Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Swarup Sarkar demands Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage clause to be made Gender Neutral on CNNIBN 26Mar2012

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage clause to be made Gender Neutral demands Swarup Sarkar vehementally on CNNIBN's Face The Nation programme with Sagarika Ghosh on 26th March 2012. 


Swarup Sarkar ( SIFF) 

Flavia Agnes (Feminist Lawyer)

Malvika Rajkotia (Feminist lawyer)

Poornima Advani (Former NCW chief)


More on 

"Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage" ground for Divorce gets cabinet nod- Another Legal Extortion tool for Wife. Mens rights organisation Ignored again


Sunday, March 25, 2012

"Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage" ground for Divorce gets cabinet nod- Another Legal Extortion tool for Wife. Mens rights organisation Ignored again

"Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage" ground for Divorce gets cabinet nod enabling wife to Instant Easy divorce. Will this also be miused by wife ? Geeta Luthra, Sr Advocate takes on Feminist Ranjana Kumari of CSR on Star News on 24 march 2012


NewsX discussion on the topic with Manish Mittal of SIFF and Madhu Kishwar, social Activist and Pinky Anand, Sr advocate  on panel on 24 march 2012



Related TV media coverage of SIFF in 2010-2011





3. Should property be given to wife at the time of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Divorce case (THE MARRIAGE LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2010 – Panel discussions on DD News Aamne-samne-20feb11



4. 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




'Men's rights organizations should be consulted by the Government'

Read more at: h

by Rohit Karir 24 March, 2012

The union cabinet, on March 23, gave clearance to some changes in the Marriage Act via the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill 2010. While women's rights organizations have largely supported the cleared amendments, Virag R Dhulia, Head, Gender Studies, of Confidare India, a men's rights community center, has voiced grave concern about men's rights not being protected enough. 
THE PROPOSED changes will, for the first time, legally recognize the right of a wife to property acquired by her spouse during their marriage. Equal rights to both adopted and biological children will also be provided. The cabinet also gave its go ahead to consider "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" as a new ground for granting divorce as against expecting the couple to carry out despite differences in what is named as a cooling off period. Though, the cabinet has left it to the courts to decide its time period. But at the same time, as per the amendments, while a wife can legally oppose her husband's plea for a divorce under the new clause of "irretrievable breakdown of marriage", a husband will not have similar rights.
The cabinet amendments have already triggered reactions with Ranjana Kumari of Centre for Social Research saying that majority of the women in the country were illiterate and were in no position to know their rights. The All India Democratic Women's Association has welcomed the amendments pertaining to women's right to property in case of dissolution of marriage.In an exclusive interview with merinews.com, Dhulia gives a 'gender' perspective to marriage and gender laws. Confidare India, Dhulia says, recognizes that men face domestic violence and false cases of harassment related to dowry and domestic violence but often find it difficult to prove their innocence and don’t get emotional support from society. Dhulia, 31, also works as an IT professional in Bangalore, and in 2009, was involved in a case of dowry in which he was jailed for two days and later filed a counter-case of dowry against his wife.
Merinews: You personally went through a disturbing experience with your wife accusing you of taking dowry and spending two days in jail. But you maintain that the allegation was false as you did not ‘ask’ for dowry – it was given willingly. But then you also ‘accepted’ the dowry. You then filed a counter dowry case against your wife. Where do things stand today? Have you considered re-marrying?

