Showing posts with label cruelty to man. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cruelty to man. Show all posts

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Truth of Ipc 498a - Misuse and Abuse - Tool for Extortion and Blackmailing and Harassing Indian husband and his family

Truth of Ipc 498a - Misuse and Abuse - Tool for Extortion, Blackmailing and Harassing Indian husbands and his family

On Hum Log - A programme on News Nation Channel televised on 18 June 2015

Video Credits and Courtesy:- News Nation TV channel

Thursday, June 4, 2015

INDIAN Men and Husbands face Domestic Violence. Misuse of ipc 498a (Anti Dowry), DV acts, Anti Rape laws

INDIAN Men and Husbands face Domestic Violence. Misuse of ipc 498a (Anti Dowry), DV acts, Anti Rape laws - A programme on News Nation Hum Log 04Jun2015

Video Credits and Courtesy:- News Nation TV channel

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Misuse of IPC 498a Legal Point Loksabha TV 21 July2013


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

Thursday, May 2, 2013

The other side of dowry disputes - MASHAAL

The other side of dowry disputes


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. 

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Wearing revealing dress is cruel and ground for divorce: Delhi court

Wearing revealing dress is cruel and ground for divorce: Delhi court

Feb 11, 2011, 21:16 IST
Wearing a revealing dress during her honeymoon proved costly for a woman as a court granted divorce to her husband saying improper dressing by the woman brought mental cruelty to the man.
"Cruelty includes not only physical but mental cruelty as well. Ostensibly, she (wife) has indulged in bloating falsehood beyond proportions," additional district judge Manmohan Sharma ruled, accepting the husband's plea that he suffered mental agony due to his wife wearing 'vulgar' dresses regularly since their honeymoon.
The court allowed the husband's divorce plea saying "mere living under one roof without the necessary ingredients of love and faith, which are the hallmark of a fruitful matrimonial relationship, is nothing but animal existence."
The husband, in his petition seeking divorece on the ground of having been subjected to cruelty, had contended that his wife wore vulgar clothes during their honeymoon.
"During their honeymoon, she dressed herself in a very vulgar manner and when he asked her to change the dress she retorted that she had dressed herself that way to be noticed by at least 50 people," the husband had said in his plea.
The court gave divorce decree to the husband after hearing some audio recordings, played by the woman's father-in-law, proving that she had conspired with her parents to torture her husband and in-laws.
"She (wife) has gone to the extent of conspiring with her parents to teach the petitioner (husband) and his family a lesson," the court held in its ruling.
"The nature of cruelty suffered by the petitioner (husband) is partly physical and predominantly mental. So, it is held that he has been treated with cruelty by respondent (wife) after solemnisation of their marriage," the court said.
The couple had married in August 2007.
The court allowed the man's divorce plea rejecting the woman's contentions that her husband and in-laws had levelled frivolous and baseless allegations against her as her parnets failed to meet their demand for dowry.
"The respondent (wife) crossed another milestone by making reckless allegations of demand of dowry and illicit relationship against her husband, which she could not prove," the court said.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_wearing-revealing-dress-is-cruel-and-ground-for-divorce-delhi-court_1506527

Friday, November 4, 2011

Why can't single men adopt?



Why can't single men adopt?



It's almost official - single men and live-in couples will soon not be able to adopt in India. The Ministry of Women and Child Development is set to notify a new set of guidelines for adoption, which are fat stricter about couples who are not married, and single men.

They also specify the age at which married couples and single women can adopt.

The reaction of single men and live-in couples has been mostly disappointment, with many saying that while each case should certainly be evaluated thoroughly, why impose a blanket ban like this?





Why a blanket rule?
I agree, they have every right to be anxious about this, considering all the strange cases of rape and etc we hear almost everyday. But then, they need to evaluate these things on an individual-to-individual basis. It cannot be a blanket rule. We've tried to adopt and failed. The child can benefit too, you know. If I adopt a child, I can give him/her a good life. Why should the government take away that right from the child?
- Leena K, in a live-in relationship

It makes sense
I think this decision makes sense, because single men are not as responsible as women. And you do need a female companion to take care of kids.
- Sahil Mehta, debutant actor ("Love Express")

So surrogacy's ok?
This is funny, because surrogacy is OK in India. I was reading about a gay couple who came from a foreign country to become surrogate parents in India. But I don't understand why we can't relax adoption rules so that we can help the millions of children in our own country who are literally dying each day in many foster care homes. Follow-ups strict karo. Be harsh on anyone who has adopted and is not found adhering to the standards set by the government. But let people adopt. It'll prevent ill-treatment of orphaned children.
- Mridul, in a live-in

Two-sided sword
This rule is a two-sided sword. From our point of view, the rule is not fair, but perceptions differ. Yes, we live in a country where people believe in certain things. But the more rules you add, the more they'll be broken. I believe that it is an individual choice. These days, people don't want to get married, yet want a family. There are children who don't have parents, what about them?
- Jackky Bhagnani, actor

This isn't right
This is not the right decision. You know, it is a great thing to adopt a child and hence take responsibility for it. Recently, a friend of mine adopted a baby girl and he takes proper care of her. Although I don't have any plans of adopting a child now, but in the future, if ever I plan to adopt, I'll be happy to do it and also, it will be a matter of pride for me.
- Rajat Barmecha, actor

Will get worse
Adoption is already so complicated in India, and now these new guidelines are going to make things worse. If someone is earning well and can give the child a proper education and a good life, then rather than dissuading them, he/she should be encouraged to do so.
- Meher and Karan, live-in couple

(Inputs from Kashika Saxena, Richa Shukla, Sanya Ahuja and Upasana Mantri) 
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/lifestyle/relationships/man/woman/Why-cant-single-men-adopt/articleshow/8849369.cms?mid=51

Woman ticks HC Judge off for 'making' her nine-year-old son cry

Woman ticks HC Judge off for 'making' her nine-year-old son cry

 Thursday, November 03, 2011 at 12:39:42 AM

The boy, whose parents are separated, started sobbing when the judge told the kid that he should spend time with his father. If he did not follow the order — or stop crying — “we will send you to the police station.” The sobbing continued for more than an hour outside the court


A mother took on a High Court judge on Wednesday for trying to scare her nine-year-old son into spending his weekends and holidays with his father and threatening him with jail if he didn’t.

