marriage as new proposed ground for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act and Feminist Abuse of IPC 498a, Domestic Violence, Child custody laws and Marital laws a LIVE interactive panel discussion on p7 news Channel on Kanoon Special

Irretrievable breakdown marriage as new proposed ground for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act and Feminist Abuse of IPC 498a, Domestic Violence, Child custody laws and Marital laws to Extort and blackmail husband and his family, a LIVE interactive panel discussion on p7 news Channel on Kanoon Special programme on 29 May 2011


PART 1/4




PART 2/4




PART 3/4




PART 4/4


Sunday, May 29, 2011

Custody disputes: Call for India to sign Hague Convention

Custody disputes: Call for India to sign Hague Convention

New Delhi, May 27 (IANS) A Supreme Court judgement affirming the jurisdiction of Indian courts to deal with disputes of children’s custody even if they are foreign citizens has raised demands for the government to accede to the Hague Convention dealing with such disputes and thus protect the rights of non-resident Indians.

In a judgement with far-reaching implications for Indians living abroad, the Supreme Court bench of Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Justice T.S. Thakur ruled that simply because a foreign court had passed an order, it did not mean that Indian courts should put off deciding on the issue.

“Simply because a foreign court has taken a particular view on any aspect concerning the welfare of the minor, it is not enough for the courts in this country to shut out an independent consideration of the matter. Objectivity, and not abject surrender, is the mantra in such cases,” Justice Thakur wrote in the judgement.

This principle has been upheld by the apex court even earlier, but its reiteration in the recent judgement has raised demands for the government to take steps to accede to the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.

Bangalore-based Children’s Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting has called for the government to sign the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

In cases of one parent taking away the child to another country, the parent left behind is deprived of the custody of the child. The only solution for this crime is to sign the Hague Convention as it involves different aspects of private international law.

Supreme Court advocate Kirti Singh explained that Indian law does not recognise parental child abduction as a crime.

When one parent removes the child from the family home, or throws the mother out of the house – it is an offence against the child. The child is taken away to an alien atmosphere or is deprived of the presence of the mother and the child suffers due to the withdrawal from the familiar environment, Singh added.

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980, was a means of settling inter-country custody suits. India is not a party to the Hague Convention but with the large number of Indians living and working abroad, there is need to have amendments to the law to protect the rights of children in marital disputes.

The judgement was given on the appeal of a Delhi-based dentist against a Delhi High Court order overturning an interim order given by a city court in a custodial matter for her minor son.

The petitioner, mother of the 11-year-old son, had been awarded interim custody of the child by the trial court in Delhi.

The couple had been living in the US after their marriage, where their son was born. The appellant returned to India with her son in 2008 and filed an application for custody of the child under the Guardians and Wards Act.

Her US-based husband obtained a decree from a US court granting him custody of the child. He had further filed a case against his estranged wife for running away to India with their son despite a court decree granting him custody.

The Delhi High Court had set aside the trial court order, holding that an Indian court had no jurisdiction to decide on the matter as the father had been given custody of the child by a US court. The mother had appealed to the Supreme Court against the high court order.

The Supreme Court bench said since the interest and welfare of the child was of primary concern, a competent court in India was fully entitled and, indeed, duty-bound to examine the matter independently, taking the foreign judgment, if any, only as an input for its final adjudication. The apex court allowed the trial court to hear the mother’s application for custody of the child.


Torn between Mom and Dad

Torn between Mom and Dad


When a marriage sours, it is the children who are affected the most. Torn apart, feeling guilty, children of broken homes cope with the trauma in different ways and the effects can be long-lasting. Counselling and love can hold out the hope of healing, says GEETA PADMANABHAN.


Balki, 40, married, with two kids and a high-income job, constantly picks on his mother



“You and dad kept quarrelling, not an ideal situation to grow up in,” he charges. “I have what it takes, would have done better if you'd spent more time with me.”

Sayee, 14, whose parents are separated, lives with grandma. “I do all the work,” she complained to her counsellor. She avoids friends since they talk of fun with their families. “What will I tell them?” she asked. A five-year-old, when asked to draw “My family”, drew a couple and two houses. Another, whose mom has remarried, asked in confusion, “Which father's name do you want?”

Somu, 13, answers all questions from his therapist with a nod. His case-sheet says he is quiet and obedient, so why have his grades plummeted? “He is taking the adult role of being responsible and adjusts with the situation — not a happy thing,” his counsellor says.

Psychiatrists and counsellors across the country tell us that among the children sent for counselling, an increasing number are from broken homes. “A new situation needing new approaches,” says Magdalene Jeyarathnam, Director, Centre for Counselling, Chennai, citing the column-hogging Vanitha-Akash case. Baffled by the kid's aversion to mom, the Madras High Court ordered their kid to be seen by a psychiatrist. “Either the child suffered some kind of abuse when he was with his biological mother and stepfather or his biological father tutored the child so well that he is refusing to go with his mother,” said the judge. “The case has posed the greatest challenge... For once I [was] at my wits' end on how to deal with a nine-year-old boy.”


