WinX HD Video Converter Deluxe, all-in-one video software as an HD video converter, slideshow maker, video editor and YouTube video downloader, gives you an ultimate control over video files.
Big thank you to Fiona at Digiarty for giving me 20 free copy's of WinX HD Video Converter Deluxe to giveaway . Good luck in the giveaway and I hope that the winners enjoy their free software for more info of the program, you can check it out herehttp://www.winxdvd.com/hd-video-conve...
Jyoti Tiwari on Sahara Samay 06 December 2013 @11pm Make the Sexual harassment Law Gender Neutral ! Mere allegations of Sexual harassment lands Men into Jail
Tarun Tejpal of Tehalka and Retd Sc Judge AK Ganguly
accused under
Sexual Harassment at Work Place/Rape Laws.
Use Abuse or Misuse !
Discussion on DD NEWS-Amnae Samnae Telecasted on 29 NOV 2013 @ 10-10.30 pm
Panelists Ms Jyoti Tiwari, Mens Right Activist, Save India Family Foundation Ms Shubhi Chaturvedi, Asst Professor, Journalism Lady Shriram College Ms Charu Wali, Member NCW Mr SK Dua, Journalist and Rajya Sabha Member Anchor - Sudhanshu Ranjan
A Must watch video where SIFF ideology (by Jyoti Tiwari) objurgates into the feminists who come to the edge of their seats to rattle and "Have strong objections to what is being said on panel".
Noticeably when these "Supporters of Mom Batti brigade" find themseleves exposed and on wrong foot they quickly hide behind their archiac magniloquent rhetorics and that to in "Angarezi" forgetting that they are on a Hindi Programme.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट के नए निर्देशों ने दहेज प्रताडि़त मामलों को दी नई दिशा
2013-10-24 AM 09:36:33 कपूरथला (भूषण):
माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट के नए निर्देशों ने दहेज प्रताडि़त मामलों को नई
दिशा दे दी है। इन निर्देशों के तहत अब धारा 498-ए और 406 में नजदीकी
रिश्तेदारों को पुलिस नामजद नहीं करेगी। नए जारी किए गए निर्देशों के बाद
जहां ऐसे मामलों में पुलिस द्वारा अब संबंधित परिवारों के साथ-साथ उनके
नजदीकी रिश्तेदारों को भी धारा 498-ए और 406 में नामजद करने से पहले
सुप्रीम कोर्ट के आदेशों पर अमल करना पड़ेगा, वहीं इस कानून का अवैध लाभ
उठाने वाले लोगों की गतिविधियों पर काफी हद तक रोक लगने की संभावना बन गई
है।
उल्लेखनीय है कि भारतीय संविधान मुताबिक किसी भी विवाहिता को उसके विवाह से
7 वर्ष तक अपने पति सहित पति के नजदीकी रिश्तेदारों के ऊपर दहेज प्रताडि़त
के लिए मुकद्दमा दर्ज करवाने का अधिकार प्राप्त है, लेकिन इस अधिकार के
साथ जहां भारी संख्या में दहेज के लोभियों को सजा मिली है, वहीं इस कानून
का लाभ उठाते हुए कई विवाहिताओं ने अपने ससुर परिवार सहित सुसराल पक्ष के
साथ नजदीकी रिश्तेदारों को भी धारा 498-ए और 406 के जाल में फंसाने में
कामयाबी हासिल की है, जिसके परिणाम स्वरूप बिना कसूर कई परिवार तबाही के
किनारे आ पहुंचे हैं।
वहीं कुछ संदिग्ध किस्म के पुलिस अधिकारियों द्वारा फंसाए गए रिश्तेदारों
को मामले में से निकालने के लिए डील करने की शिकायतें भी सामने आ चुकी हैं।
अब उत्तराखंड के साथ संबंधित एक पीड़ित व्यक्ति की पटीशन पर सुनवाई करते
हुए माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट के जस्टिस अनिल आर. दवे और जस्टिस दीपक मिश्रा की
पीठ ने अहम फैसला सुनाते दहेज प्रताडि़त की शिकायतों में नजदीकी
रिश्तेदारों को नामजद करने में पूरी बारीकी के साथ जांच करने के साथ उनको
मामले में शामिल करने में गुरेज करने के आदेश जारी किए हैं।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट के इस आदेश के साथ उन लोगों को भारी राहत मिलने की संभावना
बन गई है, जो पुलिस द्वारा धारा 498-ए और 406 में नामजद किए मुख्य आरोपियों
के साथ सिर्फ इस कारण ही जोड़ दिए गए, क्योंकि वे उनके रिश्तेदार हैं। ऐसे
मामलों में गत वर्षों दौरान शामिल रहे कई व्यक्तियों ने अपना नाम न छापने
की शर्त पर बताया कि उनको राजनीतिक दबाव या शिकायतकर्त्ता पक्ष की ऊंची
पहुंच के कारण ही बिना मतलब रिश्तेदार होने के परिणाम स्वरूप इस गैर-जमानती
मामले में शामिल कर लिया गया है, जिसके परिणाम स्वरूप ही उनको जमानत
करवाने के लिए भारी रकम खर्च करनी पड़ी।
वहीं उनको बदनामी भी झेलनी पड़ी, लेकिन अब माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा
जारी किए गए नए दिशा-निर्देशों ने बेकसूर लोगों को नई दिशा दी है। इस
संबंधी एस.एस.पी. इंद्रबीर सिंह ने बताया कि जिला पुलिस को पहले ही दहेज
प्रताडऩा के मामलों में निर्दोष व्यक्तियों पर मामला न दर्ज करने के आदेश
जारी किए हुए हैं। माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट के दिशा-निर्देशों की पूरी तरह
पालना की जाएगी।
Misuse of IPC 498a Legal Point Loksabha TV 21 July2013
Panelist included
1. Amit Lakhani, Co-ordinator Save Family Foundation 2. Ms Anu Mehta, Sr Advocate High Court 3. Mr R.N. Vats, Advocate and President Delhi Bar Association
Anchored by - Bhavna Nayyar
Part 1/2 - Misuse of IPC 498a Legal Point Loksabha TV 21 July2013
Part 2/2 - Misuse of IPC 498a Legal Point Loksabha TV 21 July2013
Delhi Cops rapped for hasty arrest in Dowry harassment ipc 498a case
TNN | Jul 8, 2013, 04.22 AM IST
NEW DELHI: Delhi Police's act of immediately arresting a man after the registration of an FIR in a domestic violence case has come under a trial court's scanner as cops had failed to follow the directions laid down by the Delhi high court.