Justice N K Patil and Justice C R Kumaraswamy were hearing a case between Raja Lakshmi and Subraya Manja over the custody of their son and were trying to convince the woman to send her son to meet his father on weekends and school holidays. The boy, however, started crying when he heard this.

“We are telling you to meet your father on the last Saturday and Sunday of the month and half of the vacation. If you don’t, we will send you to the police station. Your father has the same affection for you. Do not act like this. He is your father, he is also human. Your father is not your enemy. You can meet him once in a month,” Justice Patil told the boy.

On seeing the boy’s tears, he said, “We are not disturbing your stay with your mother. You can stay with her, but meet your father also. If not, we will send you permanently with your father.”

By this time, the boy was howling loudly, saying, “Please, please.”

But Justice Patil told the boy, “If you cry, we will send you to jail. Is it not your duty to tell your mother that you want to meet your father and discuss things with him?”

The judge then turned to the mother’s counsel: “It is your duty to tell your client that she should let the boy meet his father.

Otherwise, you will kill the future of the child. If you people cannot arrive at a compromise, we will pass an order as per the facts of the case. We are tired of such things. Unless we pass the order, you won’t understand the trouble.”

The couple had separated after a year of marriage and have been living apart for 10 years now. A lower court had ordered for the restitution of conjugal rights but Lakshmi had refused to go back to her husband.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Patil asked both the parties to talk to each other and arrive at a compromise. But their counsel said that the couple was not on talking terms and was incompatible.

The judge said, “It is a problem they have created. If they do not talk face to face, the matter won’t be decided. Neither he nor she will be happy. Let them live together for four months and see if they can lead a compatible life. The husband may now realise the importance of a wife. Many who have made mistakes have become model citizens and better human beings.

Unfortunately, our society has not developed family counsellors.” The judge then adjourned the case for some time and asked the parties to talk to each other.
 
Sympathy all around
During the adjournment, the boy continued to cry outside the court as his mother tried to console him. “Amma please, let us go home. I do not want to go inside again,” the boy kept repeating. Other clients, advocates and even the policeman on duty tried to console the boy but to no avail. When the court resumed at 4.30 pm, both mother and boy stayed outside.
 
Dad’s version
Manja, the boy’s father, told the court that he and his son would earlier play cricket and lagori, but his wife was not letting them meet. He told the court, “She did not even invite her father to our wedding. I earn Rs 40,000 per month and can take care of the child. I can take care of her like a queen. After marriage, the luck of her brother and sister turned for good and they kept me away. She left me nine years ago and did not come back.”

At this point, Lakshmi who was consoling her son outside the court hall, stormed in. “I was in hospital during childbirth but he did not once come to see me. He should have fed me when I was carrying. You will not understand how tough it is for a woman to become a second wife to a man. I will not go with him. I have brought up my son,” she told the court.

Justice Patil told her that her husband was repenting. She countered, “Repentance is different and leading a life is different. Even I will repent, but how will anyone understand how I agreed to become his second wife and how badly he treated me. He used me like a worker. For two years, he produced xerox copies in court, showing that he had sent me alimony. But he didn’t.

He should have fed me when the child was born. Why else would the child fear going with him? After you scared him, he is still crying after one hour.”

After this outburst, the court sent both of them out of the court and read out the judgment. It ordered that since the child was of a tender age, he should not be deprived of the love and affection of both the parents. It ordered that the boy spend the last weekend of every month and half his vacations with the father. “Tell your client to motivate the child to meet the father, otherwise he will get full custody,” the judge told the mother’s advocate.

http://www.bangaloremirror.com/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=1&contentid=2011110320111103003955358442f5eaa&mid=51

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Centre homes in on Sec 498A of IPC as men plead for cover against harassment law


Ahmedabad  Aug 20, 2011  
 

Home Ministry writes to Dashrath Devda of Akhil Bhartiya Patni Atyachar Virodhi Sangh, says Law Commission is looking into it

Following hundreds of applications from men peeved over the alleged misuse of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) meant to protect women, the judicial cell of Union home ministry has issued an advisory to state governments “to take effective measures for prevention of misuse of the legal provision” and also referred the matter to the Law Commission “to study the usage of the provision to suggest amendment, if any”.
Section 498A of the IPC provides protection to married women against harassment from their husbands and in-laws. Under the provision, police can arrest any member of a woman’s in-laws’ family against whom she makes an allegation of harassment.
The Section reads, “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.”
The Union home ministry has conveyed the development in a letter to Ahmedabad-based men’s rights activist Dashrath Devda, who has been fighting for an amendment in Section 498A of the IPC.
Devda heads Akhil Bhartiya Patni Atyachar Virodhi Sangh (All India Federation Against Atrocities by Wives), an organisation based in Ahmedabad.
He had unsuccessfully staged a hunger strike in Delhi against the alleged pro-women laws, including Section 498A of the IPC.
To press his demand, he had also filed a public interest litigation in the HC, which dismissed the plea and fined him while calling his petition frivolous.
Subsequently, Devda submitted a memorandum in this regard to the authorities in Delhi. As a reply, he has now received the letter from the judicial cell of the Union home ministry.
The letter reads, “An advisory has been issued to be state governments by this Ministry to take effective measures for prevention of misuse of Section 498A of the IPC. The matter has also been referred to Law Commission of India to study the usage of Section 498A of IPC and suggest amendments, if any, to the provision.”
Sources in the Union home ministry said they receive a number of applications with reference to the alleged misuse of section 498A of IPC. On the basis of 200-250 such applications, they had referred the matter to the Law Commission in 2009, they said, adding that in 2010, the ministry again referred the matter to the Law Commission for a comprehensive study of the grievances and to suggest amendment, if any. Subsequently, the Law Commission had demanded related data from the state governments. 