Insensitive parents

Case studies have pieced together what kids go through in unhappy homes. Blissfully unaware of the impact, couples blame each other, raise voices and use harsh language, even as the kid watches helplessly (“Child abuse,” insists Magdalene.) He/She is sucked into the cold war between parents (“Tell dad he's free to do what he wants”/“Is your mom ever home?”), mercilessly co-opted into the frustrations of a crumbling marriage (“If not for you, I would have done it differently. I have to stay with him/her for your sake”.)

If this isn't devastating, there's the painful stretch of the divorce process. For months, the kid is hauled from court to stuffy court. The unkindest cut is when a stranger in a courtroom asks, “Whom do you want, mom or dad?” Once visitation rights are settled, he has to get used to shuttling between homes. Abduction delivers the next punch. The petrified kid is plucked out of familiar surroundings, threatened with unpleasant consequences if he squealed on the parent or forgot the tutored script. “I'll kill you” he's told. Grow up fast and “know” the world, is the message.

The result is psychological damage. “Children carry guilt and shame from a broken marriage,” says Mohana Narayanan, who visits schools to help kids with behavioural problems. “How kids react to the collapse depends on their age, personality and family support.” Less than ten, they may feel responsible for the split. Teens blame the parents. It's loss of face for them to be a product of a broken marriage. The stigma, young adults fear, might dent marriage prospects. “The boy might hesitate to tell his parents that the girl of his choice is from a “dysfunctional” family. He may look past this, but has a problem convincing his parents,” explains Mohana.

Magdalene puts it differently: “A pacifist kid feels responsible, an assertive kid rages, a scared kid withdraws. The effects can be long-lasting.” Prof. Manju Mehta, Psychiatrist, AIIMS, worries about the loss of a sense of security, so essential for a growing child. “A stable family provides bonding and values,” she says. “With separation children miss the feeling of being loved. Both parents contribute to development in toddlers.” What if the mother's earning capacity is less, she asks. “This may affect his self esteem, leading to other emotional or conduct problems.”


Extreme reactions

Psychologist Pratima Havaldar at a Managerial Development Programme, Mumbai, has noticed both extremes in kids from divorced families. “They talk obsessively or decide not to talk on issues related to their parents,” she says. “Some avoid talk of any relationship, with peers, relatives.” What starts as apprehension during the divorce process breaks into aggression, lack of concentration and lowered academic interest, post-divorce. Kids who're too young to understand parental conflict can still sense the atmosphere, and are frightened by the threat to their security. Being dependent on moms, they often regress in behaviour. Step families don't always fill the gaps, she says. Children may feel torn between the parent with whom they live and the one they visit. “Traumatised kids experiment with delinquent activities,” she says.” They become disruptive, pick up quarrels, use inappropriate words, indulge in petty theft.


girl child 

Spare the child the uncertainty...

Heart-wrenchingly, they try to cope. One kid told the counsellor, “If I choose one the other will be upset, so I begged, ‘ Please stay together, it doesn't matter if you don't talk to each other'.” “Research reveals kids push through emotion-bending situations,” says Pratima. “Impact of divorce is intense in the first two years, but kids learn to carry on.” It is also true that kids breathe easy after separation. Isn't “shanthi” preferable to slanging matches? “Kids love both parents and think, “Ok, let them stay apart. I'll deal with them individually.”

It's complicated, but the healing begins at home. Dr. Sudhir Hebbar, Apollo Hospital, Bengaluru, who's had parents consulting him on kids with post-traumatic disorder, says, “Kids suffer from watching parental quarrels. We do recommend parents stay together for the sake of children, but this is just one consideration.” If a parent substitute is available, the impact of one person's absence will be less, says Dr. Manju.

Opting out is an absolute last resort, says Mohana. “What message are you sending out? Before becoming parents, become partners, build a strong relationship. Realise, kids will be affected when the marriage sours.” Talking to kids whose families are unravelling is very difficult, she points out. Kids tell her, ‘We fight because they fight.' “You can't expect them to resolve their problems sensibly. I tell pre-teens and teens, ‘They're still your parents'. They understand, but find it hard to duck the emotional sledge-hammer.” Continue to be a friend to your ex-partner, so he/she can be a parent, says Magdalene. Be civil, make decisions about the kid together. You have no right to cut the kid off from the other parent, unless there is a physical threat.