The court was referring to the Delhi Police commissioner's standing order, which said that no case under Section 498A (dowry) or 406 (criminal breach of trust) of IPC should be registered without his prior approval. The standing order was issued after the high court said the main accused should be arrested only after a thorough investigation.
While granting interim bail to the man arrested immediately after the FIR was registered against him under Section 498A, the metropolitan magistrate said, "It is clear from the assertions of the investigating officer that the judgment of HC and the subsequent standing order of commissioner of police, Delhi, have not been duly complied by the concerned official before lodging of the FIR. So, the bail application of the accused is allowed and interim bail is confirmed."
The man's counsel, Prashant Mendiratta, submitted that his client was arrested by the police even when no permission had been taken from the DCP. He also said that the police had acted illegally and the FIR was registered without following the high court's order.
When the court issued a notice to the DCP seeking a reply on the matter, it was informed that "an explanation has been sought from the investigating officer in the case and necessary disciplinary action will be taken against them after receiving their replies".
The court granted interim bail to the man after going through the submissions of the police.
The judgment of HC and the subsequent standing order of the Delhi Police commissioner have not been complied with by the police officer before lodging the FIR, said the trial court.
An unmarried adult couple will be considered married and can be termed husband and wife if they have sex, the Madras high court has said in a judgment with far-reaching consequences, especially for those in live-in relationships.
Such a couple could not separate or "marry" a second time without a decree of divorce if it was proved that they shared a sexual relationship, said the court, whose order has been described as regressive and confused.
The judgment has created a furore online, with social media buzzing with angry messages. (click hereto read the operative part of the verdict)
"If any couple, subject to their attaining the mandatory age of freedom,...indulges in sexual gratification, then that would be considered as valid marriage and they would be termed as 'husband and wife', as a result of their choice of freedom," justice CS Karnan said while deciding a maintenance claim in favour of a woman who had two children with a man she was not married to.
The court said if the woman gets pregnant, she would be treated as the 'wife' and the man as the 'husband'.
"The judgment seems to be based on the established rule regarding presumption of marriage but the court has stretched it too far. There was no need for equating sexual relationship with marriage, which undermines the sanctity of marriage," former law commission member Tahir Mahmood said.
"Putting so much emphasis on sex is rather obnoxious. To say that without divorce the parties cannot separate is legally untenable."
The court said marriage formalities of tying a mangalsutra and exchanging rings were only for the satisfaction of society, adding legal aspects should get precedence over customs.
The court reversed a Coimbatore family court's finding that the duo could not be considered a couple as there was no documentary proof of the wedding. The family court had asked the man to pay R500 maintenance a month to his two children but not to the woman.
In signing the birth certificate of his second child and giving consent to a caesarean section, the man had officially admitted that the woman was his wife, the HC said, ordering the man to pay the woman a maintenance of Rs. 500 a month since September 2000, when she filed petition.
The Supreme Court has all along held that if a man and a woman live together for a long period as husband and wife, there is a presumption of valid marriage between them and children born of such relationship have inheritance rights.
But the HC verdict appears to have confused sex with marriage as it describes consummation or sexual interaction as "the main legal aspect for a valid marriage".
----- Madras HC clarifies pre-marital sex verdict, objects to criticism
PTI Chennai, June 19, 2013
The Madras High Court on Monday took strong objection to criticism of its verdict holding sexual relations between a woman and man of marriageable age, prior to tying the knot, as "a valid wedding" and stoutly defended the order saying it "protected Indian culture and welfare of women."
Two days after he delivered the judgement, which has evoked disapproval and criticisms from various quarters, including on social media, justice CS Karnan said comments should not be made without fully understanding the verdict.
In a clarificatory order, which would be part of the judgement, the judge said "this court's order does not in any way run against any religion and is not intended to wound any Indian. The order had not in any way degraded the system of marriage performed as per the various religious and customs and rites among the various communities." (click here to read the operative part of the verdict)
Justice Karnan further said "this court has given the legal relief to the affected woman. Without fully understanding the court's judgment, adverse comments shall not be passed."
"If a bachelor aged 21 years or above and a spinster aged 18 years or above had premarital sex with the intention to marry and subsequent to this the man deserts the woman, the victim woman can approach a civil forum for remedy after producing necessary substantial evidence to grant her social status as wife. This remedy is not only for the purpose of giving relief to the victim woman but also to maintain the cultural integrity of India," he reiterated.
Justice Karnan had given the judgement on June 18 while modifying an April 2006 judgement of a family court in a maintenance case.
A family court in Coimbatore had ordered a man to pay Rs. 500 maintenance per month to his two children and Rs. 1000 as litigation expenses and had held that the woman's wedding with him did not have any documentary proof.
Phaneesh Murthy, the disgraced former chief executive of iGATE Corp, may lose as much as about Rs 84 crore ($15.09 million) in severance benefits after being sacked by the US-based firm for professional misconduct. Murthy, who was sacked on Tuesday for not disclosing a relationship with a subordinate, however, is entitled to a post termination benefit of $6,000 per month till he and his spouse reach the age of 65
MUMBAI: A man who was directed by the family court to pay maintenance to his wife even though it had dismissed his plea for divorce has got relief from Bombay high court which has stayed the order.
A division bench of Justice V M Kanade and Justice F M Reis decided an application in a pending appeal filed by Subhash Ganguly (name changed) challenging the apex court's February 21, 2013 order dismissing his divorce petition and directing him to pay his wife Babita (name changed) Rs 20,000 as monthly maintenance.
