Divorcee dads fight for their children’s rights

Divorcee dads fight for their children’s rights

TNN | Mar 24, 2014, 04.26 AM IST

PANAJI: Looking to protect children stuck in the crossfire of messy divorces, Bangalore-based Children's Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP) has opened a branch in Goa. The NGO is largely managed by injured divorcee-fathers who have been denied custody of their children, and in a strange twist are waging war on the 'patriarchal mindset' of the Indian legal system that considers fathers incapable of nurturing children. 

Having fought a long-drawn out custody battle for his daughter, especially one that was in the media spotlight because his ex-wife had married a cricketer ; the founder of CRISP, Bangalorean stockbroker Kumar Jahgirdar had a front seat view of the damage inflicted on the child's sense of security, her psychological and emotional well-being by sparring parents. 

"When a marriage ends badly, the two partners tend to use the legal system to hurt each other and stroke their own egos. The child's needs lose precedence; the child is first used as leverage and then ends up as spoils of war—in the process, witnessing such malevolence in his/her formative years," says Kumar. 

He also complains of the glaring gender-bias displayed by Indian courts in favour of mothers. "While CRISP is gender-neutral, with quite a few female members as well, one has to admit that fathers get the raw deal in custody agreements. If the father is unmarried, the court complains that there is no female member to care for the child. If the father re-marries, they deny custody on grounds that the child would not be treated well by the stepmother," he says, speaking from his own experience. 

"There is urgent need for a special commission, led by a panel of experts like child psychologists and activists to step in, counsel the parents and convince them to share custody of the children, even before they apply for divorce. This will also help avoid parental abduction, where the custodial parent takes the child to another country without the permission of the other—a problem rampant in Goa," adds realtor Remiz Cardoz, who heads the Goa chapter of CRISP. 

The NGO has 30,000 members across its five other branches in India, who lurk around family courts to guide divorcing partners, conduct awareness meetings for the legal community, and generally provide support to non-custodial parents and their families. They also offer a network of psychiatrists and lawyers who work pro-bono to help parents in these situations. 

"We are getting even more aggressive with our campaign ahead of the elections, to send out a strong message to all parents: Only vote for the party that guarantees protection of children's rights in their manifesto. Even though children account for 40% of India's population, no political party is interested in taking up their problems because they are not a vote bank," says Kumar, who is pushing for a separate Union ministry for children. "Children's rights are completely different from women's rights and it does not make sense that they are clubbed together," he adds.

Father moves HC after child ‘tutored’ by mother refuses to speak to him

Father moves HC after child ‘tutored’ by mother refuses to speak to him

Mohan K Korappath, Hindustan Times
Mumbai, December 03, 2012

When a child does not speak to the father due to a strained relationship between the parents, despite staying under the same roof, it is an undesirable state of affairs, the Bombay high court observed.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Prakash Shah (name changed), a senior vice-president of a multi-national bank, seeking access to his 11-year-old daughter. Prakash stays in the same house with his wife, Anjali.

Noting that the mother had refused to allow her child even to speak to the father, justice Roshan Dalvi said: “Children of such strained relationships are tutored and even indoctrinated into refusal and self-denial”.

“This is one stark case of a child being made an unfortunate victim of a bitter family dispute,” the court said.

Deeming it fit to unite the two, the child was called to the judge’s chamber. However, she again refused to speak to her father. In fact, the girl “parrot-like repeated the incidents which the mother herself had stated to the court”.

“Despite the court's initial attempt to help the child see reason in the pristine relationship of a father and child, she only showed vengeance and revenge for the incidents, which are stated to have transpired,” Dalvi said.

The child even refused to answer questions of the court and to hear what the father may want to say, the court observed.

“The child is obviously tutored and advised into refusal,” Dalvi held.

“It appears that she has been instructed to refuse to do whatever the court requested on the premise that it was her desire. The entire exercise is misconceived and ill-advised,” the judge added.

Even though Anjali was opposed to it, the court directed the girl attend sessions with a child counsellor at the family court in the city.

“It would be impossible for the court to go any further in making the child see reason in the face of total and complete denial and disobedience of entreaties of the court,” Dalvi said.

