Men and their family suffer due to False 498a cases and Misuse of 498a by Women and Police. Supreme Court enforces guidelines for arrests in dowry cases
Amit Lakhani Atit Rajpara Manav Mishra Shouvik Basak share sufferings and harassment experiences due to False 498a cases and Misuse of ipc 498a in context to SC Judgment (02 July 2014 Arnesh Kr order) on 498a Misuse and Arrest guidelines laid (u/s s41 crpc) to be followed by Police and Magistrates on India TV news channel 05 July 2014
Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj on Debate on SC Judgement (Arnesh Kr) on Misuse of 498a, Arrest Guidelines laid (As per s41 crpc ) for Police and Magistrate on INDIA TV 03 July 2014
TV Media Debate on SC Judgement on ipc 498a Misuse and automatic arrests in 498a ,guidelines laid for Police and Magistrates u/s s41 crpc- SIF Participation
Shonee Kapoor and Amol Khurhe on ABP News
ABP News debate -1 : Is the dowry law being misused in the country?
Save Indian Family protests at PM house against proposed Hindu Marriage Act Amendment on wife's rights on Husband's inherited property. The protesting activists at 7 RCR, PM house, where the meeting was being held were arrested by Delhi Police and taken to chankyapuri police station where they were later released after about one and half of detension
Brave MEN/HUSBANDS do not tolerate injustice
Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill referred to GoM
The controversial Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill was on Wednesday referred to a Group of Ministers after differences cropped up over clauses dealing with a woman’s right to marital property in case of divorce.
The Union Cabinet, at a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, deliberated at length on the proposed legislation but failed to arrive at a consensus and the matter was then referred to a GoM.
The Law Ministry had suggested that a woman be given a share in residential property of the husband, including inherited and inheritable premises, in case of divorce.
The Ministry of Women and Child Development has suggested that a woman’s right to inheritable property and property acquired by the husband before marriage be kept out of the purview of the law.
The ministers discussed the amendments for over two hours during the meeting of the Cabinet.
“When thinking men and women present different opinions, different opinions do not mean difference of opinion,” Finance Minister P. Chidambaram said when asked whether the Cabinet was split on the matter.
“Views are expressed in a Cabinet and after expressing views, the Prime Minister takes the final decision. In this case the matter has been referred to a Group of Ministers to look at one or two clauses of the Bill,” he said.
The GoM would examine the clauses over the next few days and the Bill will come back before the Cabinet, he said.
Even as the Cabinet was discussing the matter, a small group of protestors shouted slogans against the Bill outside the Prime Minister’s official residence.
They were rounded up by the police and taken away from the high security zone.
Ministries differ over divorcee’s right to inherited property
01 May 2013
NEW DELHI: Sharp differences have emerged within the government on a woman's right to marital property after a divorce. The law ministry has mooted amendments suggesting that a woman should have a share in a residential property acquired by the husband bought not only during or before marriage, but also inherited and inheritable property. In contrast, the ministry of women and child development (WCD) had recommended that property acquired before marriage or that is expected to be inherited should be excluded from the purview of this law.
The Marriage Laws (amendment) Bill is likely to be taken up for the Union Cabinet's approval on Wednesday. This is the second time that there has been a difference in opinion between the two arms of government. The two ministries had also clashed on the issue of lowering the age of consent in the anti-rape legislation. While the law ministry sought lowering the age of consent to 16 years, the WCD ministry was opposed to the move mooting 18 years as the age of consent.
According to sources, the WCD ministry had argued that there would be practical difficulties in implementing the law that could work against the woman's claim to marital property. The ministry had, therefore, suggested that a woman seeking divorce should not have claim to property that has been acquired before marriage or that which is "inheritable" (expected to be inherited.)
The government also proposes to redefine the phrase 'residential property' to include not just the residential house but also other properties acquired by the husband. In case, others, besides the husband, also have rights in the inherited property and it is impractical to divide it, the wife would have the right to receive an equivalent amount of money in place of her share.
The wife would have an equal share in the property regardless of whether it was acquired before or after marriage and regardless of whether it is only in the husband's name or held jointly.
The changes in the Bill have been brought after considerable pressure from civil society as well as members of Parliament.
The government had earlier introduced the amendment bill in order to alter the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, providing the option of divorce on grounds of 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage' as a ground for divorce.
The government also for the first time introduced a legislated right for the wife to a share in the movable and immovable residential properties.
Conflicting views
Law ministry: woman should get share in marital residential property acquired by husband, partly or jointly owned, before, during marriage. She also has a right to property inherited or inheritable.
WCD ministry: woman's claim to property bought before marriage or inheritable should be excluded.
Union Cabinet likely to take up the issue on Wednesday
Judicial Stunner- Incomplete 'Phere' breaks marriage bond
Video report on INDIATV
Husband wife and their lawyers discuss the case with views from the SC lawyer and Pundit on incomplete phere as ground
------------------------
In a bizarre ruling, a family court in Kanpur district of Uttar Pradesh annulled the 12-year-old marriage of a couple on the basis of five ‘Phere’ (steps) and same gotras.
It was a shocking verdict for girl's father, who is fighting the legal battle since 22 August 2001.
In the 100-page ruling, the judge pronounced the verdict against Neeru, citing reduced Phere and same gotras. The judge said that as per the Article 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the marriage was not completed due to reduced Phere and same gotra. As per the Hindu Marriage rituals seven Phere are compulsory. Surprisingly, the marriage was cancelled by the family court for just short of two Phere.
The 'Saat Phere' is an important ritual performed during the wedding in which the bride and the groom circumambulate a sacred fire, known as agni, seven times.
However, Neeru claimed that the 'Saat Phere' ritual was properly performed at a time of marriage.
Reacting on the decision, the Neeru's lawyer described it as a big mistake committed by the family court. He said that there were four evidences had been produced before the court.
The pundit, who performed the marriage, deposed twice before the magistrate and he confirmed completion of 'Saat Phere'. Four other witnesses were also produced before the court and marriage video was also played twice in the court, the lawyer said.
However, lawyer is keen to challenge the lower court order in Allahabad High Court but demoralized Neeru refused to fight the legal battle anymore.
The verdict was real stunning for Neeru and people of the city as well. Neeru’s father is completely broken after the verdict and gave up the hope of any justice. A tearful Neeru was also disappointed with the verdict and said she don’t wish to challenge the verdict.