Subhash filed for divorce in 2008. Babita filed her counterclaim and urged the court to restrain him, his family and agents from dispossessing her from the matrimonial home at Bandra (west). She also sought Rs 50,000 towards litigation expenses.
Subhash's advocate Smita Gaidhani, relying on a Supreme Court judgment, argued that the petition for divorce having been dismissed, the marital status was not disrupted by the court's order and hence the FC could not have granted maintenance under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Babita's advocate Taubon Irani said the trial judge had already granted maintenance of Rs 20,000 and hence the SC judgment cannot be made applicable.
The judges said the wife had not prayed for maintenance but only for Rs 50,000 towards litigation expenses. "As the petition for divorce is dismissed, no further order of maintenance could have been passed either in the petition filed by the husband for divorce or in the counter claim," they said, in their April 18, 2013 order uploaded last week. The judges said the SC judgment applies to the present case and the trial court erred in awarding maintenance. They agreed with Gaidhani that the wife can seek maintenance either under section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act or under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The judges allowed Subhash, during pendency of his appeal, to stay in his 2BHK 700 square feet house. Subhash left his house on July 22, 2007 due to harassment at the hands of his wife and her relatives and thereafter was not allowed to enter the hosue. Irani argued that Subhash had subjected Babita to physical and mental cruelty and if he is permitted to stay further complications would arise.
Noting that Subhash is staying in a hotel, the judges said he is entitled to stay in his own house, which he purchased before marriage. They said he has legal right to stay in his own house and laid conditions that the couple would stay in separate bedrooms, have access to common facilities including the kitchen and bathroom and shall not obstruct or interfere with each. They directed Babita to hand the duplicate keys to Subhash. They rejected her plea to stay the order.
Divorcee's right on Ex Husband's Property,Inherited/Aquired.
Debate on Zee News 01 May 2013
Panelists Included
Teena Sharma, Social acivist, All India Forgotten Women's Association (AIFWA)
Jyoti Tiwari, Social Activist, All India Forgotten Women's Association (AIFWA)
Sanjay Parikh, Senior SC Lawyer
Should wife get share in husband's property. Marriage Law amendment. NDTV 24x7 01 may 2013
Panelists include
Rajan Bhasin from Save Indian Family Foundation
Aparna Chandra , Asst professor , National Law University Delhi
Flavia Agnes, Senior Feminist lawyer
Sanjay Patra, BJP Member
Marriage law amendment Bill - Wife's right on Husband's ancestral property NDTV INDIA 01may13
Panelists
Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj , Save Indian family Foundation
Geeta Luthra, senior lawyer Supreme court of India
Kirti Singh, Feminist lawyer
Ranjana Kumari, Feminist from CSR
Fifty-three-year-old
Damyanti Sharma still shudders at the thought of the night she had to
spend at a police station last year. A former school teacher, she never
imagined that realizing her long-cherished dream of seeing her only son
married would one day turn into her family's worst nightmare. "We
treated our daughter-in-law like a daughter. The first two years were
smooth. However, soon the fights started and she eventually walked out
in 2011. Even though we never abused her or even took dowry, we were
implicated in a false dowry harassment case. Since then, our life has
only been about legal hassles and visiting courts," Damyanti claimed.
Every Sunday, a group of women
in situations similar to Damyanti's gather at Borivli and Mulund to
discuss the atrocities committed on them under women-centric laws such
as the Dowry Act (498-A) and the Domestic Violence Act. These women are
not "victims" under the law but like Damyanti are those who face
prosecution, after their daughters-in-law and sisters-in-law file
complaints against them. This situation has led to the birth of a group
called Mothers and Sisters of Husband Against Abuse of Law (MASHAAL), a
part of a nationwide forum called the Indian Family Foundation (IFF).
The forum is fighting against what it calls "criminalization of marital
disputes". The forum alleges that of late, it has become a fashion for a
wife's family to threaten the husband's family with false dowry and
maintenance cases if their demands are not met.
"The
disambiguation lies in the word 'women' in such laws, which actually
implies just wife. The laws seem to be immune to mothers and sisters of
the husband. Their problems in such situations also need amplification,"
says Jinesh Zaveri, an activist and a co-founder of MASHAAL.
For a 61-year-old Dahisar-based architect, the act of helping such
distressed families has helped him and his 31-year-old son deal with
their own legal battle. "While helping these people, I never ever
thought that we would end up in such a situation," he says. His son, who
was a computer engineer in the Middle
East, lost his job as a consequence of the false complaint filed by his
daughter-in-law's family, he alleged. "Her family was against the idea
of her marrying outside the community and hence they took her back and
filed the complaint to harass us and extort money," he says.
Both father and son were granted bail soon after being detained.
A reason for the misuse of such laws, say legal experts, is the manner
in which such laws are framed and the state machinery involved in
executing them.
"Though women-centric laws are welcome and the
need of the hour, one must bear in mind that they cannot be framed under
pressure and in the absence of a rationale. The laws must be such that
while women can get the maximum benefit, there is very little room for
ambiguity and misuse," a lawyer said.
He adds that the police
also needs to be sensitized on how to handle such cases and that these
cases must be registered and arrests made only after conducting
investigations.
Save Indian Family protests at PM house against proposed Hindu Marriage Act Amendment on wife's rights on Husband's inherited property. The protesting activists at 7 RCR, PM house, where the meeting was being held were arrested by Delhi Police and taken to chankyapuri police station where they were later released after about one and half of detension
Brave MEN/HUSBANDS do not tolerate injustice
Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill referred to GoM
The controversial Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill was on Wednesday referred to a Group of Ministers after differences cropped up over clauses dealing with a woman’s right to marital property in case of divorce.
The Union Cabinet, at a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, deliberated at length on the proposed legislation but failed to arrive at a consensus and the matter was then referred to a GoM.
The Law Ministry had suggested that a woman be given a share in residential property of the husband, including inherited and inheritable premises, in case of divorce.