Dhulia: I have never said that I “accepted” dowry or that it was “given”. In the case that I have filed against my wife and in-laws, it says, “Because they have themselves made a claim of giving dowry to me, which is an equal crime under the Dowry Prohibition Act, criminal proceedings be initiated against them. It is only an unproved allegation against me but they are admitting the crime, hence they should be punished before me.” The judiciary was more than happy to stay the proceedings of the case even before serving the notice to me and now the case is not coming up for hearing at all. I have gone through a lot of harassment and right now I have to focus on getting my innocence back. All other options are secondary. The way society treats men in marriages, has left deep psychological scars, which have to heal before I think of re-marrying.Merinews: Why do you object to the amendment that recognizes “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” as a ground for divorce, in the proposed Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010?
Dhulia: We do not object to the ground of “Irretrievable breakdown of marriage” per se. If a relationship does not make a person happy, he/she should have every legal right to walk out of the relationship gracefully. That being said, it does not mean, the same step has to be achieved at the cost of the other person. Our objections particularly target property division clauses. This is a dangerous one. India is a complex society and definitely very different from the western society. In India, we still have a good mix of nuclear families, joint families, and the concept of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), etc. Still, there are large number of people who share common ancestral property. There may arise a lot of complications with this law coming in, which may even lead to more crime as people can go berserk when it comes to property. This law has the potential to wreak social havoc. Furthermore, the power of division of property wresting with the judiciary is far more dangerous provision. Indian judiciary is incompetent and people have lost faith on its integrity what with judges being caught cheating in exams and found indulging in massive corruption. This power will make a fish-market of the Indian criminal justice system especially in the arena of matrimonial disputes.
Merinews: The belief in the country persists that women, especial in rural and semi-urban areas, are not empowered enough and need protection by law when it comes to a husband not filing a counter divorce against his wife. Do you think this protection is required or is it being more misused than serving its purpose?
Dhulia: As the question itself says, it’s a belief. Some people believe in God, some do not. Can we have laws based on beliefs? There is a famous saying, “I may not die for my beliefs for they may not be true”. Jokes apart, laws must be based on actual ground research and data. The data is not available. In a country where only 3% of the population pays income tax, we can well imagine the condition of the Government when it comes to knowledge about its citizens. However, if we look at the suicide statistics, which include all areas – urban, rural, semi-urban, the story is clear. It’s the men who are suffering and not the women as men are committing suicides almost to the tune of 2 times compared to women, year over year, especially married men. Why would a young married man, full of life and aspirations, end his life? Something is definitely wrong which is being ignored. As far as economic problems in rural and semi-urban areas are concerned, it’s not a gender issue. It’s a social issue in which men suffer more as they are forced to bear the primary financial responsibility. Moreover, as of now, men’s rights organizations are still largely prevalent on the internet. Men in these areas do not have proper access to the Internet and thus they are not even aware that there is some help available. Hence, they suffer in silence and do not speak about their abuse fearing social ridicule. Women’s organizations are found more frequenting Pizza huts.
Merinews: Do you think the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 should contain more conditional clauses when it comes to allocation of property after dissolution of marriage?
Dhulia: This is a complex situation. We need to consider many factors such as the tenure of marriage, contribution of either partner towards the property, tenure during which the savings were made to build the property because property is never built overnight; it takes a lifetime’s savings to build a property. It will be foolish to think that a man can lose his property if his marriage breaks within months and he will lose his lifetime fortune. Moreover, now women will marry keeping this thing in mind and walk-out of marriages eyeing the man’s property. Men’s rights organizations should be consulted by the Government before finalizing the law and its clauses, else it might just end up annoying 50% of the population in order to appease the other half.
Merinews: Feminists suggest that marriage laws might appear to be loaded in favour of women as this gender finds it much more difficult to re-marry compared to men after a divorce. Do you think this compensates for leaving dangerous loopholes that can be exploited?
Dhulia: Statements of feminists need to be taken with a pinch of salt. For, from the way they are operating, it seems they are more inclined on harassing men than uplifting women. They leave genuine issues faced by women unaddressed like plight of widows, domestic violence faced by daughters in natal homes, and only focus on inventing ways to transfer tax-free wealth from husband to wife. But this method only promulgates parasitism in women and this law will become a legal channel for women to extort men. Earlier, it was only by lodging a false criminal complaint (under Section 498A) and getting few lakhs/millions from the man. Now, just file for divorce and walk away with a plush apartment.
Merinews: Some of the proposals in the proposed Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 seem to suggest that women are less devious than men, and men are out to harm the interests of women. Do you think this is case?
Dhulia: These proposals are a direct result of social misandry (hatred of males), which is an age-old social curse on men. Men face misandry day in and day out. Whether it is while working late night shifts so that women can go home early or taking more risks and endangering their lives or living in a society that celebrates anti-male and gender-biased laws. One more clause does not make much of a difference. It’s a different question altogether that there is absolutely no basis or data-backing for such claims. Such gender biases harm men beyond levels imaginable.
Merinews: Should pre-nuptial agreements be made mandatory for all couples in India? Will this address some of the heartache post dissolution of marriage?
Dhulia: Somehow Indians feels copying the West is a good idea. This may work as far as movies are concerned, but laws should strictly be made on the basis of our own societal constraints, structures and norms. Pre-nups may sound lucrative but we must keep in mind that when it comes to implementation, India has always underperformed. So, the best solution to this is that property matters must be kept completely away from marriage. Life will be much more peaceful then.

