 |
The Court found that Nisha Sharma's allegations were false as she wanted to avoid getting married to Manish Dalal |
19/05/2011
There are so many reasons why women cheat. None of them good, but the truth is it happens. The fact that some women believe they can get away with it is probably the most important reason why they cheat; moreover now than any other time in history.
Common indicators of infidelity often involve her staying up later at night and/or staying in a different room - potentially on the phone or online. You may notice a new energy into getting dressed up, wearing perfume, going out or away for conferences, a disconnection from touching and an overall disconnect, but the major sign of cheating is not being present in the "primary" relationship and being very distant. Women will usually become very distant in a relationship when they are being unfaithful because they have developed feelings for another person and cannot split their emotions very easily.
Understanding why women cheat is crucial in order to understanding and recognising risk factors and/or indicators that your wife/girlfriend is cheating. But, more importantly, understanding why women cheat in general can help to prevent them from doing so and strengthen a bond of trust and communication between you and your partner.
10 common reasons women give for cheating (in order)
1. Not having her needs met emotionally
This is the most common reason women give. This means, for whatever reason, feeling undervalued, unappreciated, disrespected and generally disconnected. Affection and communication are two of the biggest areas where men can leave women feeling unfulfilled emotionally
2. Resentment
Anger and frustration that women may harbour towards their significant other can create feelings of isolation and loneliness. After a prolonged period, some of these women start to seek companionship elsewhere.
3. Because they can
Many women are disproportionately exposed to men than women in the workplace, as a direct consequence, many have more options and chances to cheat. Like many people, some women just do it because the opportunity struck. Right or wrong were never factored in. This is probably one of the worst reasons given, but true.
4. Because they are longing for better sex
Plenty of cheating women are so unsatisfied with their sexual relationship that they eventually seek fulfillment elsewhere.
5. Revenge
Plenty of cheating women see their actions as a form of justice against a partner who has wronged them in some way.
6. When there seems to be too much "baggage" in the relationship
A woman will only take so much. Unfortunately in the beginning of a relationship a woman can take more because her hormones are surging. Once the honeymoon phase wears off the baggage better wear off as well, otherwise she may start looking at her options. Baggage can be Ex's, out of control kids, overbearing family members, intrusive friends, etc.
7. Boredom
Bored women may seek an escape from the mundane. Cheating may be viewed as a way to add some excitement into her life. The thrill of doing something wrong or of potentially getting caught.
8. Feeling unattractive to her partner
If another guy comes along and starts telling her how beautiful she is and how special she, she may start to feel better around him than she feels around her partner. This is especially dangerous because those feelings will cause her to develop an attachment to the other man.
9. Low self-esteem
In general sex is a drug; it makes us feel good. It also makes many of us feel desirable which gives us a false sense of self-esteem. Plenty of women will seek out sex, and lots of it, from many partners as a form of validation. This sense of worth and value is short lived and thus these women are caught continually seeking it out.
10. Some women cheat as sort of an exit strategy
She doesn't want to break up with you verbally so behaviourally she goes out and cheats on you so you break up with her. It's a coward's way out but, in her eyes, it's a way out nonetheless.
How to keep her faithful
Simply be there for her emotionally. This simple solution has the potential to prevent nearly half of the cases of female infidelity. Easy ways to show her you are there for her emotionally can be simply hearing her out and listening to her problems. Do not try to solve her problems but rather just listen to them - maybe even hold her. You can ask her if there is anything that you can do to help but try to avoid jumping in with suggestions. Many times men jump in and start offering suggestions and the woman feels like she is not being heard. Another thing you can do is give her plenty of attention. Never give other women sexual attention - women are generally very jealous and resentful when it comes to this. It is very important that she feels like she is the primary woman in your life. This is critical to keeping her faithful.
Source: www.shavemagazine.com
http://lifestyle.in.msn.com/relationships/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5168042
India :
HUNGER STRIKE BY DASHRATH TO PREVENT MISUSE OF IPC498A AND ANIT-MEN LAW LIKE CRPC125,HMA24, DV ACT IN JANTAR MANTAR DELHI FROM 15TH MAY 2011.
ALL ARE REQUESTED TO BE PRESENT ON SATURDAY 4.00 PM ONWARDS AT JANTAR MANTAR TO RAISE YOUR VOICE ALONG WITH YOUR AGE OLD PARENTS AND SISTERS WHO ARE VICTIM OF SUCH MISUSE OF LAW AND LEGAL TERRORISM AS DESCRIBED BY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
Inspite of SC direction to review the same law LAW Ministry not taken any effective time bound action. This time they have to give us the time bound confirmation of action.
We wonder Whose life is in More Danger in India : Men or Women?
Crime Bure data 2005 : Married Men Sucide : 52k vs Married Women Sucide 28K.Still there is no LAW to Protect Men why?
2006 Crime Bure Data : Married Men Sucide:55452 vs. Married Women Sucide:29869.
2007 Crime Bure Data : Married Men Sucide:57593 vs. Married Women Sucide:30064
Will Our LAW Maker change the LAW 304B( dowry death) to 304C( Sowry Death) and 498A ( harrasement to wife) to 498B ( Sowry harrasement by wife)
Urgently Review the Present IPC 498A and Make Same Gender Natural.
The Government needs to act NOW Save Family Foundation urges the Government of India to make the following amendments to the law and ensure that ordinary citizens of India are spared from needless harassment:
1.Section 498A of IPC should be made bailable.
Section 498A, being non-bailable, allows punishing the accused by imprisonment even before guilt is established. This goes against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Abused women need protection, but placing unconditional faith in the statements of a woman and confining the accused husband and his family in police or judicial custody, until bail is granted by a court, is not the way to accord protection to women.