Some mums now “prepare” the kids for the impending separation. “My children's picture book, Living With Mom, Spending Time With Dad, takes us through the myriad emotions that two children Stephen and Alex experience during this tumultuous period,” said Madhu. Magdalene flips a colourful children's book to a page with different expressions on a baby bear face. “I ask them to describe the expressions, and kids invariably attribute their own emotions to the faces. “He is crying and crying,” they say looking at a grimace. Reading books on how kids/animals cope can be therapeutic.”

Members of the NGO Children's Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP) talk of better legislation. Since India hasn't signed the Hague Convention of Child Abduction, inter-parental child abduction isn't considered a crime here, they point out. They want child custody cases handled by a separate jury under the National Commission for Child Welfare (NCCW) so that they're dealt with sensitively and are disposed of speedily.

We have no say which way the marriage will sail, but couples can be guided by smooth winds, say experts. Magdalene tells of a woman who brought her kids aged 8 and 5 for counselling when she decided to separate. “After the divorce, the boy spent time with the father, got close to him, but worried it might upset mom. I spoke to her, and she said, “Why not? He's your father!” The kid needed to hear this from her.”


Counselling helps

Compulsory counselling for kids in all divorce cases and group sessions with other kids are some of the suggestions. Kids need to be assured that separation does not mean parents don't love them, says Magdalene.

“Say it a billion times, ‘It is not your fault, you have a life to live, you have a right to happiness'. Equip him to control what is within his control, but the best gift you can give the kid is to love your spouse.”

The names of children and parents have been changed.

Helpline for Centre For Counselling: +91-98847-00164 / +91-98847-00106


Thursday, May 26, 2011

Massive Procession Cum Dharna by NFHS on 4th June to protest heavy misuse of DV Act


ON 04-06-2011 – BANGALORE

PROCESSION CONCLUDED BY DHARNA on 04-06-2011 by National Family Harmony Society® to protest against heavy misuse of Domestic Violence Act.

About National Family Harmony Society®: “National Family Harmony Society®” NFHS is a Non Governmental Organization (NGO) promoting the cause of “family harmony” and “gender equality”. It is registered under “The Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960” and is based in Bangalore. We have branches in more than 16 states and in abroad too. We have approximately 16000 members all over India. To know more about us please visit www.family-harmony.org / www.498a.org.in / http://498amisuse.wordpress.com


Details of the Event

Procession starting at Town Hall @9.30 AM

Procession concluding at Banappa Park @10.15 AM

Dharna at Banappa Park 10.15 AM – 12.00 Noon

We request all members who participate in the procession to maintain discipline.

Kindly reach the start point of the procession on time so that there is good strength for procession.

The procession is a “silent protest” and there will be no slogan shouting.

However at the Dharna we are free to shout slogans.

To protest against the injustice by the Government we plan to tie black ribbon around mouth to symbolic show that MEN facing injustice are not even being allowed to speak out.

The Theme of the protest is Gandhi Ji’s 3 Monkeys!!

Judiciary – They are turning a blind eye to the injustice, saying they are law implementers and not law makers.

Legislature- Fearing from women vote bank, Legislature is not speaking out even though they know that Gender biased law’s are heavily misused.

Executive- The executive turn away MEN and do not listen to MEN saying “Do not involve us in this and solve your problem in the court”

So, the question is where do MEN GO???

If the 3 main pillars of the democracy have shut their doors on the MEN then we have hope only from the fourth pillar of the democracy i.e. Media.

We appeal all our media friends to help us to spread awareness regarding heavy misuse of the gender biased laws and injustice caused to MEN and his families due to this.

Please save the family and thereby save our great Nation to retain India a “Vasudeva Kutumbaham”.

Jai Hind!!

With profound respects,

For further information please contact.

Suresh P                                                                                              Mahesh M

President,                                                                                            General Secretary

9880141531                                                                                                 9731569970

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Why women cheat


Why women cheat

There are so many reasons why women cheat. None of them good, but the truth is it happens. The fact that some women believe they can get away with it is probably the most important reason why they cheat; moreover now than any other time in history.

Why women cheat

Common indicators of infidelity often involve her staying up later at night and/or staying in a different room - potentially on the phone or online. You may notice a new energy into getting dressed up, wearing perfume, going out or away for conferences, a disconnection from touching and an overall disconnect, but the major sign of cheating is not being present in the "primary" relationship and being very distant. Women will usually become very distant in a relationship when they are being unfaithful because they have developed feelings for another person and cannot split their emotions very easily.
Understanding why women cheat is crucial in order to understanding and recognising risk factors and/or indicators that your wife/girlfriend is cheating. But, more importantly, understanding why women cheat in general can help to prevent them from doing so and strengthen a bond of trust and communication between you and your partner.