A report has been sought before the next hearing on January 8.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/Father-moves-HC-after-child-tutored-by-mother-refuses-to-speak-to-him/Article1-967550.aspx

Women’s empowerment and ego problems are spoiling society: HC judge

Woman takes alimony from ex-husband but doesn’t let him meet their daughter. Enraged, the judge added, ‘You want his money, but don’t want him to see the child’

Posted On Monday, February 27, 2012 at 03:51:22 AM

The society is being spoilt because of women’s empowerment and ego problems,” an angry judge told an advocate whose woman client accepts alimony from her former husband, but refuses him the right to visit their daughter. The division bench of Justice K L Manjunath and Justice K Govindarajulu were hearing an appeal by Binu Vineet, seeking visitation rights to see his minor daughter whom he had not seen for seven years. The 16-year-old girl lives with her mother, Shiny.   Shiny’s advocate argued against the plea, saying Vineet was not interested in the child and had not paid child maintenance for years.   Vineet, who was present in court, said, “If there is even a single rupee pending from my side as child maintenance, I would withdraw this appeal.”   Justice Manjunath asked Shiny’s advocate if the girl’s father was paying the monthly maintenance. When told he was, the judge said, “You tried to create an impression that he was not paying for the last three years. I am sorry to say this, but society is being spoilt because of women’s empowerment, ego problems and small issues being blown out of proportion. I do not know where the society is headed with such attitude. Both the parents pamper the child to make it avoid the other parent. The child takes money from both the parents, and will end up as a vagabond on the streets. Even the judges are to be blamed for this. They pass orders on just the facts, without considering humane issues.”   Justice Manjunath said that advocates had the responsibility of trying to get the parties to reconcile. He further said that the woman in this case was behind money. “You want his money, but don’t want him to see the child,” the judge said.   Divorced in 2005 Vineet and Shiny were married on June 23, 1994, at St George’s Church, Kerala. They divorced through mutual consent in March 2005. Their only daughter is now 16 years. Vineet has been trying to get custody and visitation rights for years. In 2008, the trial court rejected his plea, and Vineet moved the high court last year.   In its order, the HC said, “We tried to persuade the parties to reconcile. But the respondent says that the daughter is not willing to meet her father. The respondent contends that the child has apprehensions about meeting her father and fears that she would not be compatible and comfortable. We cannot appreciate her arguments on these grounds based on the child’s response.”   The court also noted that the child is now studying in Std X in a reputed school in Bangalore and would join college shortly. “The appellant is allowed to meet his daughter once in two weeks for three to four hours,” the court ordered.   Vineet’s advocate, Siju Abraham Verghese of Ranjit Shankar Associates, said, “The case for custody of the girl started in 2001, when she was just five years old. In the past seven years, the father did not get to meet his daughter even once despite both of them living in the same city.   “A case was also filed when our client went to his former wife’s house to see his daughter. The comment made by the judge was of a serious nature, but very true. The wife’s advocate told the court that maintenance had not been paid for the past five years. It is totally false. There had been blatant misuse of law by women in some cases which was looked into by the court today. Any number of problems may arise between the husband and wife but even as advocates we have to look at the welfare of the child and try make the parents reach a settlement as far as the child is concerned.”

http://www.bangaloremirror.com/article/1/2012022720120227035143505b8e44d89/Women%E2%80%99s-empowerment-and-ego-problems-are-spoiling-society-HC-judge.html

Why can't single men adopt?

Sep 28, 2011, 12.00AM IST

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

 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

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

 

“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

 

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

Indian courts can decide NRI couples' matrimonial and guardianship rows: SC

Indian courts can decide NRI couples' matrimonial and guardianship rows: SC

16 may 2011

New Delhi Indian courts have jurisdiction to deal with custodial disputes of minor children even if a foreign court has passed an order in favour of either of the parents, the Supreme Court has ruled in a matrimonial dispute of an NRI family.

A bench of justices V S Sirpurkar and T S Thakur said in a judgement said that simply because a foreign court has passed an order, Indian courts cannot "abjectly surrender" to it and shirk its duty of deciding the dispute.

"Simply because a foreign court has taken a particular view on any aspect concerning the welfare of the minor 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, writing the judgement, said.