The Ministry of Women and Child Development has suggested that a woman’s right to inheritable property and property acquired by the husband before marriage be kept out of the purview of the law.
The ministers discussed the amendments for over two hours during the meeting of the Cabinet.
“When thinking men and women present different opinions, different opinions do not mean difference of opinion,” Finance Minister P. Chidambaram said when asked whether the Cabinet was split on the matter.
“Views are expressed in a Cabinet and after expressing views, the Prime Minister takes the final decision. In this case the matter has been referred to a Group of Ministers to look at one or two clauses of the Bill,” he said.
The GoM would examine the clauses over the next few days and the Bill will come back before the Cabinet, he said.
Even as the Cabinet was discussing the matter, a small group of protestors shouted slogans against the Bill outside the Prime Minister’s official residence.
They were rounded up by the police and taken away from the high security zone.
Ministries differ over divorcee’s right to inherited property
01 May 2013
NEW DELHI: Sharp differences have emerged within the government on a woman's right to marital property after a divorce. The law ministry has mooted amendments suggesting that a woman should have a share in a residential property acquired by the husband bought not only during or before marriage, but also inherited and inheritable property. In contrast, the ministry of women and child development (WCD) had recommended that property acquired before marriage or that is expected to be inherited should be excluded from the purview of this law.
The Marriage Laws (amendment) Bill is likely to be taken up for the Union Cabinet's approval on Wednesday. This is the second time that there has been a difference in opinion between the two arms of government. The two ministries had also clashed on the issue of lowering the age of consent in the anti-rape legislation. While the law ministry sought lowering the age of consent to 16 years, the WCD ministry was opposed to the move mooting 18 years as the age of consent.
According to sources, the WCD ministry had argued that there would be practical difficulties in implementing the law that could work against the woman's claim to marital property. The ministry had, therefore, suggested that a woman seeking divorce should not have claim to property that has been acquired before marriage or that which is "inheritable" (expected to be inherited.)
The government also proposes to redefine the phrase 'residential property' to include not just the residential house but also other properties acquired by the husband. In case, others, besides the husband, also have rights in the inherited property and it is impractical to divide it, the wife would have the right to receive an equivalent amount of money in place of her share.
The wife would have an equal share in the property regardless of whether it was acquired before or after marriage and regardless of whether it is only in the husband's name or held jointly.
The changes in the Bill have been brought after considerable pressure from civil society as well as members of Parliament.
The government had earlier introduced the amendment bill in order to alter the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, providing the option of divorce on grounds of 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage' as a ground for divorce.
The government also for the first time introduced a legislated right for the wife to a share in the movable and immovable residential properties.
Conflicting views
Law ministry: woman should get share in marital residential property acquired by husband, partly or jointly owned, before, during marriage. She also has a right to property inherited or inheritable.
WCD ministry: woman's claim to property bought before marriage or inheritable should be excluded.
Union Cabinet likely to take up the issue on Wednesday
SP leader detained for allegedly sexually harassing woman
Lucknow: Samajwadi Party leader
Chandranath Singh was detained in a sexual harassment case after a woman
travelling on the Padmavati Express complained that he harassed her on
Sunday night. The SP leader complained of chest pain and has been
admitted to hospital now.
Anti-rape bill to be placed in Parliament Tuesday despite opposition by BJP SP. BSP Misuse clause a sticky issue: Dilution of Voyeurism and Stalking ; Age of consent raised back to 18
Sources said, the government also agreed to provide safeguards in
the anti-rape bill to provisions relating to stalking and staring, which
have been made non-bailable offences.
The all-party meeting with a resolve that the anti-rape bill will be passed in Parliament this week.
"Largely
there is consensus on the intent and the content of the Bill, except
that there are concerns about misuse and abuse of some of the provisions
of the Bill," Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kamal Nath had told
reporters here after the first round of the all-party meeting.
BJP,
SP and other parties demanded that the age of consent for sex be 18
years and not 16 as envisaged in the Ordinance. They contended that
since the age of marriage is 18 years, the age of consent should be the
same.
Other parties, however, said pre-marital sex is a reality and the age of consent should be 16 years.
Most parties were of the view that the clauses about stalking and voyuerism be tweaked further to prevent misuse.
There
should be sufficient safeguards against filing of false cases by
political opponents and those wanting to settle scores, they said.
Kamal Nath said the government is ready to bring necessary official amendments in the Bill and ensure its smooth passage.
The
government suggested in the meeting that the introduction, discussion
and passage of the Bill be done on the same day, that is, tomorrow in
Lok Sabha.
The Ordinance lapses on April 4 and the government and
most parties are of the view that the Bill be passed with suitable
changes before the Budget Session goes into recess on March 22.
The age of consent in Ordinance was 18 and it was brought down to 16 in the proposed Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2013.
Before
the ordinance was promulgated, the age of consent was 16. It has been
at 16 years for the past 30 years. Before that, the age of consent for
sex was considered by the age of puberty which had created confusion,
forcing government to fix it at 16.
The Bill had provisions for
safeguard against misuse. But the GoM to which it was referred to
decided to drop it, maintaining the existing provisions in IPC have
sufficient safeguards.
"Some political leaders said the law could
be misused ahead of Lok Sabha elections. They wanted safeguards to be
specified," a Minister, who attended the meeting, said.
The
Criminal Laws Ordinance, which made anti-rape laws more stringent, was
promulgated by the President on February 3 in the wake of public outrage
over the December 16 Delhi gangrape.
After separation of a year, wife can’t file complaint under domestic violence act, says high court
In an important ruling, the Bombay high court has held that a woman can
file a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
(DV) Act only while still in the domestic relationship.
Justice Roshan Dalvi rejected a petition filed by a woman who had left her husband and two children living in America and returned to Mumbai.
“A wife who has returned from the US and consequently from the
domestic relationship and lived in India for one year cannot file an
application with regard to that relationship after such time," said
Dalvi while upholding a sessions court order.
"Such a woman cannot be considered to be in any domestic relationship," the judge said.