Read more at:
 India :
Are you planning to marry Indian Girl? It is easy to get married (’Legal Trap’) in India if Boy is with handsome earning and have credible wealth.
“According to the Cabinet Note, while a wife can oppose a
husband’s plea for a divorce under the new “irretrievable
breakdown of marriage” clause, the husband will have no such
rights to oppose if the wife moves court on the same grounds.”
The word husband/wife must be replaced by the word Spouse, otherwise it will lead a total Extrotion business of your hard earned money/property and as the more awareness will come, maximum men will stop saving and will spend their earling, result more and more crime/fraud/stress in society and yes a huge father less child society on the way, which today some male haters do not understand , but will value the contrubution of husabnds family the day they will take oath to die as debit man than credit man. We do not understand why so called educated and libiral Women and LAW makers afrid to make law on the Principal with the word “Spouse”, both get euall responsibility and Libility.
Confidare Research is the education and research wing of Confidare Consultancy that specializes in dealing with problems of men.
Confidare Research strongly condemn the upcoming “Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill” that was supposed to be tabled today before the Cabinet.
This bill is a further evidence of the growing misandry (male hatred) in the society and how the society treats men as disposable entities. Even in this modern age when we talk of Gender Equality, the stereotypical patriarchal notion that the financial responsibility of a family should lay on a husband still prevails in the society, and this pervert social mindset is the root cause of abuse of men, especially husbands in a marriage.
In such a situation, where men are already burdened with so much of load, another law which makes divorce extremely costly for them is thoroughly unwelcome.
Highlights of the law:
This law recognizes “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” as a ground for divorce.
While the law empowers the wife to oppose the divorce at any point of time if the husband has filed for divorce, it restrains the husband from doing so when the wife has filed for the same.
This law also contains a clause by which courts will be empowered to snatch away half the property of husband and give it away to wife.
This law only talks about women’s rights and has no considerations whatsoever for men.
Brief Background:
Due to demand from various quarters, this ground for divorce was introduced by the Govt. of India by way of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 which sought to amend the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act. However, the bill contained clauses that facilitated financial extortion of men.
The bill read that courts would have power not to grant the divorce unless the wife was paid adequate amount of money under the cute name of “Financial Security of Woman”.
And the bill also mentioned about special powers being given only to wives to oppose the divorce if the wife was unhappy with the money she received from the husband.
Such clauses being outright anti-male and gender-biased in nature were vehemently opposed by various men’s rights activists and organizations, who even deposed in front of the Standing Committee on personnel, public grievances, law and justice. The panel, chaired by Shri Santaram Naik, was presented with the objections raised by men’s rights organizations who sought to make the bill gender-neutral and ensure that no man faced any kind of financial hardship because of gender-biased clauses in the bill.
Oppositions ignored:
However, the objections raised by men’s rights organizations have been conveniently ignored by the standing committee panel, that has gone ahead and recommended the very clauses to the Govt. of India for the bill to be tabled, to which the men’s rights organizations has raised objections against.
What will happen if?
Husband purchases a property just 6 months after marriage out of his hard-earned savings earned before marriage and his marriage breaks and he loses half of the property. In that case the husband will be doomed.
Men start fearing this law and stop buying real estate which adversely affects the economy of the country.
Husband has dependent parents and owns a single property and if 50% of that goes to wife post-divorce, how will the husband take care of his old parents? Is the concept of family restricted to only husband-wife in the Indian context?
What, if the family is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) owning a single joint property? Will the wife get 50% of that? What about other sibling’s share in it?
Confidare’s objections:
Marriages are tumultuous for men. This fact reflects in the suicide statistics that are published year-over-year by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and it’s the married men who top the list of suicide. Suicide rate of husbands’ increases 4 times the rate of wives’ and 6 times the rate they are born. Every 9 minutes a married man commits suicide. This fact clearly proves how bad marriages turn out for men and if divorces are also made costlier by way of such laws, this will lead to further increase in suicides by men. Is the Government of India trying to facilitate the suicides of men?
There is one more law in the pipeline – Matrimonial Property (Rights of Women upon Marriage Act), 2012 – which talks about making wife the co-owner of husband’s properties right at the time of marriage; then, why this law? Why is the Government hell bent on making redundant anti-male laws and convert marriage into an extortion industry thriving on men?
In a democratic law making process, objections raised by a particular group or individual cannot be ignored without any proper justification. The panel has failed to give any just and proper reason as to why the objections raised should not be considered.