2.Section 498A of IPC should be made non-cognizable.
Innocent citizens are being arrested everyday based on mere complaints without requiring evidence or investigation. Even children and senior citizens are not being spared. IPC 498A, being a cognizable offence, violates a citizen’s right to due process.
3.IPC 498A and Domestic Violence Law should be made gender neutral.
Domestic abuse is not gender specific. The assumption that victims of physical, verbal, emotional, sexual, and financial abuse are always women is wrong. According the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “all are equal before the law, and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law”. Hence, men should also be accorded protection from physical, verbal, emotional, sexual, and financial abuse by women.
4. Persons who misuse IPC 498A and Domestic Violence Law should be penalized.
Misuse of the process of law not only costs the public exchequer dearly, but also destroys the personal lives of many innocent citizens. Misuse of law should be treated as a serious crime, and persons who use women-protection laws as weapons for settling personal scores in marital disputes should be severely punished.
Gender Biased LAW should immediately be made crime based instead of any assumption that all women never lie and all the men are born as Criminals. “MEN/WOMEN” word to be replaced by word “PERSON” and word wife/husband to be replaced with the word “SPOUSE”
Further it is totally wrong to assume and biased view that each and every suicide of a women due to men and all the suicide of men the same to be termed as social service by women , even when it is clear evidence that the women is responsible for the suicide of the men , still such women get Scot free . Our Study reports “Domestic Violence against Men” confirm the same beyond the reasonable dought (Enclosed for your reference). If we consider the definition of the Present DV act, like Verbal abuse, mental abuse, economical abuse, Physical abuse and sexual abuse, more than 98% Men also face the same at their Home.
The current domestic violence act was drafted by lawyers whose expertise on 1st principle of law making and justice can be shown to be questionable. Some of their key members are unable to understand that words police, bail, jail, bonds have no place in a civil law. A law to jail, “tadipar” and fine can be provided only in accordance with a criminal matter that is in criminal laws.The similar set of lawyers fail to provide IPC or the civil law where in the men have any rights though they make a claim that problems faced by men can be taken care of . The current Domestic violence laws need to scrap to be replaced by more reasonable laws a domestic harmony laws in consultation with a panel consisting of Retired judges. Such can be done in 6 months. Let us remove the lawyers from the equation and their self interest. Let the Husband/wife say the truth in Family courts, instead of making twisted allegation against each other by the twisted advice of lawyers. This law is cynically ignorant of the first principle of human rights, dignity, law and justice.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Law), which evens the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, has termed as clumsily drafted, has several provisions that are wrong and goes against the common sense and tramples the fundamental rights, such as equal protection under the law and the right to own property. This is to bring to your notice these wrongs and request a review for changes, or scraping of this Law to help the society. Under section 17 of the DV Law, women can seek entry into any house, she ever lived in the past 10 years, whether she has any claim or right to it or not.
Under section 19 she can throw any man, who was in a domestic relationship with her, out of his own house. This law is worded in a fashion that the house could be of senior citizens or retirees, a man’s friends or relatives, etc. Senior citizens work all their lives to save and live in a house of their own to live their golden years with dignity. This is an outright injustice to force to them to abandon their own homes. This law offers unscrupulous women and their greedy relatives, the incentive to legally grab property and hold the owners to ransom or subject them to extortion.
While Judiciary seems to have a taken a much more proactive stance in containing misuse of DV laws compared to 498a and dowry law where in almost a free for all free reign has been given to misuser . The obvious misuse and abuse of families cases in DV are too numerous. All the cases filed with only one intention to extort the money form the husband’s family, nothing else.
We, on behalf of Save Family Foundation, Delhi, write to you to expeditiously amend the lopsided PWDVA which was passed on the basis of assumption and biased view along with under tremendous pressure from a small minority of vocal and radical Groups elements of our country, who want that each and every home a litigation should start ( Promotion of Legal Terrorism) and a Huge money had been invested for that purpose, which is evident from their huge cry that why only approx.10000 Domestic Violence case filed in one year, it evident that those groups work like a Business Group who had invested huge money with the expectation the expected Profit and Business Turnover and for that they are desperate to ensure that there should not be any single home to be spared where Litigation not started.
Hence our sincere request to you to take immediate action, if we really want a Happy Family life in India and our Future Child will not spend their Child hood under Father Less Society:
Replace the word “Husband and Wife” with “Spouse”.
Replace the word “Men and Women” with “Person”.
Government should make the provision for Shelter Home and other facility to the victim of Domestic Violence, as an interim relief.
Establish the Family Court without Lawyers and the Domestic Disputes to be resolved in Family Court only.
In case found the complainant had not come to file the case in Clean Hand and misused the LAW along with Judiciary / administrative authority, they should be punished and the fine amount should go to Government as revenue.
Duplication/ multiple maintenance case to be stopped. This is total abuse of not only the natural Justice Systems and Duplication of LAW, this is the main motivation for filling false and fabricated case to extort the money from Husbands family.
There should not be any direct Compensation to the Complainant, if the offence proved beyond reasonable dought the offender should be Punished or fined and in such fine amount should go to the Government Revenue only. The same should be used for the well fare of real victim of Domestic Violence as a collectively. There should not be any difference or discrimination of Rich or poor people and different facility. All should be treated as same standard.