The apex court passed the judgement while upholding an appeal filed by Ruchi Majoo challenging a Delhi High Court judgement that Indian courts have no jurisdiction under the doctrine of "comity of courts" to entertain any petition if a decree or order has already been passed by any foreign court.

A superior court in California had issued a red corner notice against Ruchi in a suit filed by her estranged US-based husband Sanjeev Majoo who had alleged his wife had fled with their minor son to India despite a decree by the US court granting him custody of the child.

The couple were living with the kid in the US before she returned to India in 2008. A Delhi court had on Ruchi's application granted her custody of the child under the Guardians and Wards Act.

The Delhi High Court had, however, struck down the trial court's order and asked the couple to submit themselves to the Californian court as all the three possessed US citizenship.

Aggrieved, the wife appealed through her counsel Ashish Bhan in the apex court where she accused her husband of being involved in pornography and adulterous relationship. The husband, while denying the allegations, maintained that Indian courts had no jurisdiction since a decree had already been passed by the Californian court.

Rejecting the husband's arguments, the apex court said "recognition of decrees and orders passed by foreign courts remains an eternal dilemma in as much as whenever called upon to do so, courts in this country are bound to determine the validity of such decrees and orders keeping in view the provisions of Section 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1908 as amended by the Amendment Act of 1999 and 2002.

"The duty of a court exercising its Parens Patraie (legal guardian) jurisdiction as in cases involving custody of minor children is all the more onerous. Welfare of the minor in such cases being the paramount consideration, the court has to approach the issue regarding the validity and enforcement of a foreign decree or order carefully.

The bench hastened to add that it does not, however, mean that the order passed by a foreign court need not be considered by Indian courts.

"But it is one thing to consider the foreign judgement to be conclusive and another to treat it as a factor or consideration that would go into the making of a final decision.

"We must make it clear that no matter a court is exercising powers under the Guardian & Wards Act, it can choose to hold a summary inquiry into the matter and pass appropriate orders provided it is otherwise competent to entertain a petition for custody of the minor under Section 9(1) of the Act.

The apex court reiterated that in matters dealing with custodial rights, the interest of the minor should be paramount.

The bench said the interest of the minor shall be better served if he continued in the custody of his mother, especially when the father has contracted a second marriage and did not appear to be keen for having actual custody of the minor.

The apex court, however, minced no words in expressing displeasure at the conduct of the wife and her parents in poisoning the mind of the kid against their father.

"For a boy so young in years, these and other expressions suggesting a deep-rooted dislike for the father could arise only because of a constant hammering of negative feeling in him against his father. This approach and attitude on the part of the appellant or her parents can hardly be appreciated.

"What the appellant ought to appreciate is that feeding the minor with such dislike and despise for his father does not serve his interest or his growth as a normal child. It is important that the minor has his father¿s care and guidance, at this formative and impressionable stage of his life," the bench said.

The apex court said the father should be allowed to talk through telephone or video conference, "which too shall not only be permitted but encouraged by the appellant," Justice Thakur added.

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Indian-courts-can-decide-NRI-couples%5C-matrimonial-rows-SC/791624/

Jobless father gets child maintenance from estranged wife

Jobless father gets child maintenance from estranged wife

HYDERABAD: If divorce and child custody laws are loaded against men, at least one such case has taken an objective turn at a city family court. Recently, the additional bench of the Hyderabad family court ruled in favour of a man who after winning the child's custody, sought financial aid from his working wife to raise the child until he was 18. The reason? The man in his petition stated that he had lost his job to make his marriage work thus holding the woman responsible for his jobless state.

The wife, who is a government employee, had filed for a divorce petition when the husband filed a petition simultaneously seeking the child's custody, stating that she had deserted their son. His custody claim was not countered by the wife and hence the court granted him the seven-year-old's custody. It was following this that he sought financial aid from his wife to raise the child, stating that he had been forced to spend considerable time at home to take care of the child and also trying to make his marriage work. In his petition he stated that he put in all possible efforts to save the marriage but his wife refused to listen to him. At a later date, she dumped her husband and child and walked out of their home. The divorce petition filed by her is still pending at the court.