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/centre-homes-in-on-sec-498a-of-ipc-as-men-plead-for-cover-against-harassment-law/834552/ 

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

India's elderly suffer major verbal and physical abuse by Daughter-In-Laws silently: HelpAge report

India has over 90 million elderly persons above the age of 60 years and many of them, silently suffer abuse in the hands of either their daughters-in-law or sons, according to a survey report by HelpAge India.
The study, made public yesterday on the eve of the sixth World Elder Abuse awareness

Day, has found that about 41% felt that there has been an increase in the rate of crime against the elderly in the past three years.
"More than half of India's senior citizens surveyed feel that they are soft targets for crime," the report said.
HelpAge India is a leading humanitarian, development and campaign organisation working with and for older people in India for more than 30 years.
The World Elder Awareness Day evolved from its nascent stage in 1997 initiated by a small group in Australia, to becoming an issue that saw United Nations endorsing and making it a global concern.
At present, the UN recognises elder abuse as a public health and human rights issue.

The grim fact, according to the report, is that 98% of the elderly in India surveyed did not file any official complaint. "This showed that they are silently suffering abuse," it said.

The report found 63% of daughters-in-law as the major abusers of the elderly, followed by the sons (44 per cent).

Common indians anlysis - The 44% abuse by Sons as mentioned above is also due to the instigation and blackmailing done by their wives ( Daughter in laws for elderly) by threatening with IPC 498a – the dowry harassment case. These daughter in laws and her parents are misusing and abusing flagrantly and blatantly. All this is resultant to Feminsist lobby (backed by USAIDS and other funds) strongly arm twisting  the govt to remain submissiove to let such foreign agencies destroy the social amd family fabric of INDIA and thereby weaken 

The HelpAge report said that Delhi NCR region reported the highest (100%) number of the incidences in the hands of daughters-in-laws.

The percentage of elderly reporting ownership status of house living is among the lowest in Kolkata (15%).

It said that nearly 52% of the elderly surveyed were illiterate and 66% were financially dependent on others with half of the elderly depending on daughters-in-law for assistance in daily activities.

"A very high 85% of the elders were dependent on others for medical expenditure," it said.

The survey report further revealed that nearly 60% of the elderly consider verbal abuse as elder abuse while 48% felt physical abuse constitutes elder abuse.

Common indian’s analysis – There is 100 % Mental and psychological abuse and harassment of elderly parents of son done by their Daughter in laws

"As a result of the current aging scenario, there is a growing need for care of the older persons in terms of social, economic, health and shelter. Security of older persons in India is also emerging as an issue.

Common indian’s analysis –The major cause of such harassment is heavy misuse and abuse of Judicial and Police machinery by invoking IPC 498a misuse, Protection of women against domestic violence act 2005 ( PWDVA ) and other matrimonial laws abuse since these are severly loaded towards wife ( daughter in law ) and are biased and wife centric laws

"With more old people living longer, the households are getting smaller and congested, causing stress in families and marginalization, isolation and insecurity among older persons," it added.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-s-elderly-suffer-abuse-silently-HelpAge-report/Article1-709629.aspx

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Custody disputes: Call for India to sign Hague Convention

Custody disputes: Call for India to sign Hague Convention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/article/07SmaRSeM78gP?q=India

Torn between Mom and Dad

Torn between Mom and Dad

By GEETA PADMANABHAN

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

 

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

 

smlead

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

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

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

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

 

Insensitive parents

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

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

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

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

 

Extreme reactions

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

PHOTO: K. MURALI KUMAR

girl child 

Spare the child the uncertainty...

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Counselling helps

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

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

The names of children and parents have been changed.

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

http://www.hinduonnet.com/mag/2011/05/29/stories/2011052950030100.htm

Thursday, May 26, 2011

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

MASSIVE PROCESSION CONCLUDED BY DHARNA

ON 04-06-2011 – BANGALORE

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

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

 

Details of the Event

Procession starting at Town Hall @9.30 AM

Procession concluding at Banappa Park @10.15 AM

Dharna at Banappa Park 10.15 AM – 12.00 Noon

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

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

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

However at the Dharna we are free to shout slogans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jai Hind!!

With profound respects,

For further information please contact.

Suresh P                                                                                              Mahesh M

President,                                                                                            General Secretary

9880141531                                                                                                 9731569970


Saturday, May 21, 2011

Why women cheat

19/05/2011

Why women cheat

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

Why women cheat

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

Why women cheat

10 common reasons women give for cheating (in order)

1. Not having her needs met emotionally

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

2. Resentment

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

3. Because they can

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

4. Because they are longing for better sex

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

Why women cheat

5. Revenge

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

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

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

7. Boredom

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

8. Feeling unattractive to her partner

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

Why women cheat

9. Low self-esteem

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

10. Some women cheat as sort of an exit strategy

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

Why women cheat

How to keep her faithful

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

Source: www.shavemagazine.com

http://lifestyle.in.msn.com/relationships/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5168042

Thursday, May 19, 2011

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.

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

Saturday, March 19, 2011

SC convicts woman, paramour for killing husband

SC convicts woman, paramour for killing husband

NEW DELHI: Relying on the testimony of a child witness, the Supreme Court has re-imposed life imprisonment on a woman and her paramour for murdering her husband in Madhya Pradesh's Guna district.


A bench of justices P Sathasivam and BS Chauhan reversed the acquittal order of Madhya Pradesh High Court and restored the life imprisonment on the wife Bhaggo Bai and her paramour Ramesh for strangulating to death the husband Chatra on January 31, 1995.