Those cases already 498A/Divorce/CRPC125 or any other cases had been filed and couple are not staying together and their case already pending in court , should not be allowed to file another DV case ( This is total Violation of Indian Constitution of article 20 , where a accused can’t be punished twice for the same offence)
· WCD (Ministry of Women and Child Development) review committees consist of all women committees with radical and extreme views. We seek that representatives of NGO’s like Save Family Foundation and their associates should be included in this committee. This is to ensure that there is balance and sanity in the review of the law.
· Service providers in DV (Domestic Violence) LAW should be neutral persons and made accountable for their actions to ensure justice for the greater good of society. Restricting service providers to women’s group’s activists and organizations is like asking the wolf to guard the sheep. These groups are not above temptation to extortion, blackmail and corruption. Besides, who will monitor their actions and penalize them for abuses? Judges and officials should be neutral. They should be insulated from pressure and intimidation under the garb of gender sensitization.
The other problem is that a specious argument by similar set of lawyers is made that residence right previously not available is being made available. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Women and men both have same residence rights in fact women have better rights then men. Both can rent or buy houses. (Women actually pay less property tax in some states so it becomes clear that women had marginally superior rights). What has happened in the new laws that husbands and their families have been denied their residential rights.
It should be important that even a convicted murderer or terrorists are not denied their residence in his owned or rented residence. Further they failed to understand the Indian society that it is the Husbands family providing the residence to women in more than 99% cases. Such type of law, where your own right to stay in your own residence refused, in long run will make the poor girls family life more miserable as very few people will be really interested to marry girl who does not have a own residence.
The right of retired persons to live peacefully in houses purchased out of their retirement funds is being sought to be made unavailable to it as per present Domestic Violence LAW.
The other curious problem which has started that even violent women are getting their way in the domestic violence cases as there have been disturbing judgments to that affect . In addition to that as the law failed to describe what is “live-in-relationship” with a strict time frame to claim the legal rights form each other like all other developed countries, creating a situation where a job and right of a prostitutes and normal women made equal and there is no difference at all.
Another disturbing element is regards custody of children. It has upheld the traditional notion of women as children making machines. A husband or mother-in-law who has raised his children could go to Jail merely on account of taking care of children. That there are reports of such happening raises further cause for complaint.
Other disturbing elements have been arrests happening in DV law for non presence. Civil and marital law does not envision arrests or arrest warrants. (The only arrest warrants should be for non compliance of orders not for non presence where in ex prate order may be granted).
View Point: Domestic Violence Act lacks perspective By Zamir Uddin , Central Chronicle News. “In short, the DVA-2005 in its enthusiastic thoughtlessness has throttled all avenues of reconciliation, has weakened the foundations of the institution of marriage, and vitiated conjugal life by developing a false sense of ego and a fictional helplessness among women. When it comes to man-woman relationship let us listen to the traditional but sane voice of John Milton, the English poet and moralist. Milton says that man represents reason and woman passion. As long as reason dominates passion, there is cosmos, but the moment passion dominates reason, chaos ensues. Let us view marital life from this viewpoint for marriage is not a bed of roses but a domestic battlefield. Unless husband and wife bring immense goodwill and sacrifice to bear upon their marital fortunes, their situation is desperate. The DVA need to be replaced by some more benign, sensible, gender-neutral legislation that may ensure women their rightful, honorable place at home and abroad, at the same time not forgetting the rights of men.”
We want a better Society for our Future Generation and Stop a Father less Child Society, which in turn not only will increase the crime in the society , it is evident from the various study that a father less child had been victim of child abuse at least 10 times more than a normal child.Gender Biased LAW should immediately to be made crime based instead of any assumption that all women never lie and all the men born as Criminal. “MEN/WOMEN” word to be replaced by word “PERSON” and word wife/husband to be replaced with the word “SPOUSE”With High Regards (Save Family Foundation)Encl: Study Report of “Domestic Violence against Men”
Further Reference: Read latest News at www.savefamily.org
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition by a women's group seeking withdrawal of the controversial phrase "keep" used by it in a judgement in which it held that a "one night stand" with a man would not entitle a woman to maintenance.
A bench of justices Markandeya Katju and T S Thakur rejected Mahila Dakshat Samiti's petition on the ground that it had no locus standi(legal right) to question the judgement since it was not a party to the matrimonal dispute in which the judgement was passed.
In the judgement delivered on October 21 last year, the apex court had held "if a man has a 'keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and or as a servant, it would not in our opinion be a relationship in the nature of marriage." 
The country's lone woman Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising and Vinay Bhardwaj, Vice President of the Samiti, expressed dissappointment at the apex court's refusal to withdraw the "derogatory remark."
The bench in a terse order today said "application for permission to file a review petition is rejected. This review petition has been filed on behalf of Mahila Dakshat Samiti seeking review of this court's order dated 21st October, 2010 whereby the appeals were allowed.
"Mahila Dakshat Samiti was not a party before this court or before the High Court or trial court. Having carefully gone through the review petition and connected papers, we see no reason to grant permission to Mahila Dakshat Samiti to file this review petition.
Hence, the application for permission to file review petition is rejected." The apex court in the judgement had ruled that a woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to maintenance unless she fulfils certain parameters and said merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a domestic relationship.
It formulated the following parameters for a woman in live-in relationship to seek maintenance.
(1) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses, (2) they must be of legal age to marry, (3) they must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage including being unmarried, (4) they must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
"In our opinion, not all live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005 (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act). To get such benefits, the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied and this has to be proved by evidence," the court had said.
The apex court had passed the judgement while setting aside the concurrent orders passed by a matrimonial court and the Madras High Court awarding Rs 500 maintenance to D Patchaiammal who claimed to have married the appellant D Velusamy.