This personal stress, he said, claimed his job of an administrator at a city-based hospital. "The mother has been asked by the court to bear the actual expenses of the child's education," said the lawyer representing the woman on conditions of anonymity. The amount will vary every month depending on the needs of the child.

This is not the first time that a man has sought financial aid from his estranged wife. A couple of months ago, a man moved the court seeking alimony from his wife citing his unemployment as the reason. However, this could well be among the first such verdicts wherein the court has conceded to the man's petition, by asking the woman to financially aid the man.

Nevertheless, lawyers are now speculating if the court would grant the divorce, now that it has made the woman responsible to bear the expenditure of the child's education. Also, lawyers are wondering what the court would do if the father manages to obtain employment by the time it hears the divorce petition. "For this the mother will have to file a petition or state during the hearing that the husband has found a job and that she no longer needs to pay for the child. However, this may take some time,'' a lawyer said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Jobless-father-gets-child-maintenance-from-estranged-wife/articleshow/6562369.cms#ixzz0zgiTnfYf

Delhi HC gives infant's custody to mother

Delhi HC gives infant's custody to mother

NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Tuesday handed over custody of an infant girl to her mother and sent her matrimonial dispute to the mediation centre.
A division bench asked the father of the girl who had forcibly taken her custody from the mother to surrender the child to her mother and sort out their dispute via mediation.
The father had appeared with the girl in response to HC summons and argued against handing her over to his wife, saying he had a greater right on the child and was apprehensive the mother would not be able to nurture the baby properly.
However, the bench disagreed and pointed out that at such a young age, the mother had the first right on the child and she can't be deprived of it.
HC was hearing a habeas corpus filed by the mother who alleged she was victimized by her husband who took away their daughter. Fearing the baby might be in danger, the mother moved HC seeking her presence. She alleged that on a pilgrimage to Vaishno Devi shrine earlier this year, her husband had discarded her and taken away the child.
HC had then asked the SHO of the concerned police station to trace the father and the child and produce them before it.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/HC-gives-infants-custody-to-mother/articleshow/6515527.cms#ixzz0yw3NJL9n

Apply your mind: You cannot doubt a mother's bona fides -HC to passport officials

Apply your mind: You cannot doubt a mother's bona fides -HC to passport officials

MUMBAI: A woman estranged from her husband won a battle against passport authorities as well as police officials who had objected to her using a duplicate passport for her five-year-old son. On Tuesday, the Bombay high court not only ruled in the woman's favour but also gave the officials an earful.

Observing that a couple in the midst of a matrimonial dispute is likely to file cross-complaints against each other, a division bench of Justice D K Deshmukh and Justice N D Deshpande held that police officials should apply their minds.

The judges pulled up the Cuffe Parade police, deputy commissioner of police (special branch II) as well as the passport authorities. "You cannot doubt a mother's bona fides. Do you think getting a passport is easy? Why would she take so much trouble if she already has the original passport,'' the judges asked.

The court was hearing a petition filed by 37-year-old Priya Karia (name changed to protect identity), a resident of Cuffe Parade in south Mumbai. Priya moved the high court last month challenging a show cause notice issued by passport authorities in July this year seeking revocation of a duplicate passport issued to her son. Priya, in her petition, claimed that she applied for a duplicate passport for her son after her estranged husband informed her that he had misplaced/lost the boy's original passport.

Priya married Shekhar (name changed) in 2000. The couple had a son in 2005. Priya, in her petition, alleged that she was harassed by her husband and in-laws and was compelled to leave her matrimonial home in June 2009.

Priya claims that Shekhar and his parents didn't allow her to take any valuables and important documents, including her son's passport. She asked Shekhar for the boy's passport as she wanted to go abroad with her mother.

Shekhar filed a complaint with the Cuffe Parade police, saying that their son's original passport was intact and that Priya had sought a duplicate passport on fake grounds. Taking a note of the complaint, DCP-SB II sent an ex-parte report to the passport authorities in June. The passport authorities then issued a show cause notice to Priya.