As per Dowry Prohibition Act, any demand of cash/kind in relation to marriage is “Dowry”. Is not this law legalizing dowry to be paid to wife from husband under the cute name of “Financial Security of Wife”?
Right to Equality is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India and cannot be disrespected under any circumstances. Current bill thoroughly violates it, as far as men are concerned.
Feminists are claiming that nearly 80% of women do not have a place to live post-divorce. This is completely false because no such study has ever been conducted. India does not have any standard data collected as to how many divorces are happening, of those how many own a house and how many do not, how many are nuclear, joint and HUF families. Without any such data in place, any claims made are just airy claims without any data. Formulating a law on airy data is dangerous.
Confidare’s demands:
Marriages and Divorces should not be made a property-transfer-bureau.
If property division is to be done then wife’s share in her ancestral property must also be considered and then division must be done.
Duration of marriage must be a crucial factor of consideration. The difference between a 2 month marriage and a 20 year marriage must be clearly understood.
Property division must take into account contributions made by both the spouses and also the fact that the property was acquired from wealth earned post marriage and not from previous savings.
Any and all outstanding financial liabilities on the property like loan for property, loan against property, mortgage etc. must also be equally divided and wife must be made to be equally paid for it. If she is not working then she should get her share from her ancestral property.
Both the partners should have equal and unbridled right to oppose divorce and there should be no gender-bias in this.
There should not be any power wrested with the courts to decide upon property transfer or stalling of proceedings as the Indian judiciary is highly incompetent and has not shown positive trends favoring men when it comes to disposing cases. The Indian judiciary is highly anti-male and does not consider twice before ordering a man to either “sell his kidney” or “beg, borrow or steal” just to pay maintenance to his estranged wife. What is the guarantee that the same judiciary will make judicious decisions when it comes to this law?
Institute a National Commission for Men, that can systematically collect issues, concerns and problems of men, study them and recommend to the Govt. about measures to be taken to address those problems.
If the Govt. of India does not take these considerations seriously then we have only one message for the hardworking Indian men, who think putting self before others, is a social norm –
Your hard earned property does not belong to you.
P.S. Long run effect as the more and more cases will come out :
“Also this bill will have a disastrous effect on the marriageability of non-working or low income men/women - as all women/men would like to marry high income men/women now. Will the govt. take responsibility to get these low-income or no-income men/women marrage? How is this bill useful when it helps high income men/women while at the same time makes the low-income men/women un-marriageable? This bill infact is contrary to women’s and men’s welfare”
So,what to do ?
1. This is nothing but legal terrorism and to stop that the First think to make more and more awareness. So, highlight the danger to all LAW makers MP, Society and Friends. Always demand as per constitution every one is equal in front of law , so the word men/women must be replaced by person and husband/wife must be replaced by spouse.
2. Those are in LAW filed must start collected the LAW of other country of the world and be ready to fight in Supreme court. No country have such biased law in place.
3. Before marriage must engage a Lawyers.
4. Book a low cost Home in some Village area , so that in old age you can have a place to live.
5. The moment you feel any smell of any problem without any second thought dispose-off all your movable or immovable assets .
6. Minimum Saving after marriage , enjoy the life instead of work like donkey and one day die in Heart attack and left huge assets.
7.Come out from all the emotion , today marriage is no longer a emotional bond, all this male haters LAW makers make the marriage a emotionless simple Business deal and a easy money earning business for wrong people.
Warning to all Male Haters :
To grab the Husbands money/property you have made several law start from DP3, 498A, DV act, CRPC125, Section 24 and now this new HMA act, with the Principal all wives born in Raja Harish Chandra Family , never lie and all Husbands born in Criminal Family.
All the law the basic motive is how to grab the money and property from Husbands family with the logic women had suffered so long, so now it is turn to men to suffer.
But forget two wrong can’t make a right think. If women is suffering that is not due to husbands family , it is due to the girls at their own home had not given equal right and responsibility give to a boy, instead of correcting the same started putting all burden/blame to husbands family .
Do not forget more then 90% women who have a home in this country , they got from their husbands family , not from their own family, correct that first or the day the is not too far when we will be witness when a man will die, the bank will come and take over all his assets , which we witness in western country .
The day Indian Husbands will learn to live a life as Debit man than credit man and stop making any saving in property or in other assets , then only you all will realize the real contribution of Indian husbands for this society.
Do not take Indian husbands family in ride and stop promotion of Legal Extortion of their hard earned money/property, make the LAW gender neutral the word husband/wife must be replaced by the word spouse and the share should be equal both liability and claim in assets.