Velusamy had challenged the two courts' order on the ground that he was already married to one Laxmi and Patchiammal was not married to him though he lived with her for some time. Jaising said "the judges have chosen the easy option instead of confronting the issue as would be expected from judges from the Supreme Court."
She said the Samiti was an organisation with an illustrious track record of having worked in the interest of women for the last several decades including formulation of the dowry prohibition act and hence its credibility could never be doubted.
"The issues raised in the review peition do not relate to the parties to the case alone but to women as a class. The issues are use of gender bias language in judgements of the Supreme Court of India.
"It is expected gender-neuter language. The objection was to the word 'keep' and expression used only in relation to women in a highly derogatory context," she said adding the apex court had missed a "historic opportunity to correct a wrong."
Bhardwaj said she was deeply disturbed by the judgement as the apex court since the 1980s had played very progressive roles on women issues.
"As the time goes, the Supreme Court should have taken up positive and progressive views in view of the magnitude of the problems of women. Instead, it has chosen to dismiss the petition," she said.
PTI
A Delhi court has ordered prosecution of a woman, her husband and father-in-law for falsely charging three Haryana policemen with raping her at a police station six years ago.
ASJ Kamini Lau ordered criminal trial of the three Jahangirpuri residents, while absolving a police sub-inspector and two constables of the charges of abduction and rape of the woman. "A complaint under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is being lodged under appropriate provisions of law against the girl, her husband and her father-in-law for the commission of offence of instituting criminal proceedings against the cops who were falsely charged," Lau said while acquitting the officials.
December 02 2010
Gandhigram police in Rajkot city have booked a woman, her lover and her brother for allegedly threatening her husband and prompted him to attempt suicide two days ago.
The case has been registered on Wednesday after police and fire brigade teams saved the man from committing suicide on Tuesday.
The police said Pankaj Trivedi (33) had tried to jump off his terrace on the third floor of his residence at Shivshakti Colony on University Road.
The neighbours who spotted Trivedi had called up the police and fire brigade.
The police said Trivedi told them that he was mentally harassed and threatened by his wife Archana, whom he married six months ago.
He claimed Archana asked him to file a divorce case and claimed alimony. She reportedly threatened to slap a dowry case against him and his parents and book them under domestic violence Act.
“Based on the call details and SMS produced by Trivedi, the police have registered a case against Archana, her Jamnagar-based brother Harish Dave and her lover Anil Goswami,” said Gandhidham police.
The preliminary investigation revealed that Archana and two other accused have been threatening Trivedi and book him under dowry case, if he refused to give her divorce.
Trivedi said this was Archana’s third marriage and ever since their marriage in May 2010 she has been in constant touch with Goswami. He claimed Archana and Goswami were in a relationship for over five years and had got married to him only for alimony.
On Tuesday, Dave called Trivedi to kill him and Goswami had sent a SMS saying that they will book him and his family if he doesn’t listen to them.
Plea to recall ruling where woman was described as ‘keep' - look who's talking of Gender Neutrality
Contending that the use of the expression ‘keep' in a recent judgment to describe a woman was highly derogatory and a discrimination against women on grounds of marital status, Mahila Dakshta Samiti, a women's organisation has moved the Supreme Court for its recall.
On October 21, a Bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra in a judgment had said, “not all live-in relationship will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005. If a man has a “keep,” whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a “relationship in the nature of marriage. Merely spending weekends together or a one-night stand would not make it a ‘domestic relationship.”
Offended by the expressions used, the very next day, Additional Solicitor-General Indira Jaising voiced her protest before Justice Katju, who wrote the judgment, and indicated that women's organisations would be filing review petitions for recall of the ruling.
In its review petition, Mahila Dakshta Samiti said, “the expression such as ‘keep' which specifically refer to woman is based on social and cultural prejudices which need to be eliminated in order to prevent discrimination against woman. The expression would perpetuate social and cultural prejudices and is based on the idea of stereotyping woman.
It submitted that “Article 2(f) of the Convention for Elimination of Discrimination against Women calls for change in the traditional roles of men and women in bringing about gender equity. Article 2(F) provides that States should take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices, which constitute discrimination against women.”
It said, “in law only chattel can be “kept” and not human beings. Slaves could be “kept” as they are considered chattels in law and owned by the master. Hence the word ‘keep' is inappropriate in a constitutional regime such as ours which guarantees fundamental rights and the dignity of woman. The use of the expression ‘keep' violates Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India as it is not gender neutral and applies only to women. Further the expression ‘servants' is derogatory of the dignity of labour and they are now known as domestic help.”
The petitioner said, “while deciding the nature of the relationship, which meets the requirement of a relationship in the nature of marriage, the Supreme Court has also laid down certain relationship which do not qualify for being described as relationship in the nature of marriage.
It said the court had recorded its findings based on Wikipedia, which is an online encyclopaedia and information can be entered therein by any person and as such it may not be authentic and cannot be used for the purpose of determining the content of relationship. It was of the view that the Supreme Court was not called upon to give such observations in the facts and circumstances of the case as emerging from the judgment. The petitioner while seeking to recall the order in so far as the use of these expressions was concerned sought an oral hearing.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article918011.ece
A city family court on Thursday imposed costs of Rs 2,500 on cricketer Anil Kumble’s wife Chetana, in connection with a child custody case she is fighting with her former husband.
Speaking to Bangalore Mirror, her former husband Kumar Jagirdar claimed the fine imposed by principal judge M G Sudheendra was on account of the ‘delaying tactics’ adopted by her lawyer. In July, she was fined Rs 1,250 by the court, Jagirdar said.