Why women cheat

10 common reasons women give for cheating (in order)

1. Not having her needs met emotionally

This is the most common reason women give. This means, for whatever reason, feeling undervalued, unappreciated, disrespected and generally disconnected. Affection and communication are two of the biggest areas where men can leave women feeling unfulfilled emotionally

2. Resentment

Anger and frustration that women may harbour towards their significant other can create feelings of isolation and loneliness. After a prolonged period, some of these women start to seek companionship elsewhere.

3. Because they can

Many women are disproportionately exposed to men than women in the workplace, as a direct consequence, many have more options and chances to cheat. Like many people, some women just do it because the opportunity struck. Right or wrong were never factored in. This is probably one of the worst reasons given, but true.

4. Because they are longing for better sex

Plenty of cheating women are so unsatisfied with their sexual relationship that they eventually seek fulfillment elsewhere.

Why women cheat

5. Revenge

Plenty of cheating women see their actions as a form of justice against a partner who has wronged them in some way.

6. When there seems to be too much "baggage" in the relationship

A woman will only take so much. Unfortunately in the beginning of a relationship a woman can take more because her hormones are surging. Once the honeymoon phase wears off the baggage better wear off as well, otherwise she may start looking at her options. Baggage can be Ex's, out of control kids, overbearing family members, intrusive friends, etc.

7. Boredom

Bored women may seek an escape from the mundane. Cheating may be viewed as a way to add some excitement into her life. The thrill of doing something wrong or of potentially getting caught.

8. Feeling unattractive to her partner

If another guy comes along and starts telling her how beautiful she is and how special she, she may start to feel better around him than she feels around her partner. This is especially dangerous because those feelings will cause her to develop an attachment to the other man.

Why women cheat

9. Low self-esteem

In general sex is a drug; it makes us feel good. It also makes many of us feel desirable which gives us a false sense of self-esteem. Plenty of women will seek out sex, and lots of it, from many partners as a form of validation. This sense of worth and value is short lived and thus these women are caught continually seeking it out.

10. Some women cheat as sort of an exit strategy

She doesn't want to break up with you verbally so behaviourally she goes out and cheats on you so you break up with her. It's a coward's way out but, in her eyes, it's a way out nonetheless.

Why women cheat

How to keep her faithful

Simply be there for her emotionally. This simple solution has the potential to prevent nearly half of the cases of female infidelity. Easy ways to show her you are there for her emotionally can be simply hearing her out and listening to her problems. Do not try to solve her problems but rather just listen to them - maybe even hold her. You can ask her if there is anything that you can do to help but try to avoid jumping in with suggestions. Many times men jump in and start offering suggestions and the woman feels like she is not being heard. Another thing you can do is give her plenty of attention. Never give other women sexual attention - women are generally very jealous and resentful when it comes to this. It is very important that she feels like she is the primary woman in your life. This is critical to keeping her faithful.

Source: www.shavemagazine.com


Thursday, May 19, 2011


India :



Inspite of SC direction to review the same law LAW Ministry not taken any effective time bound action. This time they have to give us the time bound confirmation of action.

We wonder Whose life is in More Danger in India : Men or Women?
Crime Bure data 2005 : Married Men Sucide : 52k vs Married Women Sucide 28K.Still there is no LAW to Protect Men why?
2006 Crime Bure Data : Married Men Sucide:55452 vs. Married Women Sucide:29869.
2007 Crime Bure Data : Married Men Sucide:57593 vs. Married Women Sucide:30064
Will Our LAW Maker change the LAW 304B( dowry death) to 304C( Sowry Death) and 498A ( harrasement to wife) to 498B ( Sowry harrasement by wife)

Urgently Review the Present IPC 498A and Make Same Gender Natural.

The Government needs to act NOW Save Family Foundation urges the Government of India to make the following amendments to the law and ensure that ordinary citizens of India are spared from needless harassment:
1.Section 498A of IPC should be made bailable.

Section 498A, being non-bailable, allows punishing the accused by imprisonment even before guilt is established. This goes against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Abused women need protection, but placing unconditional faith in the statements of a woman and confining the accused husband and his family in police or judicial custody, until bail is granted by a court, is not the way to accord protection to women.

2.Section 498A of IPC should be made non-cognizable.

Innocent citizens are being arrested everyday based on mere complaints without requiring evidence or investigation. Even children and senior citizens are not being spared. IPC 498A, being a cognizable offence, violates a citizen’s right to due process.

3.IPC 498A and Domestic Violence Law should be made gender neutral.

Domestic abuse is not gender specific. The assumption that victims of physical, verbal, emotional, sexual, and financial abuse are always women is wrong. According the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “all are equal before the law, and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law”. Hence, men should also be accorded protection from physical, verbal, emotional, sexual, and financial abuse by women.