The apex court, citing a number of its earlier rulings, said the testimony of 8-year-old Rannu Bai, the couple's daughter, can be relied upon on sufficient corroboration as children normally do not have any malice towards others, though courts should be cautious enough to ensure that they were not tutored.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-convicts-woman-paramour-for-killing-husband/articleshow/7737715.cms

Thursday, March 17, 2011

SC rejects feminist organisation’s plea for quashing "keep" remarks

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

http://www.zeenews.com/news693718.html#ixzz1GnM9hINR

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

MISUSE of ipc 498a dowry harassment laws as Chiranjeevi's daughter Srija files dowry harassment

Chiranjeevi's daughter Srija files dowry harassment case. Yet another case  of misuse of 498a . Evidently Meenakshi Lekhi, a feminist lawyer promotes its abuse and misuse as she views it as OVERUSE OF 498a 
16 march 11
The issues and dispute are different and do not fall in the ambit of 498a but still these allegations are allowed and given color of dowry harassment to get the matter settled at the unlawfull terms of wife by systematic extortion and blackmailing of husband and his relatives who are hapeless remedyless and are victimised on mere false allegations of the wife.
NOW HERE IS  A CLASSIC CASE WHERE BLATANT AND FLAGRANT MISUSE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS ALLOWED TO SETTLE PERSONAL PROBELEMS/SCORES AND VENDETTA
This case clearly depicts how after LOVE MARRIAGE that was done against the girl’s parents wishes is ruined with interference of girl’s parents who ultimately convince,tutor and pressurise their daughters to get divorce from the SON-IN-LAW they were always opposed to.
And it also exemplifies how mindlessly such girls MISUSE AND ABUSE DOWRY HARASSMENT LAWS to get out of a marriage at their own terms.






HYDERABAD: Police adopted a cautious approach in handling the dowry harassment complaint filed by Chiranjeevi's daughter Srija against her husband and in-laws.
Police said that they were in the process of gathering evidence to substantiate the complaint lodged by Srija.
In her written complaint, Srija alleged that her husband Sirish Bharadwaj along with her mother-in-law Suryamangala had been physically and mentally harassing her for the last few months for money to set up business.
According to police, Srija, in her complaint, said that as the harassment continued, she feared that Sirish might force her to sell away properties registered in her name. "Due to suspicion, she re-registered the properties on her family members name," a Central Crime Station (CCS) official said.
The 22-year-old housewife also alleged that she had sent several e-mails and SMSes to her family members and friends about the harassment. "Srija put up with the torture for a long time, but left for her parents' house a few days ago when Sirish physically assaulted her in an inebriated state," an investigating officer said.
On Tuesday, CCS police asked Srija to submit supporting evidence like property papers, email and SMS details.
According to sources, Sirish was in police custody and his parents were also in touch with them. But they would show his arrest after getting substantial evidence from Srija.
Earlier in the day, DCP DD J Satyanarayana told media personnel that cases were registred against Sirish and his mother under Sections 498-A (Subjecting a married woman to cruelty) and 3 & 4 of the Dowry (Prohibition) Act of IPC.

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

INDIAN GENDER JUSTICE Madhu kishwar vs renuka chaudhary Indian men better than western

INDIAN GENDER JUSTICE - Madhu kishwar vs renuka chaudhary on CNNIBN @ 08 march 2011

Indian women ( FEMINISM) are themselves responsible for self commodification and disrespect in Indian Society

Indian men are far better than their western counter parts on CNNIBN @ 08 march 2011

 

Monday, March 7, 2011

Govt mulls over to make ipc 498a Bailable, Non-cognizable, compoundable. 498a amendments under consideration.The Debate

Govt mulls over to make ipc 498a Bailable, Non-cognizable, compoundable. 498a amendments under consideration.

The Debate on News24 channel on 5th March 2011

Part 1/2

 

 

 

Part 2/2

 

more details at
http://www.legallyindia.com/1839-section-498a-of-ipc-its-use-misuse