The couple were married in 1986 and divorced two years later. Jagirdar is fighting for custody of their daughter, who is 15 now and stays with the Kumbles.
In 2003, Jagirdar lost his case in the Supreme Court, which felt his single status was not enough to take care of the child but said he could approach a lower court if there was a change in the circumstances of the parties concerned.
In 2006, he moved a city family court for custody, arguing that his former wife had two children from Kumble, that he was married and not single anymore, and that his daughter had reached the age of 15.
The next hearing in the case is on Nov 25, Jagirdar’s counsel P B Appaiah said.
An affidavit filed by Chetana in the court on Thursday said her counsel was held up at the high court on the day of the previous hearing, and expressed regret for the inconvenience. Her advocate C V Nagesh said he would conduct the cross-examination of the petitioner at the next hearing.
Kudos to the CJI for a great order to curb such unscrupulous mothers from conducting such henious tactics of depriving fathers of their natural rights.
Hope the Indian judiciary wakes up to the true realities and shrugg off its biased attitude in Child custody cases
author - shyam.prasad1@timesgroup.com
Posted On Wednesday, November 10, 2010 at 05:27:31 AM
In what is being seen as a landmark judgment in cases related to divorce and visitation rights of parents on their children, the high court of Karnataka on Tuesday ruled in favour of a husband who was prevented from seeing his son for over 10 months.
Photo - Seeing Madhuri cry in court, the CJ said, “This is not going to affect us”
In what is being seen as a landmark judgment in cases related to divorce and visitation rights of parents on their children, the high court of Karnataka on Tuesday ruled in favour of a husband who was prevented from seeing his son for over 10 months.
In what is being seen as a landmark judgment in cases related to divorce and visitation rights of parents on their children, the high court of Karnataka on Tuesday ruled in favour of a husband who was prevented from seeing his son for over 10 months.
The ruling came on the divorce proceedings of Shivkumar Challa and Madhuri who were married in 1996. Their son Rahul was born in 2000. Madhuri is being represented by James Arun Kumar.
Threat of jail
The court berated Madhuri for not following its order to allow her husband to meet Rahul every Sunday.
“We will send you to jail. Do you understand what jail is? You will be sent there right from here. Then your counsel can go to the Supreme Court,” chief justice J S Khehar told a stunned Madhuri in open court.
“Since January, how many Sundays have the father and son met? Not a single Sunday should be missed. Follow the order. If you fail, the following day you should be present in court at 10.30 am to tender an explanation for the same. Jail is a very bad thing. We look upon you as children. But even children should be reprimanded.”
At this point, Madhuri started crying profusely. Seeing this, the chief justice told her, “This is not going to affect us.”
Challa then told the court, “My child’s life is in danger.” But the court told him to stick to the present case, that of child visitation rights.
Lawyer gets it too
After the division bench of the chief justice and justice A S Bopanna had read its order, James Arun Kumar began to plead Madhuri’s case again.
But the chief justice said, “Do not play tricks. Do not play with words. We will be only too happy to take action. You are giving one explanation after the other. We will not allow this to happen. On Monday, you wasted 30 minutes of the court’s time. It will not be allowed to happen again. If there is the slightest deviation from the order, severe action will be taken. We are fed up with this case.”
LAWYER’S EX CLASHES WITH CLIENT
But the real drama happened outside the court as James Arun Kumar’s former wife Geetha and son Jason showed up. Challa had told Bangalore Mirror that Madhuri and his son were staying with James Arun Kumar who had divorced Geetha seven years ago.
As Challa came out of the court with his mother-in-law (Madhuri’s mother), Geetha told her, “You have not brought up your daughter properly. She stole my husband.”
Madhuri’s mother retorted, “Your husband stole my daughter.”
Son’s plea
Geetha and her son then turned to Madhuri. Geetha berated Madhuri for ‘taking away my husband’,
which led to a heated argument.
While Challa is fighting for visitation rights on his son, Geetha’s son wants his father back. Jason said, “My father drops Madhuri’s son Rahul to the same school where I am enrolled while I go by bus. I want my father back.”
My father drops Madhuri’s son to the same school where I’m enrolled while I go by bus. I want him back
Jason, son of lawyer challa
Part 1/2
Part 2/2
Full text of SC judgment under discussion is available here
http://legalmanthandivorce.blogspot.com/2010/10/sc-lays-down-conditions-for-women.html
Part 1/4
Part 2/4
Part 3/4
part 4/4
The judgment given in any case depends on the proceedings of the court and the judge's discretion. The standards adopted in a particular case may differ in the high court and Supreme Court. There are certain guidelines for a death sentence and it must be a 'rarest of the rare' case. Thus, there is no question of whether a judgement is 'right' or 'wrong' . It all depends on how the bench of judges perceive the case based on the submitted proof. The outlook of judges of a bench may also differ. There is no standardisation in the verdict to be pronounced. However, I would like to point out that judges are given too much discretion. In the end, judges base their verdict on the proof put forth after investigations.
-PB Sawant, former judge, Supreme Court of India
In our country, a death sentence is pronounced only in the 'rarest of rare' cases. The court makes its decision on the basis of evidence and the investigation carried out, but the punishment should be awarded in such a way that justice actually prevails. The reason that the judges gave for reducing the death sentence of the convict in the Priyadarshini Mattoo case are dubious. There is no justification for such a dreadful crime. It is different in a case where the victim is alive and the accused offers to marry the victim.
While upholding that he was guilty of the crime, the judges cited mitigating circumstances, which included the young age of the accused at the time of the murder and his having married and become a father. These factors cannot reduce the gravity of a crime that was premeditated and executed in the most brutal manner.