4. Persons who misuse IPC 498A and Domestic Violence Law should be penalized.

Misuse of the process of law not only costs the public exchequer dearly, but also destroys the personal lives of many innocent citizens. Misuse of law should be treated as a serious crime, and persons who use women-protection laws as weapons for settling personal scores in marital disputes should be severely punished.
Gender Biased LAW should immediately be made crime based instead of any assumption that all women never lie and all the men are born as Criminals. “MEN/WOMEN” word to be replaced by word “PERSON” and word wife/husband to be replaced with the word “SPOUSE”

Further it is totally wrong to assume and biased view that each and every suicide of a women due to men and all the suicide of men the same to be termed as social service by women , even when it is clear evidence that the women is responsible for the suicide of the men , still such women get Scot free . Our Study reports “Domestic Violence against Men” confirm the same beyond the reasonable dought (Enclosed for your reference). If we consider the definition of the Present DV act, like Verbal abuse, mental abuse, economical abuse, Physical abuse and sexual abuse, more than 98% Men also face the same at their Home.

The current domestic violence act was drafted by lawyers whose expertise on 1st principle of law making and justice can be shown to be questionable. Some of their key members are unable to understand that words police, bail, jail, bonds have no place in a civil law. A law to jail, “tadipar” and fine can be provided only in accordance with a criminal matter that is in criminal laws.The similar set of lawyers fail to provide IPC or the civil law where in the men have any rights though they make a claim that problems faced by men can be taken care of . The current Domestic violence laws need to scrap to be replaced by more reasonable laws a domestic harmony laws in consultation with a panel consisting of Retired judges. Such can be done in 6 months. Let us remove the lawyers from the equation and their self interest. Let the Husband/wife say the truth in Family courts, instead of making twisted allegation against each other by the twisted advice of lawyers. This law is cynically ignorant of the first principle of human rights, dignity, law and justice.

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Law), which evens the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, has termed as clumsily drafted, has several provisions that are wrong and goes against the common sense and tramples the fundamental rights, such as equal protection under the law and the right to own property. This is to bring to your notice these wrongs and request a review for changes, or scraping of this Law to help the society. Under section 17 of the DV Law, women can seek entry into any house, she ever lived in the past 10 years, whether she has any claim or right to it or not.

Under section 19 she can throw any man, who was in a domestic relationship with her, out of his own house. This law is worded in a fashion that the house could be of senior citizens or retirees, a man’s friends or relatives, etc. Senior citizens work all their lives to save and live in a house of their own to live their golden years with dignity. This is an outright injustice to force to them to abandon their own homes. This law offers unscrupulous women and their greedy relatives, the incentive to legally grab property and hold the owners to ransom or subject them to extortion.

While Judiciary seems to have a taken a much more proactive stance in containing misuse of DV laws compared to 498a and dowry law where in almost a free for all free reign has been given to misuser . The obvious misuse and abuse of families cases in DV are too numerous. All the cases filed with only one intention to extort the money form the husband’s family, nothing else.

We, on behalf of Save Family Foundation, Delhi, write to you to expeditiously amend the lopsided PWDVA which was passed on the basis of assumption and biased view along with under tremendous pressure from a small minority of vocal and radical Groups elements of our country, who want that each and every home a litigation should start ( Promotion of Legal Terrorism) and a Huge money had been invested for that purpose, which is evident from their huge cry that why only approx.10000 Domestic Violence case filed in one year, it evident that those groups work like a Business Group who had invested huge money with the expectation the expected Profit and Business Turnover and for that they are desperate to ensure that there should not be any single home to be spared where Litigation not started.

Hence our sincere request to you to take immediate action, if we really want a Happy Family life in India and our Future Child will not spend their Child hood under Father Less Society:

Replace the word “Husband and Wife” with “Spouse”.
Replace the word “Men and Women” with “Person”.

Government should make the provision for Shelter Home and other facility to the victim of Domestic Violence, as an interim relief.
Establish the Family Court without Lawyers and the Domestic Disputes to be resolved in Family Court only.
In case found the complainant had not come to file the case in Clean Hand and misused the LAW along with Judiciary / administrative authority, they should be punished and the fine amount should go to Government as revenue.
Duplication/ multiple maintenance case to be stopped. This is total abuse of not only the natural Justice Systems and Duplication of LAW, this is the main motivation for filling false and fabricated case to extort the money from Husbands family.
There should not be any direct Compensation to the Complainant, if the offence proved beyond reasonable dought the offender should be Punished or fined and in such fine amount should go to the Government Revenue only. The same should be used for the well fare of real victim of Domestic Violence as a collectively. There should not be any difference or discrimination of Rich or poor people and different facility. All should be treated as same standard.
Those cases already 498A/Divorce/CRPC125 or any other cases had been filed and couple are not staying together and their case already pending in court , should not be allowed to file another DV case ( This is total Violation of Indian Constitution of article 20 , where a accused can’t be punished twice for the same offence)
· WCD (Ministry of Women and Child Development) review committees consist of all women committees with radical and extreme views. We seek that representatives of NGO’s like Save Family Foundation and their associates should be included in this committee. This is to ensure that there is balance and sanity in the review of the law.