Sec-498 A I.P.C. – Its Use And Misuse

Introduction:
To start with first we have to look that what this word marriage means. ‘Marriage is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.’ It is a social institution where husband has the responsibility to take care and maintain his wife. He cannot neglect his duties. But on this great institution a stigma called ‘dowry’ still exists. Women are ill-treated, harassed, killed, divorced for the simple reason that they didn’t brought dowry.
        For safeguarding the interest of woman against the interest of woman against the cruelty they face behind the four walls of their matrimonial home, the Indian Penal Code,1860(herein after referred to as I.P.C.) was amended in 1983 and inserted S.498A which deals with ‘Matrimonial Cruelty’ to a woman.
        Matrimonial Cruelty in India is a cognizable, non bailable and non compoundable offence. It is defined in Chapter XXA of I.P.C. under Sec. 498A as:
Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects her to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to a fine. 
Explanation – for the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means:
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or 
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demands for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.[1]
        The section was enacted to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It was introduced in the code by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983). By the same Act section 113-A has been added to the Indian Evidence Act to raise presumption regarding abetment of suicide by married woman. The main objective of section 498-A of I.P.C is to protect a woman who is being harassed by her husband or relatives of husband.
Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act[2], reads as follows:
Sec. 113-A, Presumption as to dowry death- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation- For the purpose of this section ‘dowry death’ shall have the same meaning as in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
The object for which section 498A IPC was introduced is amply reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons while enacting Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act No. 46 of 1983. As clearly stated therein the increase in number of dowry deaths is a matter of serious concern. The extent of the evil has been commented upon by the Joint Committee of the Houses to examine the work of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In some of cases, cruelty of the husband and the relatives of the husband which culminate in suicide by or murder of the helpless woman concerned, which constitute only a small fraction involving such cruelty. Therefore, it was proposed to amend IPC, the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (in short ‘the Cr.P.C’) and the Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of dowry deaths but also cases of cruelty to married women by the husband, in- law’s and relatives. The avowed object is to combat the menace of dowry death and cruelty[3].
The act of harassment would amount to cruelty for the purpose of this section. Drinking and late coming habits of the husband coupled with beating and demanding dowry have been taken to amount to cruelty within the meaning of this section, but this section has been held not to include a husband who merely drinks as a matter of routine and comes home late[4]. In a case before Supreme Court it was observed that this section has given a new dimension to the concept of cruelty for the purposes of matrimonial remedies and that the type of conduct described here would be relevant for proving cruelty.
Meaning of Cruelty:
It was held in ‘
Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu[5], that cruelty is a common essential in offences under both the sections 304B and 498A of IPC. The two sections are not mutually inclusive but both are distinct offences and persons acquitted under section 304B for the offence of dowry death can be convicted for an offence under sec.498A of IPC. The meaning of cruelty is given in explanation to section 498A. Section 304B does not contain its meaning but the meaning of cruelty or harassment as given in section 498-A applies in section 304-B as well. Under section 498-A of IPC cruelty by itself amounts to an offence whereas under section 304-B the offence is of dowry death and the death must have occurred during the course of seven years of marriage. But no such period is mentioned in section 498-A.
In the case of ‘Inder Raj Malik vs. Sunita Malik[6]’ , it was held that the word ‘cruelty’ is defined in the explanation which inter alia says that harassment of a woman with a view to coerce her or any related persons to meet any unlawful demand for any property or any valuable security is cruelty.
Kinds of cruelty covered under this section includes following:
(a) Cruelty by vexatious litigation
(b) Cruelty by deprivation and wasteful habits
(c) Cruelty by persistent demand 
(d) Cruelty by extra-marital relations
(e) Harassment for non-dowry demand
(f) Cruelty by non-acceptance of baby girl
(g) Cruelty by false attacks on chastity
(h) Taking away children
The presumption of cruelty within the meaning of section 113-A, Evidence Act,1872 also arose making the husband guilty of abetment of suicide within the meaning of section 306 where the husband had illicit relationship with another woman and used to beat his wife making it a persistent cruelty within the meaning of Explanation (a) of section 498-A.
Constitution Validity of Section 498-A 
In ‘
Inder Raj Malik and others vs. Mrs. Sumita Malik[7], it was contended that this section is ultra vires Article 14 and Article 20 (2) of the Constitution. There is the Dowry Prohibition Act which also deals with similar types of cases; therefore, both statutes together create a situation commonly known as double jeopardy. But Delhi High Court negatives this contention and held that this section does not create situation for double jeopardy. Section 498-A is distinguishable from section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act because in the latter mere demand of dowry is punishable and existence of element of cruelty is not necessary, whereas section 498-A deals with aggravated form of the offence. It punishes such demands of property or valuable security from the wife or her relatives as are coupled with cruelty to her. Hence a person can be prosecuted in respect of both the offences punishable under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and this section.
This section gives wide discretion to the courts in the matters of interpretation of the words occurring in the laws and also in matters of awarding punishment. This provision is not ultra vires. It does not confer arbitrary powers on courts.
In the leading case of ‘Wazir Chand vs. State of Haryana [8]’, involving the death by burning of a newly married woman, the circumstances did not establish either murder or an abetted suicide and thus in-laws escaped the jaws of section 300 and 306, but they were caught in the web of this newly enacted section for prevention of harassment for dowry. Not to speak of the things they are persistently demanding from the girl’s side, the fact that a large number of articles were taken by her father after her death from her matrimonial abode showed that there was pressure being exerted on-in laws and continued to be exerted till death for more money and articles.
      With the rise in modernisation, education, financial security and the new found independence the radical feminist has made 498A a weapon in her hands. Many a hapless husbands and in laws have become victims of their vengeful daughter-in-laws. Most cases where Sec 498A is invoked turn out to be false (as repeatedly accepted by High Courts and Supreme Court in India) as they are mere blackmail attempts by the wife (or her close relatives) when faced with a strained marriage. In most cases 498A complaint is followed by the demand of huge amount of money (extortion) to settle the case out of the court.
Sec 498A and the Allegation of Misuse:
In the last 20 years of criminal law reform a common argument made against laws relating to violence against women in India has been that women misuse these laws. The police, civil society, politicians and even judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court have offered these arguments of the "misuse' of laws vehemently. The allegation of misuse is made particularly against Sec 498A of the IPC and against the offence of dowry death in Sec 304B. One such view was expressed by former Justice K T Thomas in his article titled 'Women and the Law', which appeared in The Hindu.21 The 2003 Malimath Committee report on reforms in the criminal justice system also notes, significantly, that there is a "general complaint" that Sec 498A of the IPC is subject to gross misuse; it uses this as justification to suggest an amendment to the provision, but provides no data to indicate how frequently the section is being misused. It is important therefore that such "arguments" are responded to, so as to put forth a clearer picture of the present factual status of the effect of several criminal laws enacted to protect women.
Domestic violence and abuse by spouses and family members are complex behaviours and the social organisation of courts, the police and legal cultures systematically tend to devalue domestic violence cases. Sec 498A was introduced in the IPC in 1983 and the reforms of the past 20 years have not been adequately evaluated at all by the government with respect to their deterrence goals, despite the institutionalization of law and policy to criminalise domestic violence. A program of research and development is urgently required to advance the current state of knowledge on the effects of legal sanctions on domestic violence. The narrow or perhaps almost negligible study done by law enforcement agencies about the deterrent effects of legal sanctions for domestic violence stands in high contrast with the extensive efforts of activists, victim advocates and criminal justice practitioners in mobilising law and shaping policy to stop domestic violence. It is important to do these studies to correct the general misconceptions that women are misusing the law by filing false cases against their husbands and in-laws in order to harass them and get them convicted. The perspective of the state and its agencies needs to change from that of protecting the husbands and in-laws against potential "misuse" of the laws of domestic violence to that of implementing their real purpose – to recognise that such violence is a crime and protect women who have the courage to file complaints against their abusers.
Article 15 of Indian Constitution
Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. However, it allows special provisions for women and children. Article 21A provides for free and compulsory education to all children from the ages of six to 14 years. Article 24 prohibits employment of children below 14 years in mines, factories or any other hazardous employment. The court also took note of Article 14 guaranteeing equality, and Article 21 providing that a person cannot be deprived of life and liberty except according to procedure established by the law. Similarly, Article 23 prohibiting human trafficking and forced labour was also referred to in the court’s judgment.
Moving away from fundamental rights to the directive principles, the court pressed into service provisions relating to the health of women and children. Article 39(f) directs the State to ensure that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and moral and material abandonment. Article 42 directs the State to make provisions for just and humane conditions of work, and maternity beliefs. Article 45 stipulates that the State shall provide early childhood care and education for all children until the age of six. Article 47 lays down the raising of level of nutrition and standard of living of people, and improvement of public health as a primary duty of the State.
       This section tries to maintain that every married woman needs to be given due respect and treated with care. It reinforces the fact that a woman is not a toy to be played with, to be thrown away at one’s whims and fancies and treated as inferior to any other. It inherently asks for husbands to treat their wives well and not misbehave or demand unjustly which in a way sends forth a message that a woman is a commodity for sale.
What section 498A IPC tries to do is prevent and punish the above act and re-assert a woman’s
right to live a peaceful and happy life.