The woman got married in May 1999 and lived with her husband in the US. She returned to India in February 2009.
In January 2010, she filed a complaint under provisions of the DV Act
against her husband, but the sessions court rejected her complaint as
no domestic relationship existed at the time of filing the complaint.
Upholding the lower court's order, Dalvi clarified that a woman who
lived in a domestic relationship earlier, but which ceases only because
of the domestic violence, can certainly file an application for such
domestic violence that took place during the relationship.
Here is the full video of the programme that was aired live on 14 March 2013, featuring the positions taken by Congress, BJP, Women activists, Jat Sanghs, Social workers (feminist mindset) and lawyers.
No representataion from Men Rights organisations were taken as usual!!!
मंत्रियों के समूह ने बलात्कार विरोधी कानून का मसौदा तैयार कर दिया है
और गुरुवार को इसे कैबिनेट में रखा जा रहा है लेकिन बलात्कार के खिलाफ सख्त
कानून के नाम पर जिस तरह से आपसी सहमति से संबंध बनाने की उम्र 18 से 16
किया गया है उस पर सवाल खड़े हो गए हैं. इसके अलावा जिस तरह के आरोपों को
गैर जमानती बनाया गया है उससे भी मुश्किल खड़ी हो सकती है.
मतलब अब सरकार ने संबंध बनाने के लिए विवाह योग्य उम्र की वर्जना तोड़ने
की तैयारी कर ली है. 16 साल में शादी नहीं कर सकते लेकिन संबंध बना
सकेंगे. शादी की उम्र लड़कों के लिए 21 साल है. शादी छोड़ दीजिए 16 साल में
एडल्ट श्रेणी की फिल्म तक नहीं देख सकते लेकिन संबंध बना सकते हैं, 16 साल
में शराब नहीं पी सकते लेकिन शारीरिक संबंध बना सकते हैं.
अब देखिए है किस ज़ुर्म पर कितनी सजा है मंत्री समूह से पास किए गए एंटी
रेप कानून में. रेप पर उम्र कैद, तेज़ाब फेंकने पर उम्र कैद, नाबालिग से
दुष्कर्म पर उम्र कैद, लेकिन जो हाहाकारी है वो ये कि इस कानून में
ज़्यादातर गुनाहों को ग़ैर जमानती बना दिया गया है.
मतलब कोई पुरुष ट्रैफिक जाम में फंस गया हो और इत्तेफाक से उसकी कार
किसी महिला की कार के पीछे हो तो महिला उसपर पीछा करने का आरोप लगा सकती है
और उसकी जमानत नहीं होगी.
इसी तरह आप किसी महिला को पहचानने की कोशिश कर रहे हों और महिला को ये
पसंद न आए तो वो उसे 100 नंबर डायल करके अंदर करा सकती है. अगर कोई पुरुष
काम करते हुए किसी महिला की तरफ बीच-बीच में देख लेता है तो वो गैर जमानती
अपराध का भागीदार है और पुलिस के लिए महिला का बयान आख़िरी होगा. हद ये है
कि अगर महिला झूठी निकली तो उसके खिलाफ कोई कार्रवाई नहीं होगी.
कैबिनेट से पास होने के बाद एंटी रेप कानून सर्वदलीय बैठक में रखा जाएगा
और वहां से सहमति असहमति के बाद संसद में लेकिन सवाल है कि इस कानून में
बचाव की नीयत ज़्यादा है या भय की भूमिका.
Radical feminists groups in India had Orchestrated the Delhi gang rape incidence hype and now hijack the proposed Anti rape law by successfully trapping the media hype and Politicians.
Media anchors along with the hardcore veteran radical feminist panelists who themselves act as super anchors doesnt allow anyone who oppose their Misandrist mindset.
Here is classical example of the debate on CNN IBN channel's Face The Nation on March 13, 2013,where the feminists wont allow anyone to go oppsite their wired mindset
Watch the first 11 minutes of this programme, Social Networking telecasted on NDTV 13 March 2013 @6.30 pm
Here the anchor lets Kavita Krishnen, Secretary, All India Progressive Women’s Association, get away with anything and everything. Ohh , the Women NGO were exclusively and constantly monitoring the Emp GOM meet via video conference, so in a way it is the Women radical feminist (Are they the same who orchestrated the Delhi gnag rape hype and also seemingly hijacked the Justice Verma committe)who are making the law and the ministers have allowed themselves to be used as mere pawns at the hands of these Big Bindi sirens who are openly threatening and challenging the VOTE bank hungry Mininsters. Shame on those who make criminal laws in a hurry and under pressure tactics
The Last Word: Has confusion over anti-rape bill undermined govt's image, sincerity? on CNNIBN, The Last word - Hosted by Karan Thapar telecasted on 12 march, 2013
Panelist
Vrinda Grover, Women activist lawyer
G Subramnium, Member JVC
Abhishek manusinghvi, Congress Spokes spokesman
Feminists groups and women rights activists, mocks and threats of mutiny if govt or anyone oppose them and dares to support the gender neurality and misuse clause of Proposed Anti rape law.
Video link
Anti-rape Bill: Group of ministers lowers age of consent for sex to 16 years
NEW DELHI: Sorting out differences, a group of ministers (GoM) on Wednesday night recommended lowering of age of consent for sex from 18 to 16 years and suggested stern punishment for offences like stalking.
Working speedily, the GoM completed its task in the second meeting, paving the way for consideration of the Criminal Laws (Amendment) Bill by the Union Cabinet on Thursday.
The age of consent for sex was one of the highly contentious provisions in the Bill, because of which it was referred by the Cabinet to the GoM on Tuesday.
"We have gone through every provision of the proposed bill and all issues have been resolved. Now the matter will go to Cabinet tomorrow and hopefully it will be passed tomorrow," telecom minister Kapil Sibal told reporters.
At today's GoM meeting, there was consensus on lowering the age from 18 to 16 years, subject to approval by Parliament.
Women and child development minister Krishna Tirath had been opposing any move to lower the age of consent.