Representing the passport authorities, advocate Mandar Goswami said the petitioner will be allowed to use the duplicate passport and that the original will be confiscated.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Apply-your-mind-HC-to-passport-officials/articleshow/6515654.cms

Dad's origin not only basis to fix child's status: Chennai HC

Dad's origin not only basis to fix child's status: Chennai HC

CHENNAI: Fixing the origin status of a child for the purpose of granting domicile or caste certificate on the basis of the origin of the father alone would amount to gender discrimination, the Madras high court has ruled.
"It cannot be disputed that both the parents are in equal footing, hence, the status of the child has to be decided based on the other relevant factors," Justice S Tamilvanan said. The judge made the observations while allowing a petition of D Vidjeacoumary of Puducherry, whose daughter R Arthi was denied the Scheduled Caste (Origin) certificate by the authorities of the territorial administration.
Her application for the caste certificate was rejected on the ground that the father of the child was not from Puducherry and that he had migrated to the Union territory about 18 years ago.
Vidjeacoumary, a Dalit woman born in 1962 in Puducherry, married V Ranganathan of Tamil Nadu over 18 years ago. After marriage he too moved to the Union territory. In September 1989, Arthi was born. When they applied for the SC (Origin) certificate for Arthi in 2007, it was rejected on the ground that her father did not possess the residential status in the Union territory.
Justice Tamilvanan, disapproving of the denial of certificate to the girl, said: "As contemplated in Article 14 of the Constitution, the state shall not deny equality of person before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Accordingly, no citizen shall be discriminated on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth."
Pointing out that the territorial administration's counter-affidavit itself admitted that Ranganathan was residing in Puducherry for the past 18 years, the judge said: "In the instant case, both the parents of Arthi are permanently residing in Puducherrry and the girl is a resident of the state since her birth. Hence, I am of the considered view that denial of origin status to her based on the origin status of her father is certainly gender discrimination, accordingly violation of Article 14 of the Constitution." The judge then directed the authorities to grant SC (Origin) certificate to Arthi within four weeks.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Dads-origin-not-only-basis-to-fix-childs-status-HC/articleshow/6493724.cms#ixzz0yq8lSq8j

Gone in 60 seconds-Ex-wives whisking away their children to undisclosed locations to prevent father's visitation rights-trend on the rise-Contempt of Court

Publication: Bangalore Mirror;
Date: Sep 7, 2010;
Section: City;
Page: 10

Gone in 60 seconds

Ex-wives whisking away their children to undisclosed locations in a bid to thwart their ex-husbands’ visiting rights is a trend that’s fast catching up in the city

Shyam Prasad shyam.prasad1@timesgroup.com
    Even though a family court in Bangalore granted Raghuram S the permission to visit his son Tarun once every 15 days, Raghuram woke up one fine day to the news that his ex-wife had relocated to Jaipur along with their four-yearold son, without informing him. He was informed of the development by his ex-wife Suma Hanumanthappa’s advocate, that too through e-mail.
    In another case, John Varghese went to visit his two children aged 14 and 8 only to be informed that they had moved to the US along with his ex-wife. “How do I contact them? I don’t even know which state they have relocated to. This, despite a court decree that gives me the right to visit my children,” said Varghese.
    Interestingly, both these cases were settled by the Mediation Centre after a referral from the respective family courts. The Bangalore Mediation Centre claims a success rate of 80.73 per cent out of the 5,094 cases it has handled so far. The average time taken to settle a divorce dispute is 259.35 minutes or just over four hours.
    ”The high-profile case of Adita Chandra whose parents went to the Supreme Court and finally to a court in the US, to fight over his custody, made headlines. But there are so many such cases in Bangalore. Nobody is ready to even acknowledge that it is the fathers who suffer in such cases,” said Kumar Jahgirdar of Children’s Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP).
    Raghuram works in Hyderabad and used to visit his son once every fortnight in Bangalore. He was shocked to hear from his ex-wife’s advocate that she had moved to Jaipur along with their child. “Somebody informed me of my ex-wife’s intentions and I immediately moved court. The court said the case was maintainable and took it up. Weeks before the hearing, I came to meet the child and found the house vacated. Her phones were switched off and her advocate informed me through email that she had moved to Jaipur. How can I go to Jaipur twice a month? The court has been informed of this development,” he said.
    ”In cases where a dispute over a child’s custody is as yet to be settled, the court becomes the guardian of the child and not the father or mother. If the mother or father takes away the child to some other place during the hearing without informing the court or the other party, it legally amounts to abduction. But even otherwise, the custodial parent has to inform the other parent of the child’s whereabouts at all times,” said Jahgirdar.
    Kumar Jahgirdar said that cases of custodial parents whisking away their children to undisclosed locations without informing the other parent were on the rise. “Ever since the case of Aditya Chandra became big news, such incidents are on the rise. It is an abuse of the child’s rights when the other parent who is available and fit is not given the right to visit the child,” he said.