This kind of leniency on the part of the Supreme Court is not justified. The verdict in such a case should act as a deterrent to others as well. Leniency would make people feel that anyone can get away with such a gruesome offence. Rape and murder of a victim is a very serious crime. The commutation of the verdict is not justified.
-Kiran Moghe, president, Janwadi Mahila Sanghatana
A former IPS officer's son, Santosh Kumar Singh, who was convicted of brutally raping and murdering 25-year-old Priyadarshini Mattoo 14 years ago, escaped the death sentence when the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi high court's order and gave him a life term.
The SC said the "horrendous crime" had happened because Santosh's parents were over-indulgent. The judges said many ghastly crimes happen when "an accused belongs to a category with unlimited power or pelf or even more dangerously, a volatile cocktail of the two".
The apex court added that Singh was young at the time of the incident, and after his acquittal by the trial court he got married and became a father, and there was nothing to suggest that he was not capable of reforming.
Pratibha Srikantamurthy
A fast track sessions court convicted cab driver Shiva Kumar to rigorous imprisonment for life for kidnapping, raping and murdering BPO employee Pratibha Srikantamurthy in December 2005.
Pratibha, who joined HP Globalsoft in 2005 after her marriage, went missing on December 13, 2005 after leaving home for her night shift. Her body was found on the outskirts of Bangalore a day later.
The 113-page judgement said, "There was no dominating control over the deceased. She was not a helpless woman," adding the crime was not enormous in nature and not in the "rarest of rare" bracket. The judge said Kumar, who was 22 then, is now 27. He was not a habitual offender and the prosecution had not shown that he had been convicted for crime earlier, he said.
Without harsh punishment, people will not fear the law
In rape-murder cases, the law is not as harsh as it should be. Thus, there is no fear in society when it comes to committing these crimes. Take any rape or criminal case; the time it takes to reach a verdict is very long. When the fast track courts take that much time (five years in Pratibha's case), why do we need them at all? In this way, people will lose faith in fast track courts. They will be dissatisfied with our judicial system if there is no change in the procedures, especially in cases involving atrocities against women. Such soft judgements will obviously have consequences, wherein people will not be afraid of committing crimes against women. Moreover, by commuting a death sentence, you give the accused time to find ways to get free.
Capital punishment is criticised vehemently on moral grounds, so we do not have an option but to replace it. However, if it is stopped, bad elements in society will continue committing such crimes.
-Lata Bhise, advisor, Yashada
The judgement cannot be made on the basis of public opinion
Life imprisonment until death is as bad or may be worse than a death sentence. Capital punishment is not required as long as the guilty is being punished for his crime. In fact, a life term is more severe as the convict has to live with his guilt in isolation.
People expected a death sentence in the Priyadarshini case, but the judgement cannot be based on public opinion. Mob mentality tends to be brutal, so the judiciary should not get influenced by what people think. Every murder is heinous, but the 'rarest of rare' case can be applied only to the most gruesome crimes.
-Ritu Lamba, law student
Such acts go against the norms of humanity and compassion
The Priyadarshini Mattoo case has revived the debate over whether capital punishment should be awarded and if it can deter others from committing such crimes. Our Constitution and statutes recognise capital punishment as a deterrent to heinous crimes. In case of a crime as gruesome and merciless as rape and murder, the convict should certainly be granted a death penalty. Such acts go against the norms of humanity and compassion. Anything less than life imprisonment until death should not be acceptable.
As far as the Supreme Court verdict in this case is concerned, the death sentence should not have been reduced to life imprisonment. Keeping in view the heinousness of the crime, the court should have upheld the previous decision and stood by it.
-Sameer Nargolkar, lawyer
Severity of punishment is not a deterrent to crime
Death penalty must be abolished in India because it is a cruel way of punishing someone. It is surprising that the lower courts are enthusiastic in awarding death sentences. A capital punishment with the noose does not go well in a civilised society. If we call ourselves civilised, we must stop this practice. The severity of punishment does not act as a deterrent to crime. The surety and speedy delivery of punishment is more important. People generally feel that life imprisonment is a soft way of punishing someone. Considering the severity of the crime, courts can prolong the period of imprisonment. In case of Priyadarshini, the accused got a life term till death, which is a severe punishment.
-Ramesh Awasthi, founder, MASUM
Flaws in investigation and filing of cases affect judgement
There are two issues in the trial of rape cases — the time required by the court and the quantum of punishment. Both these clauses must be revisited and given a rethink. Two judges can differ in their judgement because the circumstantial evidence may vary. That is how they may arrive at different conclusions. A judge has to decide on the basis of the evidence placed in front of him. If the investigation done by the police is shabby, it can affect the judgment.
I agree that the way rape-murder cases are handled needs to be debated, but it is wrong to criticise the judges and their judgement. Many issues have to be considered in every case. Moreover, if the judgement is based on the investigation, collection of evidence and the way the case is filed, the judge can only do so much. I would say that investigation agencies are the real culprits. One must be persistent in pointing out the flaws in the investigation process and filing of cases.
-Aroona Nafday, advocate
There is a rise in false rape cases, so a court has to be cautious
One cannot say the law has been soft in both cases. The judges have given their verdict based on circumstantial evidence and the investigation reports. The investigation into a case and collection of evidence are the reason for delayed judgements. A court cannot pronounce a verdict without proper facts and data. Cases get prolonged till judges receive the essential proof.