The government's move to make divorce a quicker process has been largely welcomed as a long overdue step though some women activists and lawyers have voiced doubts over doing away with the six month cooling off period.

The common strain among the women was that law should move along with changing times and there should not be any mechanical import of western ideas.

"I welcome it. Divorce should be made easier and the laws should keep pace with the changing times," Rekha Palli, a Supreme Court lawyer, told IANS.

Welcoming the move to make divorce easier, lawyer Meenakshi Lekhi slammed the move to make "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" as ground of divorce. This would amount to giving the husband an excuse to walk out of the marriage for a much younger spouse, she said.

The union cabinet on Friday approved the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill 2010 by which "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" was included as a ground for dissolving the marriage.

Besides this, the cabinet also approved giving the divorced wife a share in husband's property that he had acquired after marriage, and the adopted child getting same rights to property as are available to biological offspring of the couple.

It also left the existing cooling off period of six months to the discretion of the court.
"I think it is a welcome move. We have been demanding it for long," Ranjana Kumari of Centre for Social Research told IANS. "Share in the marital property is a very welcome move because as it stands today when a wife walks out of difficult marriage she has nothing to start afresh.

"But her share in marital property should have been specified and not left to the courts as it would mean more and more endless litigation," Ranjana Kumari said.

The cabinet under the approved amended bill has provided that the wife would have a right to wave a red flag in the event of the husband pressing for divorce on the grounds of "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage", but the same was not available to the husband in case the wife decides to seek dissolution of marriage on grounds of irrevocable breakdown of marriage.

Welcoming the incorporation of "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" as ground for divorce, Ranjana Kumari says that doing away with the six months cooling off period is not good.

"A hold on period at times helps in cooling frayed tempers and the marriage is saved," she says, adding that "after all in our society marriage is sacred thing".

Giving the right to property to the adopted child at par with that of a biological offspring is also a welcome step as under the present dispensation this equality of right is not there, she added.

Apex court lawyer Aparna Bhat says the cabinet decision has not made anything easier. "All that has been done is that irreconcilable difference has been added as another ground for divorce.

"How has the entire process becomes easier," asks Bhat, posing what would happen if a wife opposes the husband's plea for divorce.

"Perhaps this (irreconcilable difference) may make divorce process easier for the women as husband cannot oppose it," she says.

"What has happened was long overdue. I don't know why India took so long to do what other civilized countries had done long ago," lawyer Rebecca John told IANS.
The proposed amendments would make divorce law more humane and sensitive to the contesting couple and adding irreconcilable difference as a ground for divorce is good, says Rebecca.

Meenakshi Lekhi, who is fighting the case of women officers seeking permanent commissions in the army, wonders how could the rights of a legally adopted child be different from a biological offspring of a couple.

She describes as "complicated" the provision giving the wife a right to property that she and her husband had acquired during their married life. She also asks "would a wife who is just one year in marriage be entitled to property inherited or earned by her husband?
"How could a wife walking away with whatever share of husband's property be reconciled with the maintenance that she is entitled under the existing law," asks Lekhi.
"The proposal to leave to the courts the waiting period before divorce is actually granted is in tune with an earlier provision which was wrongly interpreted by the Supreme Court giving it a fixed term which over a period of time became the law of the land," she says.
Lekhi says that "what is evident from the proposed changes in the law is that its authors have no grounding in law, nor are they the practitioners of law".


Saturday, March 10, 2012

Do Indian women need more empowerment? On Aamne Samne DD News 09 march 2012

Do Indian women need more empowerment? On Aamne Samne DD News 09 march 2012

Women empowerment in india means misusing laws, state machinery and bluff society contribute destructively, to break Indian family culture.

Mr. Shonee Kapoor, SFF
Ms. Sudha Sundar raman, Gen Secretary AIDWA
Ms. Vartika Nanda
Mr Ujjwal Jha Advocate
Mr. Niladri Das, GHRS
Mr. Surleen Sarkar, SIFF
Ms Suman Singh, Social worker 

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Indore-based NGO all set to promote Ilyasi's movie