A file photo of Raghuram with his son Tarun. The boy’s mother suddenly relocated to Jaipur without informing the father

Taking care of mother, children statutory duty of MCD: HC

Taking care of mother, children statutory duty of MCD: HC

PTI

New Delhi, Aug 11 (PTI) The MCD has a statutory duty to see that women and children are properly looked after, the Delhi High Court said and dismissed a PIL seeking a direction to the civic agency not to build a Maternity and Child Welfare Home to prevent "wastage" of public money.

"Taking care of the child is national duty. No one should forget that the child is the father of man.It is the duty of MCD to see that women and children are properly looked after.It is the women who nourish and foster the children who eventually build the nation," said a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Manmohan. "We really fail to fathom when a centre for maternity home and child welfare is established to serve the cause of the women and children who really need help and assistance, how can the same amount to wastage of public exchequer," the Bench said and dismissed the PIL.

The Delhi Anusuchit Jati Vikas Sangathan, a registered society, through a PIL sought a direction prohibiting MCD from spending Rs 2.50 crore and a land measuring 1000 square metre in B Block, JJ colony-II in Nangloi area as the same land was earmarked for construction of a school.

"When an effort has been made to take care of mothers, it is unfathomable how someone can come up and make such a grievance," the Bench said.

CHILD CUSTODY LAWS-Fathers denied child custody-demand SHARED PARENTING - p7 news

PART 1/2 - CHILD CUSTODY LAWS-Fathers denied child custody-demand SHARED PARENTING - p7 news 8aug10

 

 

 

 

PART 2/2 - CHILD CUSTODY LAWS-Fathers denied child custody-demand SHARED PARENTING - p7 news 8aug10

 

The inheritance of loss

The inheritance of loss

by Preeti Singh, of Hindustan Times

Remember Amar Akbar Anthony? Three tragically-separated brothers grow up following different faiths  after being taken in by kindly souls who bring them up as their own. Nearly a quarter-century later, its idealism seems grossly out of place as current adoption laws in India continue to give more credence to religious beliefs over the secular right of every child to grow up in a loving home.

Only Hindus were allowed to legally adopt till a decade ago, under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Even now, if non-Hindus wish to adopt from within the gene pool, they can't. Till 2000, non-Hindus could only become guardians of a child under the Guardian and Wards Act (Gawa), 1890, which also applies to all foreigners wishing to adopt an Indian child. The lesser-known Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 (JJA) plugged a vital gap by allowing anyone to legally adopt any number of abandoned or destitute children, but still not from within the family.

Under Gawa, the adoptive parents are only guardians and the child has no automatic legal rights, unlike Hindu adoptees who are treated on a par with 'biological' siblings. Also, the guardian-ward relationship ceases to exist once the child turns 18, and any inheritance claims must be explicitly willed. Passports and visas are difficult to obtain since they carry no provision for a guardian's name; family insurance covers are tricky to negotiate and school admissions become tougher than they already are.

Continuing opposition from various religious communities — who view any proposed changes in the current laws as a Trojan trick to ease in the Uniform Civil Code — often forces prospective parents to sneak around under the radar. Pushing many adoptions underground, this has also opened the floodgates for predators looking to make a quick buck, spawning transnational adoption rackets.

The logic of demand and supply creates its own opportunities and pitfalls but, despite this, feels Bharati Dasgupta, managing trustee of the Pune-based Catalysts for Social Change, "even though we have a good system of checks and balances, the biggest problem today is the lack of imaginative interpretation of existing laws like the JJA, which prevents the State from reaching out to those that are already in its care."