The GoM, chaired by finance minister P Chidambaram, also recommended that sustained stalking be made a non-bailable offence while first offence of voyeurism could be a bailable offence, sources said.
Repeat offences of voyeurisn, inappropriate touch, gesture and remarks have been recommended as non-bailable offences, they said.
The GoM also decided to retain the term 'rape' in the bill and treat it gender-specific, instead of the proposal to make it gender-neutral.
Provisions seeking strong action against those filing false complaints were dropped from the draft Bill, the sources said adding that there was consensus in the GoM that existing laws were adequate for dealing with such cases and it was only a matter of enforcing them.
The Bill will replace Criminal Laws Ordinance promulgated on February 3 in the wake of public outrage over the December 16 Delhi gang rape.
The Ordinance has to be approved by Parliament before its recess from March 22, failing which it would lapse on April 4.
The GoM was also not in favour of replacing the word 'rape' with 'sexual assault' as proposed in the Bill, the sources said.
It also decided to make rape gender-specific, meaning that it could be only against a woman, they said.
Offences such as sodomy can be addressed by the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Refusing to give details, Sibal said, "there are no differences of opinion".
The GoM was set up in view of persisting differences among ministers on its provisions at the meeting of the Union Cabinet on Tuesday.
However, considering the urgency of the matter, the GoM was asked to submit its report on Wednesday night so that the Bill could be brought before the Cabinet on Thursday.
On the issue of stalking and voyeurism, some ministers were of the view that the provisions would be "prone to misuse" and should only be incorporated after putting in place sufficient safeguards, including harsh penalty for lodging false cases.
Stalking and voyeurism were for the first time defined as criminal offences in the Ordinance.
Some parties like the Samajwadi Party have serious reservations on certain provisions of the ordinance claiming they are prone to misuse.
Lengthy inter-ministerial consultations had taken place on the issue of lowering of the age of consent from 18 years to 16 with the Women and Child Development Ministry strongly opposing the move.
The Bill retains a key provision of the ordinance under which if rape leads to death of the victim or leaves her in a vegetative state, it can also attract death penalty. The minimum punishment is 20 years in jail which may extend upto the "natural life" of the convict.
Swaroop Sarkar, SIFF blasts Feminists lies. Debate on Gender Neutrality and Consensual Sex Age issues in Proposed Anti Rape laws. India News 12 March 2013
(This is recording of the last 10 minutes of programme which was telecasted live)
Sms poll result on India News - Should Consensual Sex Age be lowered to 16 yr ?
YES - 51 %
NO - 49%
Related Media coverage
Why a gender neutral anti-rape law isn’t anti-women
The question on whether or not rape should be made gender neutral has had many activists up in arms, and is also reportedly a source of conflict between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Law Ministry, leading to a delay in the introduction of the anti-rape law in Parliament.
Leading women’s rights activist Kavita Krishnan has been one of those who has been against the definition being made gender neutral.
“They are making the law against rape gender-neutral, where the accused is concerned. This means women can now be accused of rape. Now when we were struggling on the streets, was this what we were asking for? Is it a problem is society that women are going around raping men?”, she told Firstpost in an interview.
With all due respect to Ms Krishnan, I strongly disagree.
While it is true that more women get raped and sexually assaulted, it does not mean it does not happen to men at all. Men do get raped – mostly by other men but yes, sometimes by women too. So arguing that the law can be misused is no argument to not pass one at all.
Male rape is in fact, more widespread than many of us think. Delhi gangrape suspect Ram Singh, who allegedly committed suicide on Monday, claimed that he was raped by other male prisoners. And according to Firstpost editor G Pramod Kumar, the problem of male rape in Indian prisons is a real problem:
“The People’s Union of Civil Liberties had this to say about Tihar way back in 1981: “When a young boy enters, the prisoners have been known to have bid a price for the boy. The price offered is in terms of ‘bidis’, soap or charas. Often prisoners have been divided into camps and the groups have fought each other on the issue of who shall have the new entrant.”
The Guardian also did a harrowing story on how male rape is endemic in many of the world’s conflicts.
“Twenty-one per cent of Sri Lankan males who were seen at a London torture treatment centre reported sexual abuse while in detention. In El Salvador, 76% of male political prisoners surveyed in the 1980s described at least one incidence of sexual torture. A study of 6,000 concentration-camp inmates in Sarajevo found that 80% of men reported having been raped” the report said.
But male rape is not just restricted to extraordinary situations like war and prison.
A 2012 psychology study noted that “Victim surveys of British and American males have shown that 3 to 8 percent of males reported at least one adulthood incidence of sexual assault in their lifetimes with at least 5 to 10 per cent of all rape victims being male”
A provocative Stanford university study titled ‘psychology of men and masculinity‘ which states that there are several ‘myths’that often lead to the perception that male rape is not a ‘real’ phenomenon. These include beliefs like:
- Men cannot be raped
- “Real” men can defend themselves against rape
- Men are not affected by rape (or not as much as women)
- A woman cannot sexually assault a man
- Male rape only happens in prisons
One possible solution has been to at least recognise that men can be rape victims, even if the law does not see women as perpetrators. This would at least allow male victims to seek redress under law when they are raped by other men. This is vastly better than taking men out of the equation altogether.
However it is my belief that making a law gender neutral should not be seen as yet ‘another tool’ with which to attack women. Instead it should be viewed as a tool to protect male victims and encourage them to come forward and seek justice under India’s legal system. Taking away their right to seek redress under law is just another form of discrimination, and is in no way a victory either for women or the cause of feminism.
8 मार्च को अंतरराष्ट्रीय महिला दिवस के मौके पर एक बार फिर देश में महिला से जुड़े मुद्दों पर चर्चा आरंभ हो गई। आखिर क्या कुछ बदलाव आ रहा है। महिलाओं को हक कब मिलेगा... इन्हीं सब मुद्दों पर प्राइम टाइम में चर्चा...
