Showing posts with label defination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label defination. Show all posts

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Govt mulls amendments to anti-dowry law to add clause for misuse of ipc 498a

Govt mulls amendments to anti-dowry law to add clause for misuse of ipc 498a

As on PTI | Jul 27, 2014, 10.26 AM IST

NEW DELHI: Keeping in view the rising number of complaints regarding the misuse of anti-dowry law, Centre is mulling to introduce penal provisions in the act that will ensure punishment or penalty to those who make false charges.

The Union ministry of women and child development is also contemplating giving more teeth to the Dowry Prohibition Act by strengthening the existing provisions and widening the definition of 'dowry'.

"Recently, a rise in the incidents of misuse of the anti-dowry law has come to the notice of the ministry. In some cases, women falsely implicate their husbands and in-laws for various other reasons.

"If the allegations turn out to be false, the case gets closed. So there are discussions going on about changing some provisions under which the misuse of the act may invite punishment or penalty," an official in the ministry said.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had directed the state governments to instruct police "not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498A of IPC (dowry harassment) is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down flowing from Section 41 of Criminal Procedure Code".

While giving the direction, the apex court had expressed concern over the misuse of the anti-dowry law by "disgruntled" wives against her husband and in-laws and noted that the act was being increasingly used to harass in-laws.

According to ministry officials, the amendments may include widening the definition of 'dowry' by changing the words 'in connection with marriage' to 'given before the marriage, at the time of marriage and at any time after the marriage'.

 The officials said that there was also "a proposal to link certain provisions of the Domestic Violence Act to the Dowry Prohibition Act to provide quick relief".

Notifying the list of gifts exchanged during the wedding may also be made a mandatory and failure to do so could invite heavy penalties including a three-year jail term not only to the bride and the groom but also to their parents.

"Notification of the gifts during the wedding will help in checking any claim from being made later that they were part of dowry," the officials said.

In addition to this, a new clause may be incorporated which will provide an aggrieved woman the opportunity to file her case either at the place where the offence was committed or where she permanently or temporarily resides, they said.

The National Commission for Women (NCW) had also proposed recommendations to amend the Dowry Prohibition Act in 2009.

Source-http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-mulls-amendments-to-anti-dowry-law/articleshow/39095407.cms


Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Making wild allegations against spouse could lead to divorce: Supreme Court

Making wild allegations against spouse could lead to divorce: Supreme Court


As by Dhananjay Mahapatra,TNN | Jul 2, 2014, 06.07 AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that leveling wild allegations repeatedly by one spouse against the other could inflict mental agony and it would be a ground for the aggrieved person to move court seeking divorce citing "irretrievable breakdown of marriage".

Nearly seven years ago, the Supreme Court had formulated "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" as a ground for grant of divorce to couples and had suggested to the legislature to amend the law to provide statutory backing to this new ground for dissolution of marriage.

On Monday, a bench of justices SJ Mukhopadhaya and Dipak Misra added to that judgment and said leveling of wild allegations inflicts humiliation and affects the reputation of the aggrieved spouse.

Affirming the decree of divorce granted to Dr BV Ravi, an associate professor in a government hospital, the bench said his wife had been making wild allegations which portrayed him to be gender insensitive. The court also noted that she had been, without reason, refusing to go to live with him with their child and making false charges against his relatives.
Writing the judgment, Justice Misra said: "Marriage as a social institution is an affirmation of civilized social order where two individuals, capable of entering into wedlock, have pledged themselves to the institutional norms and values and promised to each other a cemented bond to sustain and maintain the marital obligation."

Justice Misra said different persons react differently to similar situations. "What could be mental cruelty in the life of two individuals belonging to particular strata may not amount to mental cruelty in respect of another couple belonging to a different stratum of society."

Referring to the wife's conduct, the bench said: "From this kind of attitude and treatment it can be inferred that the husband has been treated with mental cruelty and definitely he has faced ignominy being an associate professor in a government medical college. When one enjoys social status working in a government hospital, this humiliation affects the reputation and self-respect."

Despite the breakdown of marriage, the bench kept in mind the interests of the 16-year-old son of the couple and said it was the father's "bounden duty to provide for maintenance and education" of the child. Excluding the amount already paid to the wife, the court asked the husband to pay Rs 25 lakh to her in six months for the purpose of education of the child.

It directed the Bangalore family court to keep the money in a nationalized bank in the joint account of the child and mother, who can draw the interest to spend on her son's education.