In a recent report, the Pune police said that 74% of rape cases in 2008-2009 were found to be instances of consensual sex. Moreover, there have been cases in which the accused has been falsely implicated. For example, in the case of the American student of Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) in Mumbai last year, the medical report did not confirm rape and the DNA report was negative. The complainant told the doctor she was raped by three men whose names she did not know. However, in the FIR, she accused six men and named them. Then, she claimed that she may have been raped, but that she had fallen unconscious after 1 in the night. On the other hand, phone records show that she was texting and calling all night. Thus, in such a case, circumstances become confusing and the judicial process cannot be hurried. Due to the high number of false rape cases and women-centric laws, the court has to ensure that a person is not falsely implicated.
I am not denying that rapes do not happen and the real culprit has to be punished, however, the case has to follow the required process of investigation before a judgement is given.
-Atit Rajpora, activist, Save Indian Family Foundation
team speak up Rajesh Rao, Disha Kohli & Mallika Rale
GET IN TOUCH: Please email us your views at punespeakup@dnaindia.net,
or call on 020- 39888888 extn 125.
http://epaper.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?queryed=40&querypage=4&eddate=10/13/2010&view=nw
TNN, Oct 5, 2010, 04.25am IST
NEW DELHI: In a relief to Delhi University professor, the Delhi high court has quashed an FIR registered against him accusing him of sexual molestation.
Justice S N Dhingra put an end to the proceedings against the accused, Bidhyut Chakraborty, saying he didn't molest or threaten the victim.
Chakraborty, who was working as an honorary director on deputation in Gandhi Bhawan, was accused of molesting an employee of the Bhawan. Subsequently, the police filed an FIR.
Once the probe got over, a chargesheet was filed in the court which revealed that the investigating officer conducted several inquiries with different staff members of Gandhi Bhawan tea vendors and other witnesses available outside the Bhawan to find out the truth. The IO submitted in the chargesheet that not even one witness was found who could support the allegations levelled by the victim and said no evidence could be found against the professor to warrant his arrest. However, keeping in view the complaint made by the victim, the IO left it to the court to issue summons to Chakraborty if needed.
HC was surprised to note that despite no evidence, the police was reluctant to file a closure report. The court next turned its attention to the inquiry report of Delhi University that had examined the complaint of the woman. It revealed that on the day of the alleged incident, Chakraborty found all employees missing from Gandhi Bhawan even though lunch break had long got over. This infuriated him and he scolded the employees including the complainant, ordering them not to come to office for a month. The IO seconded the inquiry of DU and added that when the victim was being scolded, she kept saying "sorry sir''.
This convinced HC that after being scolded by Chakraborty, the victim levelled the allegation of being molested and granted him the relief.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/HC-quashes-FIR-against-DU-professor/articleshow/6686402.cms#ixzz11xaPwDpN
5 October 2010
nivedita choudhuri
The Union minister of law and justice has been saying on many occasions that laws will be made gender neutral in the next four years. Mr Veerappa Moily, recently replying to a debate in the Rajya Sabha, said male chauvinism and dominance should disappear and that men should never allow women to be degraded and looked down upon. However, the existence of a number of laws that are tilted heavily in favour of women makes the layman wonder if gender neutrality means looking after the interests of women (read wives) only and ignoring totally the welfare of men.
Take for instance the anti-dowry law – Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code – which has reportedly been misused by many women to lodge false or exaggerated complaints against their husbands and in-laws, accusing them of cruel behaviour. Implemented in 1983, Section 498A is a criminal law.
A case filed under this section is non-bailable (one has to appear in court to get bail), non-compoundable (the complaint cannot be withdrawn) and cognisable (the police has to register and investigate the complaint). The law says, “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
This was meant to be a special law to get more convictions, but the opposite has happened because there are too many false complaints. Many women use the law to blackmail their husbands, allege activists of the Save Indian Family Foundation, a group that fights the misuse of laws targeted at men.
The false complaints can be filed due to many reasons. Sometimes, a wife wants her husband to sever ties with his family or stop giving money to his parents. If he does not comply with her demands, she slaps a false case against him alleging harassment for non-payment of dowry, allege the activists.
Men also find it unfair that their family members are arrested in the event of the wife naming them in the FIR. Anybody named in the FIR is arrested. It can even be the man’s parents, who live in a different town. The frivolity of the complaints was driven home by a recent newspaper article which reported that a wife was ready to slap a dowry harassment case against her father-in-law who had demanded fish curry for dinner. The wife, who was in no mood to cook fish curry, thought it would be easier to punish her ‘errant’ father-in-law by slapping a dowry harassment case on him.
Another law that is allegedly being misused is The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. This law assumes that all victims of domestic violence are women and it does not give a man a chance to complain or seek justice if he is being harassed or abused by his wife. It also assumes that wives are always honest and truthful. Therefore, proof and evidence to support the allegations of abuse are not required.
Due to the lack of social support and legal protection, many male victims of domestic abuse are taking their lives every day, allege SIFF activists. False cases are severely hampering the personal and professional lives of the most productive section of the Indian population.
Moreover, the so-called “women protection’’ laws are causing more harm than good to women. In every false case, at least two women, a mother-in-law and a sister-in-law, are accused. Minor girls, married and unmarried sisters, ailing mothers and even aged grandmothers have been sent behind bars based on mere allegations and subjected to long-drawn trials before being declared innocent.
Unreasonable and easily misused laws like Section 498A IPC and the Domestic Violence Act are creating a situation of fear and mutual distrust and adversely affecting inter-personal relationships between men and women in society. There is fear psychosis among men, who are increasingly finding it difficult to repose faith in women or marriage.