Here is the official full
verbatim uncorrected version of the debate/discussion on Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill held on 26 Feb 2013 in Rajya Sabha
along with answers by Mrs Krishna Tirath, MoS WCD, to various queries raised by RS members prior to
passage of the bill see page 178 to 288 of the pdf file attached below
NCW and Feminists group gangup opposing the inclusion of MISUSE CLAUSE in Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill (SHWB) which may be presented in Rajya Sabha on 26 Febuary 2013 for approval.
Here is a debate on Rajya Sabha tv that was telecasted on 25 Feb 2013 , 8 - 8.30 pm on the issue of Misuse clause in SHWB and also the need for Gender Neutrality of various Laws esp PWDVA ( Protection of Woemn against Domestic Violence also called Domestic violence act )
The panel included -
Mrs Mamata Sharma, NCW chief
Mrs Sayeeda Hameed, Member Planning Commission
Mrs Vineta Pandey, Deputy Editor Dainik Bhaskar
Mrs Geeta Luthra, Sr Advocate Supreme Court
Part 1/2 - MISUSE CLAUSE in Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill | Debate on RAJYA SABHA TV 25 FEB 2013
Part 2/2 - MISUSE CLAUSE in Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill | Debate on RAJYA SABHA TV 25 FEB 2013
ByDhananjay Mahapatra, TNN | Feb 23, 2013, 02.42 AM IST
In a first, the Supreme Court on Friday permitted settling of cases
under Section 498A of IPC lodged by a woman against her husband and
in-laws for alleged cruelty in her matrimonial home.
NEW DELHI: In a first, the Supreme Court on Friday permitted settling of
cases under Section 498A of IPC lodged by a woman against her husband
and in-laws for alleged cruelty in her matrimonial home.
Though it was enacted to protect women from harassment and cruelty,
there has been judicial recognition of the fact that on several
occasions, false complaints under Section 498A were filed to teach the
husband and his relatives a lesson as these cases were non-compoundable
and bail was difficult to get.
"We feel that though offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC is
not compoundable, in appropriate cases, if the parties are willing and
if it appears to the criminal court that there exists elements of
settlement, it should direct the parties to explore the possibility of
settlement through mediation," a bench of Justices Aftab Alam and
Ranjana P Desai said.
"If there is settlement, the parties will be saved from the trials and
tribulations of a criminal case and that will reduce the burden on the
courts which will be in the larger public interest," said Justice Desai,
who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench.
"During mediation, the parties can either decide to part company on
mutually agreed terms or they may decide to patch up and stay together.
In either case, for the settlement to come through, the complaint will
have to be quashed. In that event, they can approach the high court and
get the complaint quashed. If, however, they choose not to settle, they
can proceed with the complaint. In this exercise, there is no loss to
anyone," the bench said.
The judgment came in a case where a couple separated just two days after
marriage as a row between the parents of the bride and groom resulted
in a massive ego battle leading to a legal fight that lasted for 10
years.
During the time they were separated, the wife made several false
complaints against her husband and his father, including a derogatory
complaint that she was asked by her mother-in-law to sleep with her
father-in-law. When the court found it to be false, she said it was an
attempt to pressurize her husband to take her back.
The bench said, "This statement cannot be explained away by stating that
it was made because the wife was anxious to go back to the husband.
This is not the way to win the husband back. It is well settled that
such statements cause mental cruelty. By sending this complaint, the
wife has caused mental cruelty to the husband."
It said the high court erred by ruling that mental cruelty could be
caused only if the husband and wife stayed under one roof. "Staying
together under the same roof is not a pre-condition for mental cruelty.
Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or
she is not staying under the same roof," Justice Desai said.
"In a given case, while staying away, a spouse can cause mental cruelty
to the other spouse by sending defamatory letters or notices or filing
complaints containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of
judicial proceedings making the other spouse's life miserable. This is
what has happened in this case," she added.
The bench said years of false and frivolous complaints had irretrievably
broken down the marriage between the parties. It asked the husband to
pay Rs 15 lakh as alimony for grant of divorce.
"Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But where marriage is beyond repair on
account of bitterness created by the acts of the husband or the wife or
both, the courts have always taken irretrievable breakdown of marriage
as a very weighty circumstance amongst others necessitating severance of
marital tie," the court said.
"A marriage which is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by the
court's verdict, if the parties are not willing. This is because
marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and if they are dried
up, there is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on
account of artificial reunion created by the court's decree," it added.
Does India require Draconian Biased Marital rape laws favouring wife ? Despite ongoing flagrant misuse of Women centric marital Draconian 498a and PWDVA !!
Debate in context with Justice Verma Commission recommendations on DD News | Aamnae Samnae | 08 Feb 2013 Friday 10-10.30pm
Anchored By Sudhanshu Ranjan
Guest panel included
Mrs Jyoti Tiwari from Save Indian Family Foundation Delhi
Mrs Ranjana kumari from CSR (Centre for Social Research) - Hardcore Misandrist
Mr Mrinal Satish Asst Prof of Law, National Law University, Dwarka - Member of Advisory team to Justice Verma Commission
The father of Taoism, Lao Tzu’s sayings
seem to make much relevance today. He said, “The more laws and order are
made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be.” This is
exactly what is happening in the marital scenario in India. There are
too many laws and all of them are unanimously loathed against men. None
of them provide any kind of remedy to a distressed and victimized man.
Instead, they leave no stone unturned in criminalizing an innocent man.
First
we had the Section 125 CrPC which made men pay maintenance to their
wives, children and parents irrespective of whether a man’s
wife/children/parents take care of him or not; the man will be treated
as a free ATM machine in all probability and would be forced to maintain
the very people who would abuse him.
Then came the notorious and draconian dowry law aka the
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code which was non-bailable,
cognizable and non-compoundable. Cutting long story short and putting it
in layman’s terms, this section provided for immediate arrest of a
husband and his family, based on the wife’s complaint even without trial
or investigation.
Enter the Domestic Violence Act (D.V. Act),
which was so badly drafted that it left no scope for a man to prove him
innocent therein, if a case is filed against him. Neither were any
offenses properly defined nor was any care taken to abide by principles
of natural justice in the law.