Use of Section 498 A by Indian Courts:

 Indian Courts had been using this provision to safeguard the women from facing the cruelty faced by them at their matrimonial home.
9 out of 10 of the cases are always related to dowry, wherein the woman is continuously threatened for want of more money and property which if remains unfulfilled , the married woman is tortured, threatened, abused- both physically and verbally and harassed. Like in the case of Ram Kishan Jain&Ors v State of Madhya Pradesh[9]due to insufficiency of dowry demands the woman was administered calmpose tablets and thereafter she even cut the arteries of both her hands. Sometimes, dowry may not be the cause but the woman for several reasons like her complexion or family status is tortured to death.
In the case of Surajmal Banthia & Anr. v. State of West Bengal[10], the deceased was ill-treated and tortured for several days and even not given food several times. Her father- in-law also misbehaved with her quite often. This is the treatment that several young brides face when they move out of their parents’ home and into the house of her in-laws’. It is the duty of the court to prevent any of these abusers from escaping. The increasing rate of bride burning for want of more dowry and brutal torture of young wives, together with a clear escape of the abuser is a clear indication that the court has not taken any strong measures for the implementation of S. 498A IPC properly.
As stated earlier many a times this victim turns into the abuser and is clearly not wronged but
instead wrongs the husband and his family for no fault of theirs. Several cases show that the married woman takes advantage of the section and sends the respondents to jail under the ambit of this section.
Many women rights’ groups justify the abuse of this section as being a common feature with all
other laws and that also the ratio of false cases to that of true ones as being very low. But this still does not change the truth that there is slowly a rise in the abuse of S.498A IPC.
In many judgments, the court has not considered mental cruelty caused to the woman but has
concentrated only on any sign of physical cruelty. If evidence does not show that the woman was
physically harassed, then the court does not look into the case. What the court does is call the
woman hyper- sensitive[11] or of low tolerance level and having an unstable mind[12].
Also S.498A IPC does not only deal with dowry deaths but also any willful conduct on part of the husband which causes harm to the wife’s ‘ life, limb or health (whether mental or physical).’To prove that cruelty was caused under Explanation a) of S.498A IPC it is not important to show or put forth that the woman was beaten up- abusing her verbally, denying her conjugal rights or even not speaking to her properly[13] would fall into the ambit of mental cruelty.
Showing any mercy to abusers or giving them the ‘benefit of doubt’ when some proof to torture at their hands is present is completely wrong. Like in the case of Ashok Batra & Ors v State[14]even though letters of the deceased stating that harassment had taken place was present, not treating them as strong evidence and giving the appellants a benefit of doubt without ordering for a further investigation into the matter is wrong.
The judges have in several instances made a very narrow interpretation of this section, considering it to be only cruelty in relation to unlawful demands or dowry demands. In a particular case, the court went to the extent of stating that ‘merely because her in-laws or husband were to chastise the woman for improper or immoral conduct, it does not necessarily amount to cruelty.[15]’ This act of chastising the woman clearly amounts to mental cruelty, something that the court apparently failed to notice. Here, considering the woman to be a hyper- sensitive woman not used to usual wear and tear of social life is completely erroneous.
In the case of Bomma Ilaiah v State of AP[16]the husband of the complainant tortured the woman
physically by forcing his wife to have sexual intercourse with him. He inserted his fingers and a stick in her vagina, causing severe pains and bleeding but the court found the husband of this
Woman guilty only under S. 325 IPC and not S, 498A IPC. Why? Her life both physically and
Mentally was at risk. Didn’t the court notice this?
The court has in another case not punished the guilty under S.498A IPC even though medical
Reports clearly showed that the death was homicidal by throttling. This was simply because
According to the court, even though there were dowry demands in the past, the court felt that
Proximity of the death to be caused due to such a demand was unlikely[17]. Who decides this
Proximity? The cause and its effect on the woman’s health or life may be profound and even cause her mental unrest at a later stage.
While on the on hand, women’s emancipation is the need of the hour and prevention of ever
increasing dowry deaths and harassment needs to be stopped, it is also clearly noticed that women today are still tortured and often the court, being the ultimate savior also does not come to the rescue to protect these women.


