Showing posts with label relative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label relative. Show all posts

Thursday, July 3, 2014

दहेज हत्या केस में मुकदमे के लिए आरोपी का खून और विवाह का रिश्ता होना चाहिए: SC

दहेज हत्या केस में मुकदमे के लिए आरोपी का खून और विवाह का रिश्ता होना चाहिए: SC

Thursday, July 3, 2014

नई दिल्ली : उच्चतम न्यायालय ने व्यवस्था दी है कि दहेज हत्या के मामले में किसी व्यक्ति पर मुकदमा चलाने के लिये उसे उस समय तक रिश्तेदार नहीं माना जा सकता जब तक पति से उसका खून, विवाह या गोद लिए जाने का रिश्ता नहीं हो।

शीर्ष अदालत ने साथ ही स्पष्ट किया कि उसका तात्पर्य यह नहीं है कि ऐसे व्यक्ति पर आत्महत्या के लिए उकसाने जैसे आरोप में मुकदमा नहीं चलाया जा सकता।

न्यायमूर्ति चंद्रमौलि कुमार प्रसाद और न्यायमूर्ति पी सी घोष की खंडपीठ ने कहा कि उन्हें इसमें कोई संदेह नहीं है कि भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 304 (बी) (दहेज हत्या) में पति के रिश्तेदार शब्द का आशय उन व्यक्तियों से है जिनका खून, विवाह या गोद लिए जाने के रिश्ते से संबंधित है।

न्यायालय ने दहेज हत्या के मामले में पंजाब एवं हरियाणा उच्च न्यायालय के फैसले के खिलाफ पंजाब सरकार की अपील पर यह व्यवस्था दी। राज्य सरकार ने इस मामले में एक व्यक्ति को आरोपी के रूप में सम्मन जारी करने का निर्णय निरस्त करने के उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश को चुनौती दी थी।

निचली अदालत ने इस मामले में एक व्यक्ति को आरोपी के रूप में तलब किया था। अदालत का कहना था कि वह मृतक महिला के पति का रिश्तेदार है और इस अपराध में शामिल है।

शीर्ष अदालत ने कहा कि यह व्यक्ति मृतक के पति की रिश्तेदार का भाई है और वह कानून में प्रदत्त पति के रिश्तेदार की परिभाषा के दायरे में नहीं आता है। न्यायालय ने कहा कि धारा 304-बी से यह ध्वनि निकलती है कि जब किसी महिला की विवाह के सात साल के भीतर सामान्य परिस्थितियों से इतर जलने या किसी दूसरी प्रकार की चोटों की वजह से मृत्यु होती है तो यह माना जायेगा कि उसके पति या पति के किसी रिश्तेदार से दहेज की खातिर हत्या का अपराध किया है यदि यह पता चलता है कि मृत्यु से ठीक पहले महिला के प्रति उसके पति या पति के किसी रिश्तेदार ने क्रूरता की है या उसे प्रताड़ित किया है।

शीर्ष अदालत ने उच्च न्यायालय का आदेश सही ठहराते हुये राज्य सरकार की अपील खारिज कर दी। न्यायालय ने कहा कि भारतीय दंड संहिता में ‘रिश्तेदार’ को परिभाषित नहीं किया गया है।

Friday, June 20, 2014

Failure of live-in relations a major reason for increase in rape cases, claims Delhi High Court

Failure of live-in relations a major reason for increase in rape cases, claims Delhi High Court

Thursday, 19 June 2014 - 5:07pm IST | Agency: PTI



Failure of live-in relationship or young adults acting immaturely by getting into commitments that end up in break-ups are among major reasons for increase in rape cases, the Delhi High Court has observed. The court also cautioned parents of young couples to behave with "more sensitivity" while dealing with such issues.

A bench of justices Kailash Gambhir and Sunita Gupta made the observation while upholding the life term awarded to four members of a Delhi-based girl's family, including her father, for killing her lover as they did not approve of their relationship.

Anguished over the killing of the 24-year-old youth, the bench said young adults, especially girls, need to be more responsible and act maturely when taking important decisions like getting married or entering into a live-in relationship. "The need of the hour is that boys and more importantly girls have to be very careful and cautious before taking such an important decision concerning their lives before entering into the most sanctimonious relationship of marriage or even to have live-in relationship.  "One of the major reasons contributing to increase in the rape cases is failure of live-in relationship or any immature decision on the part of such young adults which more often end up in a broken relationship but sometimes after indulging into physical relationship," it said.

However, this placed an implied onus on the shoulders of the persons involved in such relationships to act responsibly and maturely, it said.

Parents are "expected to behave with more sensitivity and maturity as such issues need to be resolved with patience, understanding and tolerance and instead of indifference or with a bent of mind of alienating the two", the court said. "It is often noticed that any impetuous act to smother such relationships often has a backlash in the form of resentful feelings or even rebellious actions.
"Therefore, it is with great sensitivity that the parents need to acknowledge the growing independence of their children and rationally and dispassionately deal with these emotive issues giving due respect to their feelings," the bench added.