 Indore-based NGO all set to promote Ilyasi's movie

INDORE: This may come as a solace for those who have been victims of spousal abuse--men in this case.
Forum Against Misuse of Section 498 (A), (FAMUS 498 (A)) an Indore-based NGO, will take up the pre-launch promotion of a movie, 498(A) - The Wedding Gift, based on the lives of men who have been falsely implicated by their wives under The Dowry Prohibition Act. The movie is produced by the controversial presenter of the one-time popular TV show -- India's Most Wanted - Suhaib Ilyasi.
"We are holding the pre-launch promotional activity of the film in Indore, Gwalior, Jabalpur and Bhopal from March 12," NGO convener Ashok Dashora, said. A cycle rally will also be taken out in the four cities. He said T shirts and Anna topis with FAMUS 498 (A) imprinted on them will be distributed to more than 250 volunteers.
Around 1,200 members are enrolled with the NGO since it came into existence in July last year. "People across the state, Maharashtra and even NRIs are enrolled with us. We intend to reach out to as many people as possible in coming days," Dashora said. All members of the NGO have directly or indirectly suffered due to the misuse of the Act, he said.
Apart from helping innocent people, who become victims of Act's misuse, the NGO has also been counselling couples to help them resolve issues out of court. "We have been successful so far in helping 12 couple call a truce and reunite," Dashora said. Prominent personalities, including former high court judges and MP Sumitra Mahajan, have extended their support to the organization, he added.
Talking to TOI over phone from Mumbai, Ilyasi said the movie is inspired by the NGO and some real-life cases that need to highlighted to show the repercussions of falsely implicating people under the punitive Act. "The movie, made with a budget of Rs 5 crore, would be released in April," he said.
Ilyasi himself was booked under Section 498 (B) of the Act. He is an active member of FAMUS 498 (A) and has been participating in the meetings of the NGO.

Sunday, March 4, 2012

RAMPANT MISUSE and ABUSE OF DOWRY LAWS IPC 498A - Nisha Sharma case false on p7news on 4Mar12 with Advcate Sh Mahesh Tiwari and Jayanti Dutta, Psychologist and marriage counsellor


LEGAL TERORRISM unleashed by married women breaking families. The laws is being used by wife as weapon and being used as TOY. SCRAP or AMEND IPC 498a
Nisha Sharma case false on p7news on 04 March 2012 with SC Advcate Sh Mahesh Tiwari ji and Jayanti Dutta ji, Psychologist and marriage counsellor

‘Words not always used with criminal intent’ Bombay HC in 498a 306 aquittal

‘Words not always used with criminal intent’ Bombay HC in 498a 306 aquittal

NAGPUR: The Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court came to the rescue of a man by ruling that words spoken during a quarrel are not always uttered with a criminal intent. "Words such as 'go and die' uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of moment can't be termed as uttered with requisite mens rea (criminal intent)," ruled justice Ashok Bhangale while upholding a lower court verdict.

Bhangale dismissed the government's criminal appeal filed in 1996 against Wardha resident Vasant Chudiwale who was accused of allegedly abetting wife Maya's suicide for dowry. "There should be concrete evidence to indicate criminal intent," the court observed.

Vasant and Maya married in 1985. After a couple of years, relations between the two turned bitter. Vasant allegedly started ill-treating Maya alleging her of having an extra-marital affair with his brother-in-law Rakeshkumar.

On July 19, 1987, the couple came to the city and stayed at the residence of Maya's uncle Madanchand. During her stay, Maya confided with her uncle about the alleged ill-treatment meted out to her by her husband.

Three days later, Maya committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and setting herself ablaze. In her dying declaration, she blamed Vasant. Tehsil police chargesheeted Vasant for offences punishable under sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. The Nagpur sessions judge convicted him on both counts and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment.

Vasant challenged the order before the extra joint district judge through an appeal and got respite. The state challenged this order in the high court through a criminal appeal. The deceased's uncle also filed a criminal revision application against Vasant. The state contended that in her dying declaration, Maya blamed Vasant for taunting her about her alleged extra marital affair with Rakeshkumar.

"To constitute the offence under abetment to suicide, there must be evidence to prove that the accused instigated the person," the court observed. Before dismissing both the cases, justice Bhangale stated that the deceased's dying declaration does not mean an offence punishable under section 306.


Full text of judgment available @

Friday, March 2, 2012

Misuse of ipc 498a by Nisha Sharma exposed.Munish Dalal & family aquittal

Part 1/2 Misuse of ipc 498a by Nisha Sharma exposed.Munish Dalal & family aquittal Star News on 01mar12



2/2 Misuse of ipc 498a by Nisha Sharma exposed.Munish Dalal & family aquittal Star News on 01mar12 





Misuse of ipc 498a by Nisha Sharma exposed after 9 yrs.Munish Dalal & family aquittal news24-01mar12 


Misuse of IPC 498a DOWRY laws by Nisha sharma.Munish Dalal & family aquitted

Misuse of IPC 498a DOWRY laws by Nisha sharma. Munish Dalal & family aquitted- Electronic Media coverage


Misuse of IPC 498a DOWRY laws by Nisha sharma.Munish Dalal & family aquitted on 01mar12 


Misuse of IPC 498a DOWRY laws by Nisha sharma.Munish Dalal & family aquitted on 01mar12 



Blantant Misuse of IPC 498a DOWRY laws by Nisha sharma. Munish Dalal & family aquitted 


‘Nisha hero of Class VI book , I’m one with no principles’.Munish's name should be removed from text books

‘Nisha hero of Class VI book , I’m one with no principles. Munish's name should be removed from text books

Sitting in his West Delhi home, Munish Dalal flips through a Class VI English textbook and stops at Chapter 14, titled ‘Man in jail over dowry case’. 