· Service providers in DV (Domestic Violence) LAW should be neutral persons and made accountable for their actions to ensure justice for the greater good of society. Restricting service providers to women’s group’s activists and organizations is like asking the wolf to guard the sheep. These groups are not above temptation to extortion, blackmail and corruption. Besides, who will monitor their actions and penalize them for abuses? Judges and officials should be neutral. They should be insulated from pressure and intimidation under the garb of gender sensitization.

The other problem is that a specious argument by similar set of lawyers is made that residence right previously not available is being made available. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Women and men both have same residence rights in fact women have better rights then men. Both can rent or buy houses. (Women actually pay less property tax in some states so it becomes clear that women had marginally superior rights). What has happened in the new laws that husbands and their families have been denied their residential rights.

It should be important that even a convicted murderer or terrorists are not denied their residence in his owned or rented residence. Further they failed to understand the Indian society that it is the Husbands family providing the residence to women in more than 99% cases. Such type of law, where your own right to stay in your own residence refused, in long run will make the poor girls family life more miserable as very few people will be really interested to marry girl who does not have a own residence.

The right of retired persons to live peacefully in houses purchased out of their retirement funds is being sought to be made unavailable to it as per present Domestic Violence LAW.

The other curious problem which has started that even violent women are getting their way in the domestic violence cases as there have been disturbing judgments to that affect . In addition to that as the law failed to describe what is “live-in-relationship” with a strict time frame to claim the legal rights form each other like all other developed countries, creating a situation where a job and right of a prostitutes and normal women made equal and there is no difference at all.

Another disturbing element is regards custody of children. It has upheld the traditional notion of women as children making machines. A husband or mother-in-law who has raised his children could go to Jail merely on account of taking care of children. That there are reports of such happening raises further cause for complaint.

Other disturbing elements have been arrests happening in DV law for non presence. Civil and marital law does not envision arrests or arrest warrants. (The only arrest warrants should be for non compliance of orders not for non presence where in ex prate order may be granted).

View Point: Domestic Violence Act lacks perspective By Zamir Uddin , Central Chronicle News. “In short, the DVA-2005 in its enthusiastic thoughtlessness has throttled all avenues of reconciliation, has weakened the foundations of the institution of marriage, and vitiated conjugal life by developing a false sense of ego and a fictional helplessness among women. When it comes to man-woman relationship let us listen to the traditional but sane voice of John Milton, the English poet and moralist. Milton says that man represents reason and woman passion. As long as reason dominates passion, there is cosmos, but the moment passion dominates reason, chaos ensues. Let us view marital life from this viewpoint for marriage is not a bed of roses but a domestic battlefield. Unless husband and wife bring immense goodwill and sacrifice to bear upon their marital fortunes, their situation is desperate. The DVA need to be replaced by some more benign, sensible, gender-neutral legislation that may ensure women their rightful, honorable place at home and abroad, at the same time not forgetting the rights of men.”

We want a better Society for our Future Generation and Stop a Father less Child Society, which in turn not only will increase the crime in the society , it is evident from the various study that a father less child had been victim of child abuse at least 10 times more than a normal child.Gender Biased LAW should immediately to be made crime based instead of any assumption that all women never lie and all the men born as Criminal. “MEN/WOMEN” word to be replaced by word “PERSON” and word wife/husband to be replaced with the word “SPOUSE”With High Regards (Save Family Foundation)Encl: Study Report of “Domestic Violence against Men”

Further Reference: Read latest News at www.savefamily.org

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Cops can’t deny info that don’t hamper probe: CIC