Misuse of Section 498 A in Modern World:

 A violation of this section, its goals and its aims is on the rise with the woman
frivolously making false allegations against their husbands with the purpose of getting rid of them or simply hurting the family.
The abuse of this section is rapidly increasing and the women often well- educated know that this
section is both cognizable and non-bailable and impromptu works on the complaint of the woman and placing the man behind bars.
Like in the case of Savitri Devi v Ramesh Chand & Ors[18], the court held clearly that there was a
misuse and exploitation of the provisions to such an extent that it was hitting at the foundation of
marriage itself and proved to be not so good for health of society at large. The court believed that
authorities and lawmakers had to review the situation and legal provisions to prevent such from
taking place.
This section was made keeping in mind protection of the married woman from unscrupulous
husbands but is clearly misused by few women and again this is strictly condemned in Saritha v R. Ramachandran[19]where the court did notice that the reverse trend and asked the law Commissionand Parliament to make the offence a non-cognizable and bailable one. It is been a duty of the courtto condemn wrongdoings and protect the victim but what happens when the victim turns into theabuser? What remedy does the husband have here?
On this ground, the woman gets to divorce her husband and re-marry or even gain money in the
form of compensation.
Many women rights’ groups go against the idea of making the offence a non-cognizable and
bailable one thinking that this gives the accused a chance to escape conviction. But what this would do is that it would give a fair chance to the man and above all help meet the ends of justice. Justice must protect the weaker and ensure that the wronged is given a chance to claim back his/her due.
When women accuse their husbands under S.498A IPC by making the offence non-bailable and
cognizable , if the man is innocent he does not get a chance quickly to get justice and ‘justice
delayed is justice denied’. Therefore, the lawmakers must suggest some way of making this section non-biased to any individual such that the guilty is punished and the person wronged is given justice.
The position of the women in India is still bad. They still need rights to alleviate themselves in
society but many a times fail to notice others’ rights as long as their rights are ensured. The
educated woman of today must agree with the mantra of equality and demand the same but the
trend is slowly getting reversed. Women are taking due advantage of the fact that they are referred to as the ‘weaker sex’ and on the foundation of rights ensured to them are violating others’ rights.

Recent Judgements:

Indian Courts in their recent judgements have looked into the matter of misuse of Sec.-498A I.P.C. As this Section provides that when an F.I.R. is lodged all the family members of the husband can be roped in.In their judicial observations and remarks, the courts have expressed deep anguish over this law. Here are some recent judicial observations.

1990 Punjab and Haryana High court observed in Jasbir Kaur vs. State of Haryana[20], case as:

“It is known that an estranged wife will go to any extent to rope in as many relatives of the husband as possible in a desperate effort to salvage whatever remains of an estranged marriage.”

In Kanaraj vs. State of Punjab[21], the apex court observed as:
“for the fault of the husband the in-laws or other relatives cannot in all cases be held to be involved. The acts attributed to such persons have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and they cannot be held responsible by mere conjectures and implications. The tendency to rope in relatives of the husband as accused has to be curbed”

Karnataka High Court, in the case of State Vs. Srikanth[22], observed as:
“Roping in of the whole of the family including brothers and sisters-in-law has to be depreciated unless there is a specific material against these persons, it is down right on the part of the police to include the whole of the family as accused”

Supreme Court, InMohd. Hoshan vs. State of A.P.[23] case, observed as:

“Whether one spouse has been guilt of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact. The impact of complaints, accusation or taunts on a person amounting to cruelty depends on various factors like the sensitivity of the victim concerned, the social background, the environment, education etc. Further, mental cruelty varies from person to person depending on the intensity of the sensitivity, degree of courage and endurance to withstand such cruelty. Each case has to be decided on its own facts whether mental cruelty is made out”
Supreme Court, in a relatively recent case, Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and others[24], observed as:

“The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contented by the petitioner that many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame work.  
But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not an assassin’s weapon. If cry of “wolf” is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual “wolf” appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any pre-conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally undisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.”
Conclusion:
The Court and Legislature have to make changes if the laws of matrimonial cruelty are to be of any deterrence.    Looking into the recent observations and the increase in the misuse of this Section, there should be certain amendments which should be brought up in this law:
1. Role of Women NGOs: These organizations should investigate complaint properly without any bias towards the woman keeping in mind that the law is being misused largely to harass more women in husband’s family. They should not encourage any woman to file a criminal case against her in-laws for trivial matters. Foreign Women Organizations should also take responsibility of not allowing false complaint to be registered against NRI’s just to harass and extort huge amount of money from them. These organizations should also conduct survey/research on the misuse of the act and should educate people about its consequences. If these organizations are found to be assisting in filing false complaints, then they should be made liable for prosecution in the country where they are functioning.

 2. Family Counselling Centres: Numerous cases of men being harassed by wife or/and in-laws have come to light from different parts of the country. As of now there is no organization, which can really help these harassed men and his family members, to listen their side of the story and put their point of view in front of the government. Need of the hour is to create family counseling centers across the country to help those aggrieved families.

 3. Time bound Investigation and Trial: A speedy trial of 498(a) cases will not only ensure justice for the innocents that have been implicated in false charges, it will also lead to prompt redressal of the grievances of real dowry victims .The reduction in false cases will also reduce the burden on judiciary and expedite the processing of real cases.

4. Definition of Mental Cruelty: Mental cruelty has been vaguely defined in the act, which leaves scope of misuse. This should be clearly elaborated to remove loopholes in the law. There should be provision for men also to file a case for mental cruelty by his wife.

 5. Investigation by Civil authorities: The investigation into these offences be carried out by civil authorities and only after his/her finding as to the commission of the offence, cognizance should be taken. The government should create awareness among officers about its misuse.

 6. Bailable: The main reason of 498a being misused to harass innocent is its non-bailable nature. This section should be made bailable to prevent innocent old parents, pregnant sisters, and school going children from languishing in custody for weeks without any fault of them.

 7. Compoundable: Once FIR has been registered it becomes impossible to withdraw the case even if wife realizes that she has done a blunder and wants to come back to her matrimonial home. To save institution of marriage this should be made compoundable. Moreover, in the scenario where the couple decides to end the marriage by mutual divorce, continuation of criminal proceedings hamper their life.