The proposed Personal Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 seeks to correct a long-standing anomaly, by finally allowing married women to adopt, give up a child for adoption, and become guardians (albeit with consent from their husbands). For now, a woman can adopt only if she is single, divorced or widowed. But any legislation is bound to fall short unless there's a level playing field for all — potential parents and children alike.

The equal measure of desperation and hope that mark every parent-in-waiting's quest for a child, as well as the psychological impact of rejection and abandonment on children, make adoption a highly emotive issue. Heart-rending stories of babies dumped in trash-cans, abandoned at hospitals or sold for paltry sums of money vie with tales of the decrepit conditions in our State-run homes, even as there are couples desperately seeking that one child to complete the family portrait. Why can't the twain meet?

Says Vinita Bhargava, author of the pioneering book, Adoption in India (and an adoptive mom herself), "The lack of a special, uniform law, coupled with corruption at several levels, political appointments of non-experts in regulatory bodies and the paucity of both funds and sensitivity have ensured that our approach to adoption is far from being child-centric." Previous attempts to introduce a common law have only raised religious red-flags but then as long as a law does not challenge a faith's core beliefs, why shouldn't the State's edicts apply to all?

Parents may get to choose which boxes they tick when seeking to adopt, but the child has little choice in deciding his/her future. By taking a long, hard look at our laws and ensuring that a child's welfare precedes all else, it's time to give these invisible children at least a fighting chance.

 

http://www.hindustantimes.com/The-inheritance-of-loss/Article1-582852.aspx

Women to get equal rights to adopt kids?

NEW DELHI: In a big step forward towards empowering the women across religious divide, a parliamentary Standing Committee has unanimously recommended that women be given equal rights in guardianship and adoption of children.

In its report on the Personal Laws Amendment Bill, 2010 -- introduced in the Rajya Sabha on April 22 -- the Standing Committee on Law and Justice has said personal laws cannot be kept away from the principles of gender equality and gender justice. "The committee is of the view that the amendments proposed in the bill would place the mother on an equal footing with the father with respect to the right of guardianship and the right to adopt," it said.

The bill, which seeks to amend the Guardians and Wards Act (GWA), 1890, and the Hindu Adoption Maintenance Act, 1956, is likely to be tabled in the Lok Sabha during the ongoing monsoon session.

According to GWA, which applies to Christians, Muslims, Parsis and Jews, if a couple adopts a child, the father is the natural guardian.

The proposed amendment to the 120-year-old Act allows the mother along with the father to be appointed as a guardian, making the process gender neutral. The bill provides for the mother to be appointed as a guardian along with the father so that the courts do not appoint anyone else in case the father dies.

The second amendment, proposed in the Hindu Adoption Maintenance Act, 1956, (applicable to Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs) aims to remove the hurdles in the way of a married woman to adopt and also give a child for adoption. At present, unmarried and divorced women as also widows are allowed to adopt a child but women separated from their husbands and engaged in lengthy divorce battles cannot adopt a child.

The amendment would allow a married woman separated from her husband to adopt with the consent of her husband even during the time of divorce proceedings. However, if he changes his religion or is declared to be of unsound mind, no consent from the estranged husband will be required.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Women-to-get-equal-rights-to-adopt-kids-/articleshow/6257721.cms

Delhi High court stays lower court order on child custody

Delhi High court stays lower court order on child custody

2010-07-29 20:30:00

The Delhi High Court Thursday put a stay on a trial court's order allowing interim custody of two minor children to their father after the mother alleged it was being forced on the children.

The direction came on a petition filed by Mandira (name changed), working as a director in the cabinet secretariat, against the lower court order alleging that the court passed the order despite the explicit unwillingness of the children to see their father.

The Mandira's children had earlier thrice recorded their statement in the court stating their disinclination to meet their father. Mandira married Sunil (name changed), an industrialist in 1996.

The couple have two children, aged 13 and 6, from their marriage. Mandira had filed a Domestic Violence Act case against her husband in May 2008. The court handed custody of the children to their mother, but allowed the father to see the children on Sundays for two hours. Later the court handed interim custody of the children to their father.