It reads “A man was arrested from his Vikaspuri home after the family of his bride-to-be told the police that the groom’s family was demanding a large sum of dowry”.

The chapter in the book, published by the State Council of Education Research and Training (SCERT), talks about Dalal and the woman who “stood up to him”, Nisha Sharma.
“She became a national hero for standing up (against) dowry when she was misusing the law blatantly. Even schoolchildren throughout Delhi read about how I was a man with no principles,” Munish said, waving the book angrily.
After hearing the case for nine long years, a Greater Noida court on Wednesday acquitted Munish, his mother and aunt of the charges that they demanded Rs 12 lakh dowry, following which Nisha called off the marriage on the wedding day.
The court ruled that Nisha levelled false dowry allegations against Munish as she wanted to marry someone else.
Munish sees the chapter in the textbook as a symbol of the public humiliation he suffered. “The court may have ruled in my favour, but my road to redemption is long. The first step is to have this chapter removed. How could they put this in when the court still had not given a verdict, is also a question I want answered,” he said.
Education minister Arvinder Lovely told Newsline that SCERT books have been phased out from curriculum in all schools of Delhi. “We use only NCERT books now,” he said.
Dalal married in 2008, has two children and works with a private company. He said he is happy that the court has come out with the truth, but the incident has left deep scars.
“On May 9, 2003, I had a wonderful life ahead of me. I was to be married, a government job was in the pipeline, and my family was happy. But my baraat was turned away,” Munish said.
That same night, a police complaint of dowry was filed against Munish, after which he was jailed for nearly two months.
“The next nine years, I watched the woman who ruined me and my family become the darling of the country. She appeared on talk shows, won awards, documentaries were made on her. I lost my friends, job prospects and peace of mind. There is much she has to answer for,” Munish said.
Meanwhile, D D Sharma, Nisha Sharma’s father, said: “We are not convinced with the court’s decision. We will consult our legal advisors, and probably appeal against the order.” 



Nisha Sharma dowry case: Noida court acquits all accused

The Court found that Nisha Sharma's allegations were false as she wanted to avoid getting married to Manish Dalal

Rebel bride’s dowry charge junked

Aniruddha Ghosal, TNN Mar 1, 2012, 03.21AM IST
GREATER NOIDA: She hit the headlines nine years ago after calling off her wedding in front of 200 guests, alleging the groom's family had demanded a massive dowry at the last minute. But on Wednesday, all the fame and media adulation Nisha Sharma cornered in 2003 seemed misplaced when a court here declared she had fabricated the dowry charges to wriggle out of the nuptials.
Calling Sharma's action pre-meditated, the chief judicial magistrate at Gautam Budh Nagar district courts, Vipin Rai, acquitted all the four accused in the case - the groom Munish Dalal, his mother Vidya Dalal, his aunt Savitri Sharma, and Nisha's former classmate Navneet Rai.
The court noted that there was "insufficient evidence to prove that the demand of Rs 12 lakh had been made by the Dalal family a night before the wedding". The witness introduced by Sharma's counsel was "not related" to the family and had died during the course of investigation, opening up room for "benefit of doubt for the accused", the CJM said. TOI has a copy of the order.
After examining the evidence produced in court, the CJM ruled that Sharma was close to her classmate Navneet Rai and wished to marry him. Her family had discussed the alliance with Rai's family but it did not work out. Sharma's father then betrothed her to Dalal. The order says Sharma was unhappy with the match and had set her heart on marrying Navneet, so she cooked up the dowry story.
During investigation, Rai himself had testified against Sharma. Munish Dalal had claimed at the time that Navneet met and told him about his relationship with the woman.
On Wednesday, Sharma couldn't be contacted and her father DD Sharma refused to comment without seeing a copy of the order. "I haven't seen a copy of the court's decision and I simply can't comment upon the matter until I have seen it. Nisha still doesn't know about the order and I am not going to be the one who tells her. Let the court's order come tomorrow and then we will see. But if what the media is saying is true, we will definitely be appealing against the decision," he said.
A relieved Munish Dalal said the court had vindicated his position. "Nine years of my life were ruined and there is nothing that can make up for it and the amount of suffering that my family and I faced as a result of this. I was a government employee and just a month shy of completing my probation, but after these allegations my whole life and career were ruined."
Nisha Sharma and Munish Dalal would have tied the knot on May 11, 2003. But the wedding was called off when Sharma alleged the Dalals had demanded Rs 12 lakh cash and a car in dowry. She called the police and a case was registered against Munish, his mother and his aunt.