 8. Arrest Warrants: Arrest warrant should be issued only against the main accused and only after cognizance has been taken. Husband family members should not be arrested.

 9. Penalty for making false accusation: Whenever any court comes to the conclusion that the allegations made regarding commission of offence under section 498a IPC are unfound, stringent action should be taken against persons making the allegations. This would discourage persons from coming to courts with unclean hands and ulterior motives. Criminal charges should be brought against all authorities that are collaborating with falsely accusing women and their parental families.

 10. Court Proceedings: Physical appearance of the accused on hearing should be waved or kept low to avoid hassles in appearing to the court, especially for NRIs. The court should not ask to surrender passport of the husband and his family which could cost job of the husband and his family members.

 11. Registration of Marriage and Gifts Exchanged: The registration of marriages should be made compulsory along with the requirement that the couple make a joint declaration regarding the gifts exchanged during marriage.

 12. Punish Dowry Givers: If the complainant admits giving dowry in the complaint, the courts should take cognizance of the same and initiate proceedings against them under the relevant sections of the Dowry Prohibition Act

 13. Penalize corrupt Investigation Officers: If it is apparent to the court that a fair investigation has not been conducted by the investigation officer, and that the husbandand his family have been charge-sheeted without proper verification of the complaint, the investigation officer should be penalized for gross negligence of duty.

 14. NRI Issues : Unless they are proven to be guilty after the due judicial process, NRIs should be a given a fair chance to justice by assuring them of the following -a) Permission to return to country of employment b) No impoundment/revocation of passport and no Interpol Red Corner Notices. c) No unnecessary arrests d) Expeditious investigation and trial

15. Gender Neutral: Everyone should have equal rights and responsibilities, irrespective of gender. In the current social context, there should be similar laws to protect harassed husband and his family members from an unscrupulous wife.[25]
This Section only provides for the remedy to woman only and these days it is being used as a ‘brahamastra’ by the woman. It is a highly debatable issue these days, if this problem is not solved by legislation it may become a bane for the society. People’s trust over the judiciary will come to an end. So it’s high time that this Section be amended and some changes like mentioned above should be brought up in this law.












[1]The Indian penal Code, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, 30th edition reprint 2008,pg. 917
[2]  The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ,Ratanlal &dhirajlal, 21st edition reprint 2009,pg. 560
[3]  Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India;JT 2005(6) SC266
[4]  Jagdish Chander vs. State of Haryana,1988 Cr. LJ 1048 (P&H)
[5]2004 (9) SCC 157; 2004 SCC(Cr) 1417; 2003 AIR(SC) 3828
[6]1986 (2) Crimes 435; 1986 (92) CRLJ 1510; 1986 RLR 220
[7]Ibid.
[8]1989 SCC(Cr) 105; 1989 (1) SCC 244; 1989 AIR(SC) 378; 1989 (1) Crimes 173; 1989 (95) CRLJ 809
[9]II (2000) DMC 628
[10]II (2003) DMC 546 (DB)
[11]State of Maharshtra v Jaiprakash Krishna Mangaonkar & Ors II(2003) DMC 384
[12]Annapurnabai @Bhoori v State of MP I (2000)DMC 699
[13]Ramesh Dalaji Godad v State of Gujarat II (2004) DMC 124
[14]I (2003) DMC 287
[15]U.Subba Rao & Ors v State of Karnataka II (2003) DMC 102; Umesh Kumar Shah &Ors v State of Bihar
I (2004) DMC 260
[16]II (2003) DMC 461
[17]Ravinder Bhagwan Todkar & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors I (2004) DMC 791 (DB)
[18]II (2003) DMC 328
[19]I (2003) DMC 37 (DB)
[20](1990)2 Rec Cri R 243
[21]2000 CriLJ 2993
[22]2002 CriLJ 3605
[23]2002 CriLJ 4124
[24]JT 2005(6) 266
[25]  After looking to the report of following suggestions have been made Justice Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, 2003  <http://www.mha.nic.in/pdfs/criminal_justice_system.pdf>chapter 16.




Also at
Following widespread complaints of the anti-dowry law being misused to lodge false cases, the government has decided to review the stringent provisions of the legislation. The Law Commission of India, which advises the government on legal issues, is considering grounds to recommend amendments to section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with physical and mental cruelty by husbands and their relatives against wives over dowry. Currently this section allows the police to arrest the accused named in a complaint without a warrant and even before investigation. Besides, there is no provision for a compromise between the two parties.

"We've referred the matter to the Law Commission for its opinion since a very large number of complaints have been received against this section," law minister M Veerappa Moily told HT.
He said the Supreme Court had last year asked the government twice to take a re-look at the 28-year-old anti-dowry law following a spurt in its misuse, resulting in old people, pregnant women and even children being booked on false complaints.
Independent studies have put the conviction rate in cases registered under this section at less than 5%, indicating that most of the cases are false.
The Law Commission is examining three aspects - whether it is feasible to categorise the offence as bailable, to allow the complainant to withdraw a complaint in case of a compromise with the court's permission, and if the police should retain the power to make arrests on their own.
"We are examining how to give a human touch to this section, which has a very high potential for misuse. Our concentration is to make the offence bailable, non-cognisable and compoundable," said commission member justice (retd) Shiv Kumar Sharma.
A compoundable offence permits withdrawal of a complaint if both sides patch up.
On August 13 last year, the Supreme Court had stated, "Such is the level of exaggeration of cruel behaviour on the part of husbands and their relatives that to find the truth is a Herculean task in a majority of these complaints."
The top court's observation had come in response to a petition filed by a resident of Surat, Preeti Gupta, who had been named in a dowry complaint by her sister-in-law Manisha Poddar in Jharkhand, after Poddar's marriage with Gupta's brother soured.


 http://www.hindustantimes.com/Misuse-forces-a-review-of-dowry-law/Article1-667632.aspx