Prabhjit Jauhar, counsel for the petitioner, said: 'The court did not consider the wishes of the children and handed over custody to the father.' He cited that earlier an Additional District Judge had interviewed the children for the purpose of grant of visitation rights and the children showed their disinclination to meet their father.

'The judge noted that there is no finding that the children were either tutored or turned acrimonious by the mother. Three times the children have recorded their statement before a judge,' contended Jauhar.

Thereafter, Mandira moved the court alleging that her daughter has developed suicidal tendencies as she is unhappy meeting her father on visitation. She even placed a psychologist's report as record

 

http://sify.com/news/high-court-stays-lower-court-order-on-child-custody-news-national-kh3u4cbibgc.html

'Harassed' husband wants wife back alleges his father-in-law may kill his unborn child if he does not pay up – sleeping with the enemy

'Harassed' husband wants wife back alleges his father-in-law may kill his unborn child if he does not pay up

Sleeping with the enemy? Mohd Shahid and Zarina

Mohammad Shahid, 28, has to summon the police to take a look at the ultrasound scans of his unborn child, which he claims is in danger.

Shahid, who runs a laundary shop in Sadar Bazar, got married to Zarina, 21, a divorcee on October 10, 2009. But after four months, her father Hafiz Ahmad took his daughter home and complained against Shahid in the dowry cell of the Delhi Police that he was harassing Zarina. 
"We had married against Hafiz's wishes. Apart from dowry, he also alleged that Zarina took jewellery and cash while going with me and demanded it back. Hafiz never brings Zarina to the hearings in the dowry case. She wants to live with me," Shahidalleged.  
Shahid also claimed that Hafiz has threatened that he will abort the four-month-old foetus in the womb of Zarina, if he does not pay the money that she allegedly took with her.
"Acting on my complaint, the police have asked Hafiz to produce all the papers regarding medical check ups and scans of four-month pregnant Zarina by July 29," Shahid said.
"So far we have found no incriminating evidence against Shahid. We are investigating he case from all angles," said an officer attached to the dowry cell.
Hafiz, a local politician, has also contested elections to the MCD from Sadar Bazar and canvassed on a donkey.
"Though he got 56 votes in all, Hafiz claims that he has political connections and can ruin my life," Shahid alleged.
Hafiz rubbished his "former" son-in-laws claims, saying Shahid had "misled" his daughter into marrying him. "He was harassing her for dowry and as a father I protected my daughter. The case is on and I hope I will get justice for Zarina," Hafiz said.

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2010/jul/230710-Delhi-father-in-law-unborn-child-dowry.htm

Bill allowing adoption by single women in next session

Bill allowing adoption by single women in next session

The Bill seeking to amend the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 to pave the way for adoption by widows and single women will be passed in the coming session of Parliament, said Jayanthi Natarajan, Chairperson of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice. The Personal Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010, was introduced in Rajya Sabha on April, 22, 2010 and referred to the standing committee for eliciting public opinion on the issue.

Talking to reporters after holding discussions with officials of the State government and various Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), Ms. Natarajan said there was unanimous opinion in favour of the Bill. The committee had already visited Mumbai and Bangalore.

Ms. Natarajan said the issue of adopting a “flexible policy,” with regard to promotion, leave and vacation for women in government jobs, was also discussed.

“Many women refuse to accept promotional transfers citing family responsibility. The committee has suggested that the PSUs and other government agencies could formulate a flexible promotion and transfer policy for women employees.”

While discussing the issue of sexual harassment of women in the workplace, the committee evaluated whether the guidelines set up by the Supreme Court in Vishaka case were being followed. She said the Centre was considering enacting a law in this regard and the private sector could be covered at a later stage.

The meeting on Saturday also discussed in detail the infrastructure facilities, appointments in subordinate courts and the possibility of courts functioning in shifts, re-employment of retired judges and setting up fast-track courts for speedy disposal of cases with regard to rape, sexual harassment and cases involving senior citizens.

Ms. Natarajan said the situation in Tamil Nadu was better in terms of infrastructure. Vacancies were filled immediately and judges were given training periodically.

She said no representation was made to the committee in connection with making Tamil a court language.

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article474229.ece