 Nisha Sharma dowry case: Noida court acquits all accused

The Gautam Budh Nagar district court on Wednesday acquitted all the accused in the infamous Nisha Sharma dowry case for the lack of concrete evidence against them.
In 2003, the girl from Noida in the national capital region (NCR) shot into the limelight as she turned back her marriage party refusing to tie the knot because she claimed that her to be in-laws had asked for dowry.
The police arrested Nisha's to be husband Manish Dalal and his family members for dowry harassment.
However, the Gautam Budh Nagar district court acquitted all the accused saying there were not enough evidence to prove the charge.
The court also dismissed another case filed by Nisha against Navneet Rai, who had claimed that he was already married to the girl when the Dalals turned up at her residence for the marriage.
Though it came as a huge relief for the Dalal family, it was a big embarrassment for Nisha and her family members. Nisha had been hailed as a heroine in the fight against dowry after she turned back the marriage party.
Now, questions are also being asked about whether anti-dowry laws are biased against men and their families. The Sharmas are now planning to challenge the lower court order in a higher court.
Talking to Headlines Today, Nisha's father D.D. Sharma on Thursday insisted that the accused family was just let off because of lack of evidence against them and the court had not acquitted them restoring their pride.
On the other side, accused Manish said he and his family members suffered a lot because of the false allegations levelled against them. He said the court order came as a big relief to them.

Nine Years Later, All Accused Acquitted In Nisha Sharma Dowry Case

 Noida, Mar 1: Nine years after he was arrested for demanding dowry, a local court on Wednesday acquitted Munish Dalal, his mother and aunt in the Nisha Sharma case for lack of evidence.

The case hit the headlines in 2003 when Nisha Sharma refused to marry Dalal at the eleventh hour alleging that the bridegroom's family had demanded dowry. Nisha Sharma was then hailed for her courage.

Nisha's father DD Sharma  had alleged the groom's parents had demanded additional dowry.

Following this, Munish Dalal, his mother and aunt Savitri Sharma were arrested. They were released on bail a few months later.

Chief judicial magistrate Vipin Sharma on Wednesday  acquitted them due to "lack of strong evidence". Nisha Sharma's advocate said they will challenge the order in a higher court.

Dalal's family had all along maintained that Nisha called off the wedding because she wanted to marry one Navneet Rai.

Rai had also claimed that he married Nisha at a temple and had produced some documents. Nisha had instead lodged a cheating case against Rai. The court also acquitted Rai.

"Citing lack of strong evidence, the CJM gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and ordered their acquittal. The prosecution also could not prove the documents produced by Rai were fake," said SN Verma, senior prosecution officer.

Nisha Sharma, a resident of Sector 56, Noida, overnight became an anti-dowry icon after she called off her wedding at the last minute. In November 2003, she married a resident of Modi Nagar.

After his acquittal, Munish Dalal said, "I have suffered a lot in these nine years. But as the judge read the acquittal lines, the first thing that came to my mind was that truth has won."

He said the 60 days he was in jail was the "most horrible period" of his life.

His mother Vidya Dalal said, "The court has pulled us out of hell and I thank God for that."

"I was working as a teacher and was to retire on May 31 of that year. Due to this episode, my gratuity and PF has not been released after all these years."


Nisha Sharma dowry case: Court acquits all accused

 The Gautam Budh Nagar district court on Wednesday acquitted Munish Dalal and his family members in the 2003 Nisha Sharma dowry case. 

Nisha had made national headlines when, on her wedding day, she refused to marry Munish alleging that his family members had made a dowry demand the previous night.

The court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Vipin Rai, while dismissing the charges against the four accused, observed that Nisha’s decision to call off her wedding was pre-planned.
In May 2003, Munish, his mother Vidya Dalal and aunt Savitri Sharma were booked in a police case after Nisha alleged that the family demanded Rs 12 lakh as dowry. The court in its order said there was “insufficient evidence to prove that the demand... had been made by the Dalal family a night before the wedding”.
The court also acquitted Nisha’s classmate Navneet Rai, who was also booked on the charge of giving false documents against Nisha.
The court ruled that Nisha was close to Navneet Rai and had wished to marry him instead of Munish. Nisha’s family had also approached Navneet for the marriage but when the proposal did not work, her marriage was fixed with Munish. Nisha who was not happy with her marriage then levelled false allegations of dowry demand.