Cops can’t deny info that don’t hamper probe: CIC

In a significant order, the state Chief Information Commission (CIC) has ruled that the police department is liable to furnish such information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act which do not relate to state or national security or directly affect an ongoing investigation.
The CIC said police agencies cannot deny information relating to general crimes to citizens under the RTI Act citing conditional exemption.
The CIC order came on an RTI application filed by one Devilal Bherumal Parikh, a resident of Bhaipura village in Vadol taluka of Tapi district, who had sought information relating to the murder of his son Ashish from the Public Information Officer (PIO), Bardoli Police Station and Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID(Crime).
Parikh's son went missing in April 2008. Later, his body was cremated without any investigation and postmortem by the Bardoli police, which claimed it was unidentified. When he was denied details about his son's death, he filed an RTI application in October 2008 and asked for a copy of his own statement taken by the police, a copy of the accused's polygraphy test and narco analysis report and related records.
When the local police did not respond, Parikh approached the Superintendent of Police, Surat (rural), who is appellate authority under the RTI Act. The case was given to a DySP at CID (Crime) of Vadodara Zone. Once again, the applicant was denied information on the ground that section 8(1) of the RTI Act exempted the agency from giving out certain information.
Following this, Parikh filed a second appeal in the CIC, which ruled that the police were liable to furnish the information the complainant had asked for since section 8(1) only exempted information on "investigation to a person which the investigating officer knows to be guilty of an arrestable offence and who may have the intention of preventing or delaying his arrest or prosecution".
Chief Information Commissioner R N Das noted in his order that the condition did not apply in the present case where the complainant is the father of deceased. The CIC also criticised the denial of a copy of the complainant's own statement to him by the PIO. The CIC has also asked the Additional Director General of Police (CID) to pass appropriate orders to all his officers to not reject RTI applications outright, citing exemption.

Monday, May 16, 2011

Indian courts can decide NRI couples' matrimonial and guardianship rows: SC

Indian courts can decide NRI couples' matrimonial and guardianship rows: SC

16 may 2011

New Delhi Indian courts have jurisdiction to deal with custodial disputes of minor children even if a foreign court has passed an order in favour of either of the parents, the Supreme Court has ruled in a matrimonial dispute of an NRI family.

A bench of justices V S Sirpurkar and T S Thakur said in a judgement said that simply because a foreign court has passed an order, Indian courts cannot "abjectly surrender" to it and shirk its duty of deciding the dispute.

"Simply because a foreign court has taken a particular view on any aspect concerning the welfare of the minor is not enough for the courts in this country to shut out an independent consideration of the matter. Objectivity, and not abject surrender, is the mantra in such cases," Justice Thakur, writing the judgement, said.

The apex court passed the judgement while upholding an appeal filed by Ruchi Majoo challenging a Delhi High Court judgement that Indian courts have no jurisdiction under the doctrine of "comity of courts" to entertain any petition if a decree or order has already been passed by any foreign court.

A superior court in California had issued a red corner notice against Ruchi in a suit filed by her estranged US-based husband Sanjeev Majoo who had alleged his wife had fled with their minor son to India despite a decree by the US court granting him custody of the child.

The couple were living with the kid in the US before she returned to India in 2008. A Delhi court had on Ruchi's application granted her custody of the child under the Guardians and Wards Act.

The Delhi High Court had, however, struck down the trial court's order and asked the couple to submit themselves to the Californian court as all the three possessed US citizenship.

Aggrieved, the wife appealed through her counsel Ashish Bhan in the apex court where she accused her husband of being involved in pornography and adulterous relationship. The husband, while denying the allegations, maintained that Indian courts had no jurisdiction since a decree had already been passed by the Californian court.

Rejecting the husband's arguments, the apex court said "recognition of decrees and orders passed by foreign courts remains an eternal dilemma in as much as whenever called upon to do so, courts in this country are bound to determine the validity of such decrees and orders keeping in view the provisions of Section 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1908 as amended by the Amendment Act of 1999 and 2002.

"The duty of a court exercising its Parens Patraie (legal guardian) jurisdiction as in cases involving custody of minor children is all the more onerous. Welfare of the minor in such cases being the paramount consideration, the court has to approach the issue regarding the validity and enforcement of a foreign decree or order carefully.

The bench hastened to add that it does not, however, mean that the order passed by a foreign court need not be considered by Indian courts.

"But it is one thing to consider the foreign judgement to be conclusive and another to treat it as a factor or consideration that would go into the making of a final decision.

"We must make it clear that no matter a court is exercising powers under the Guardian & Wards Act, it can choose to hold a summary inquiry into the matter and pass appropriate orders provided it is otherwise competent to entertain a petition for custody of the minor under Section 9(1) of the Act.

The apex court reiterated that in matters dealing with custodial rights, the interest of the minor should be paramount.

The bench said the interest of the minor shall be better served if he continued in the custody of his mother, especially when the father has contracted a second marriage and did not appear to be keen for having actual custody of the minor.

The apex court, however, minced no words in expressing displeasure at the conduct of the wife and her parents in poisoning the mind of the kid against their father.

"For a boy so young in years, these and other expressions suggesting a deep-rooted dislike for the father could arise only because of a constant hammering of negative feeling in him against his father. This approach and attitude on the part of the appellant or her parents can hardly be appreciated.

"What the appellant ought to appreciate is that feeding the minor with such dislike and despise for his father does not serve his interest or his growth as a normal child. It is important that the minor has his father¿s care and guidance, at this formative and impressionable stage of his life," the bench said.