Interestingly, when the debate for
D.V. Act was going on, woman organizations claimed that, now cases under
section 498A would reduce and, D.V. Act would serve as a single window
for all matrimonial disputes. However, it did not happen. As usual, the
woman organizations were lying and fooling the society, which is more
than ready to be fooled by them.
Every matrimonial dispute had
both 498A and D.V. Act filed against the husband. This only increased
the pressure on the husband to settle the case out of court which
clearly meant paying hefty ransom money to the wife who would file false
cases at her whim and fancy and then demand alimony to the tune of
crores of rupees.
As if this unabated financial, legal and social
exploitation of innocent men wasn’t enough, now the media and woman
organizations are proposing yet another anti-male provision in the form
of “Marital Rape”.
However, few very important questions need to
be raised before we even think of bringing in the new legislation
containing provisions for penalizing the husband when a wife complains
of marital rape.
1. When 498A and D.V. Act already have provisions for sexual abuse, what is the need of a separate law?
2. Will it not lead to multiplicity of litigation in divorce cases increasing the burden on the already burdened courts?
3. Will it not accelerate the formation of a marriage-less and father-less society?
4. Why not scrap 498A and D.V. Act before bringing in the legislation?
5.
How did the issue of marital rape suddenly become so relevant for the
media whence the whole issue of amending sexual assault laws began with
the 16 December incident in Delhi which, in itself is a rarest of the rare cases?
6. Will any woman organization care to answer the above questions to the satisfaction of all sections of the society?
7.
Are woman organizations meant only to shout and spread anti-male
messages, and do fear-mongering and hate-mongering in the society?
8.
Are they not supposed to take some semblance of responsibility and
accountability for the illogical demands they make and the disastrous
consequences that enthrall upon the society, especially men?
9. Who has given them the authority to waste tax payers’ hard earned money for satiating their personal vendetta against men?
10.
When they haven’t taken any responsibility for the misuse of Section
498A and D.V. Act in the past and taken any corrective action for the
same, will it be a sane move to bring in yet another more draconian law
and assume there wouldn’t be any misuse or social backlash against the
same?
Questions are galore, answers are elusive. And while the
woman organizations choose to answer these questions, if they may so
wish to, I would like to bring up some more serious issues pertaining to
marital rape.
Definition of Consent:
Firstly, the very
technical definition of rape is sex against consent. Secondly, sex
between spouses is a very integral part of marriage. So, invariably sex
will be involved in a marriage and in the absence of a concrete and
objective definition of consent with regards to marital rape, this
provision can become a serious candidate for misuse.
Whenever, a
woman would want to break out of marriage, all she needs to say is, “He
forced himself onto me, saying that I am his wife and I have to submit
to him”. It’s over, marital rape is registered and overnight, the
husband becomes a rapist!
There would absolutely be no way to
determine the correctness of the issue. Because in the absence of a
definition of consent even physical injury is not needed; for when one
defines the subjugation of consent subject to the essence of a
relationship, quintessentially we are saying, consent is automatically
provided and whimsically withdrawn.
Women organizations are not
interested in intellectual debate around the issue, nor do they want to
provide any tangible or scientific data to testify and support their
claims. All they want to do is hooliganism on TV channels, make a lot of
noise and get things done without taking any responsibility. It the
collective responsibility of the society and the Govt. to stop promoting
such socially disastrous elements, rather than giving into their
histrionics and passing insane laws.
One more important and
critical issue which has been missed out in the entire social discourse
pertaining to the issue of marital rape is that of “Marital Rape of
Men”.
When women organizations are saying that “Marriage is not a
guarantee for lifetime sex”, then this premise applies to both men and
women and who will protect men from forced sex in marriages i.e. who
will protect men from marital rape in marriages?
1. What if a wife forces a man to do oral sex against his wish?
2.
What if a wife forces a man to have sex with him in order to have
children even when the man is not prepared to father them?
3.
What if a wife has more sex hunger than the man and she keeps on
demanding sex from the man against his wish, mood and energy?
4.
What if a wife forces a man to have sex with him using derogatory terms
like impotent, eunuch (hijra), gay, sissy, faggot, unmanly, etc.?
5. What if a wife threatens to file a case of marital rape, or for that matter, any case, if he doesn’t satisfy her?
6.
What, if a man is forced to have sex with his wife under the threat
that she will commit suicide if he doesn’t have sex with her?
Above
scenarios is a tip of the iceberg of the various types of sexual abuse
that men undergo in marriages and survive without protection. But if,
the marital rape law is passed in its current form, as suggested by the
woman organizations, then who will take care of male victims of rapes?
While
the onus and responsibility of protecting men does not fall upon the
women organizations, but it does fall upon the government, which is duty
bound to protect every citizen and every class of citizens irrespective
of gender, caste, creed and sexual orientation. And hence, the
government must exercise extreme caution into blindly listening to these
anti-male and male hater women organizations, who operate with a
mindset of hatred towards men and seem to be more concerned of depriving
men of their rights than to ensure women getting their rights.
Already,
enough social damage has been done because the government blindly
listened to these women organizations and millions of innocent men and
women have been thrown behind bars under false cases of Section 498A.
The government must not contribute to this figure more by bringing in
further blind measures which are driven by stereotypes and assumptions.
And
even if the government does so, it must provide a foolproof mechanism
for preventing false cases and ensure that the law is not misused even
in a single case. And the government must also provide compensation to
those individuals who are victims of false cases and have been wrongly
arrested.
All those families, whose members have been arrested
wrongly, in false cases, must be given Rs. 50 Lakhs as compensation and
this amount must be deducted from the budget allocated to women
organizations as they are directly responsible for this injustice.
We
are inviting extreme social dangers by making another anti-male law by
including marital rape which does not even define consent properly. It’s
time to make wise choices and not be driven by noise and ill-logic.
Marital Rape debate on CNNIBN programme on 05 Feb 2013 Face The Nation featuring Wasif Ali from SIFF Delhi
FTN: Does the Indian society still not recognise the sexual rights of wives?