Despite the public outcry over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the Domestic Violence Act, the government is not ready to make the proposed Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill gender neutral. It presupposes that women are always victims of harassment in offices and does not take into account the fact that a woman employee can be every bit as abusive and sadistic as a male. Such laws violate the essence of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, which prohibits discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
Of course, the prime motivation in filing false cases is money. There are scores of cases, allege SIFF activists, where the wives threaten to go to the police or courts if they are not given hefty sums of money as “settlement’’. Sometimes, the clinching factor is the property and assets of their in-laws which the wives covet. What better way to usurp it all than foist false cases on one’s in-laws and then demand a king’s ransom. The proposed Bill against sexual harassment, if not made gender neutral, is likely to encourage the extortion “culture’’.
Though the sufferings of men and their families are increasing, the Indian government still thinks that it’s women who need protection. It is continuing to turn a blind eye to these harassed men, who have to spend the best years of their lives running around in courts to proclaim their innocence. But, can anything better be expected in a country which ranks a lowly 84th in the Corruption Perceptions Index?
The writer is a freelance contributor
http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=343906&\
Ghaziabad, Sept 29 (PTI) A local court today granted bail to a Computer Engineer who was arrested on charge of domestic violence and dowry demand following a complaint by his wife.
Additional District and Session Judge S N Srivastva granted the bail to Vasu Gautam after his lawyer argued that the charges by his wife Versha were false.
In her complaint last month, Versha had alleged that her husband and his parents used to assault her and that they wanted to throw her into prostitution racket while they were in US to carry out his company project work.
However, Vasu denied the charges and accused his wife of withdrawing ornaments from the bank locker without his or his family's consent.
Earlier the court had granted bail to his parents in the case. The couple got married in 2004 and has a five-year-old son.
http://www.ptinews.com/news/994980_Court-grants-bail-to-husband-in-domestic-violence-case
गाजियाबाद। एक शख्स ने आज अपनी पत्नी को पाने की आस नहीं छोड़ी है। उसे लगता है कि उसकी पत्नी जिंदा है और वो एक दिन जरूर वापस आएगी। इसी आस में वो इंसाफ की लड़ाई लड रहा है। ये दर्दभरी कहानी सिटीजन जर्नलिस्ट गौरव सैनी की है।
दरअसल गौरव की पत्नी मोनिका डागर अब इस दुनिया में नहीं है। लेकिन गौरव उसे भूल नहीं पाया है। गौरव की मानें तो मोनिका के परिवार वाले एक साल पहले मोनिका को गौरव के पास से लेकर चले गए और फिर बाद में बताया कि उसकी मौत हो गई। गौरव का कहना है कि मोनिका को उसके परिजनों ने कहीं छुपा कर रखा है।
गौरव ने बताया कि मोनिका बेहद होशियार लड़की थी, वो आईएएस आफिसर बनना चाहती थी। शादी के बाद वो एक बेटी को जन्म देना चाहती थी ताकि अपने परिवार को दिखा सके कि लड़कियां बेकार नहीं होती। गौरव की मानें तो दोनों ने मिलकर कई सपने देखे थे जो पूरे नहीं हो सके।
गौरव और मोनिका दोनों अलग जाति के होने के वाबजूद शादी कर ली। मोनिका के परिवार वाले दूसरी जाति के लड़के से शादी करने के लिए राजी नहीं थे। गौरव की मानें तो उसे धमकियां भी मिली थी। जवाब में गौरव ने मोनिका के परिवार वालों से कहा कि कानून उसके साथ है।
फिर दोनों ने 6 जुलाई 2009 को को आर्य समाज मन्दिर में शादी कर ली। कुछ दिन बाद मोनिका के घरवाले पुलिस लेकर गौरव के घर पहुंचे और गौरव के खिलाफ अपहरण का केस दर्ज करवा दिया।
शादी का प्रमाण पत्र दिखाने के बाद भी वो जबर्दस्ती मोनिका को साथ ले गए और पुलिस ने गौरव को हिरासत में ले लिया। एक महीना डासना जेल में रहने के बाद गौरव रिहा हुआ। फिर उसने दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट में अपील दायर की। जिस पर कोर्ट ने मोनिका को 7 अक्टूबर 2009 को कोर्ट के सामने पेश करने के लिए कहा। जिसके बाद दिल्ली पुलिस मोनिका को लाने के गई तो उस गांव के सरपंच ने पुलिस से कहा कि मोनिका मर चुकी है। लेकिन गौरव नहीं मानता की मोनिका मर चुकी है।
सबूत के तौर पर मोनिका के परिवार वालों ने पेपर पेश किए की उसे एक अस्पताल मे भर्ती किया गया था। लेकिन अस्पताल के रिकार्ड में लिखा है कि मोनिका को कुछ दिन बाद स्वस्थ हालत में डिस्चॉर्ज किया गया। गौरव का कहना है कि अगर मोनिका मर चुकी है तो उसके परिवार वालों के पास सबूत के तौर पर पोस्टमार्टम रिपोर्ट या किसी डॉक्टर का डेथ सर्टीफिकेट पर साइन क्यों नहीं है।
पुलिस ने जब केस रिव्यू किया तो मोनिका के परिवार वालों पर क्रिमिनल कॉनपिरेसी और मर्डर का चार्ज लगाया। लेकिन वो बेल पर छूट गए हैं। जिस जांच अधिकारी ने मेरे ऊपर अपहरण का केस लगाया था उसे सस्पेंड कर दिया गया है। लेकिन गौरव आज भी मोनिका की आस में इंसाफ की लड़ाई लड़ रहा है।