The apex court said the father should be allowed to talk through telephone or video conference, "which too shall not only be permitted but encouraged by the appellant," Justice Thakur added.


Saturday, May 14, 2011

SC can't deny info if plea filed under RTI Act. In a conflict, RTI Act will prevail over Supreme Court rules: CIC


SC can't deny info if plea filed under RTI Act: CIC

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has overturned its own decision and ruled that the Supreme Court cannot deny information on judicial matters if an applicant has asked for it under the Right to Information Act.
As of now, information disclosure related to a person's own case could be applied to the Supreme Court under the RTI Act. But in case the information related to judicial matters of a third party, the SC had ruled that application must be made under court rules. Rule 2 of the SC Rules says the applicant must establish "good cause" before disclosure is made, which according to the CIC goes against the RTI Act.
In his order, information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said that he disagreed with former chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah's decision.
His order said, "This bench further rules that all citizens have the right to access information under Section 3 of the RTI Act and PIOs shall provide the information sought to the citizens, subject always to the provisions of the RTI Act only."
He added, "It is the citizen's prerogative to decide under which mechanism, that is under the method prescribed by the public authority or the RTI Act, he would like to obtain the information."
The decision came after Gurgaon resident R S Mishra had asked for information related to letters he had written to the SC. The apex court had denied the information on the argument that the SC had a specific provision by which information was furnished under Order XII of the SC Rules and hence, information relating to judicial matters could be provided only under that provision. The SC PIO further argued that since the then chief information commissioner had upheld this contention, their arguments before this commission were already covered under the said decisions.



The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ruled that in a conflict between the Right to Information Act and the internal rules of a Public Authority, the RTI Act must prevail. It would prevail even if the internal rules pertain to the Supreme Court.
CIC Shailesh Gandhi passed this order in a case, in which information on certain judicial records was sought from the Supreme Court under the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FFA) in the court held that any information on judicial records could be accessed only under Order XII of the Supreme Court rules.
The judicial records pertained to letters written to judges by R.S. Misra, appellant in the case. Mr. Misra, who wrote the letters in connection with a Special Leave Petition filed by him, wanted to know their status and filed an application under the RTI Act.
Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court could not cite internal rules to deny information if it had been sought under the RTI Act. Further that information could be denied only if the information sought was prohibited under the RTI Act itself.
"The right to information is a fundamental right of the citizen of India. This has been clearly recognised by the Supreme Court in several decisions and subsequently codified by Parliament in 2005. The RTI Act was enacted with the spirit of ensuring transparency...Section 3 of the RTI Act lays down that subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, all citizens shall have the right to information… Further Section 22 of the RTI Act expressly provides that the provisions of the RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the RTI Act. In other words, where there is any inconsistency in a law as regards furnishing of information, such law shall be superseded by the RTI Act. Insertion of a non-obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act was a conscious choice of Parliament to safeguard the citizens' fundamental right to information…If the PIO has received a request for information under the RTI Act, the information shall be provided to the applicant as per the provisions of the RTI Act and any denial of the same must be in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act only.."

full text @


Don't bring kids to court, Bombay high court tells couple

Don't bring kids to court, Bombay high court tells couple

Saturday, May 14, 2011, 4:10 IST
Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA

The Bombay high court on Friday, admonished a couple fighting for the custody of their two sons during their summer holiday.
Vacation bench of justice Mridula Bhatkar and justice RG Ketkar were hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Shanti Mirchandani (name changed). “It is in the interest of children never to be seen in courts,” they added.

The principal of Prudence International School, Panvel, gave custody of the boys, aged 6 and 9 years, to their paternal uncle Satish (name changed) on a written request by the father Shyam (name changed).Shanti’s advocate Manjula Rao argued that in the absence of the father, the mother is the natural guardian. She said the whereabouts of the children are unknown.

Satish’s advocate countered that Shyam who works in Dubai will be returning to India on May 21, and wants the custody of his children since Shanti had taken them for the past two summer and winter vacations. “She vanishes with the children and deprives their father of meeting them,” he added.Rao submitted that it was done “due to a mutual agreement between the father and mother”.
“You (uncle) have no case. You are not the father,” said justice Bhatkar.“Don’t treat children as stooges to settle your dispute,” she added.

The judges took note of the fact that the Mirchandanis have neither filed a petition for custody of the children nor divorce proceedings for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. “This is the first petition before this court in respect of custody,” they noted in the order.

In a “workable solution”, the judges directed Satish, who resides in Bhayander, to “peacefully” handover the children to Shanti on Friday evening without the involvement of police.

They took note of Shanti’s undertaking to the court not to take the boys outside the limits of the court’s jurisdiction.Since it is a habeas corpus petition to produce the children, the judges posted the matter to May 23, 2011 with an explicit direction, “Don’t produce the children inside the court.”