24-year-old Kuldeep was stabbed to death on the evening of October 14, 2006, by his lover's father, Ravi Kumar and her three uncles Karamvir, Raj Kumar and Sanjay at Uttam Nagar in west Delhi.

According to the prosecution, the four had acted with the common intention of eliminating Kuldeep as they believed he had damaged their reputation because of his affair with Ravi's daughter. The court also agreed with this view that the four acted with the common intention of killing Kuldeep, as Karamvir and Raj had immobolised the victim by holding his arms and legs and Sanjay stopped anyone from coming to the aid of the youth while Ravi stabbed him seven times with a knife. The trial court on June 6, 2011, had awarded life term to all the four after holding them guilty of murder.

While upholding the trial court decision, the high court also said, "Kuldeep perhaps would not have met such a tragic end and these accused persons perhaps would not have suffered severity of punishment of life imprisonment had they acted in a sensible and mature manner with due patience, tolerance and understanding to resolve the things instead of taking the law in their own hands."

Thursday, October 24, 2013

New directions by Supreme court to curb Misuse of IPC 498a dowry law सुप्रीम कोर्ट के नए निर्देशों ने दहेज प्रताडि़त मामलों को दी नई दिशा






सुप्रीम कोर्ट के नए निर्देशों ने दहेज प्रताडि़त मामलों को दी नई दिशा

 
कपूरथला (भूषण): माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट के नए निर्देशों ने दहेज प्रताडि़त मामलों को नई दिशा दे दी है। इन निर्देशों के तहत अब धारा 498-ए और 406 में नजदीकी रिश्तेदारों को पुलिस नामजद नहीं करेगी। नए जारी किए गए निर्देशों के बाद जहां ऐसे मामलों में पुलिस द्वारा अब संबंधित परिवारों के साथ-साथ उनके नजदीकी रिश्तेदारों को भी धारा 498-ए और 406 में नामजद करने से पहले सुप्रीम कोर्ट के आदेशों पर अमल करना पड़ेगा, वहीं इस कानून का अवैध लाभ उठाने वाले लोगों की गतिविधियों पर काफी हद तक रोक लगने की संभावना बन गई है।

उल्लेखनीय है कि भारतीय संविधान मुताबिक किसी भी विवाहिता को उसके विवाह से 7 वर्ष तक अपने पति सहित पति के नजदीकी रिश्तेदारों के ऊपर दहेज प्रताडि़त के लिए मुकद्दमा दर्ज करवाने का अधिकार प्राप्त है, लेकिन इस अधिकार के साथ जहां भारी संख्या में दहेज के लोभियों को सजा मिली है, वहीं इस कानून का लाभ उठाते हुए कई विवाहिताओं ने अपने ससुर परिवार सहित सुसराल पक्ष के साथ नजदीकी रिश्तेदारों को भी धारा 498-ए और 406 के जाल में फंसाने में कामयाबी हासिल की है, जिसके परिणाम स्वरूप बिना कसूर कई परिवार तबाही के किनारे आ पहुंचे हैं।

वहीं कुछ संदिग्ध किस्म के पुलिस अधिकारियों द्वारा फंसाए गए रिश्तेदारों को मामले में से निकालने के लिए डील करने की शिकायतें भी सामने आ चुकी हैं। अब उत्तराखंड के साथ संबंधित एक पीड़ित व्यक्ति की पटीशन पर सुनवाई करते हुए माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट के जस्टिस अनिल आर. दवे और जस्टिस दीपक मिश्रा की पीठ ने अहम फैसला सुनाते दहेज प्रताडि़त की शिकायतों में नजदीकी रिश्तेदारों को नामजद करने में पूरी बारीकी के साथ जांच करने के साथ उनको मामले में शामिल करने में गुरेज करने के आदेश जारी किए हैं।

सुप्रीम कोर्ट के इस आदेश के साथ उन लोगों को भारी राहत मिलने की संभावना बन गई है, जो पुलिस द्वारा धारा 498-ए और 406 में नामजद किए मुख्य आरोपियों के साथ सिर्फ इस कारण ही जोड़ दिए गए, क्योंकि वे उनके रिश्तेदार हैं। ऐसे मामलों में गत वर्षों दौरान शामिल रहे कई व्यक्तियों ने अपना नाम न छापने की शर्त पर बताया कि उनको राजनीतिक दबाव या शिकायतकर्त्ता पक्ष की ऊंची पहुंच के कारण ही बिना मतलब रिश्तेदार होने के परिणाम स्वरूप इस गैर-जमानती मामले में शामिल कर लिया गया है, जिसके परिणाम स्वरूप ही उनको जमानत करवाने के लिए भारी रकम खर्च करनी पड़ी।

वहीं उनको बदनामी भी झेलनी पड़ी, लेकिन अब माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा जारी किए गए नए दिशा-निर्देशों ने बेकसूर लोगों को नई दिशा दी है। इस संबंधी एस.एस.पी. इंद्रबीर सिंह ने बताया कि जिला पुलिस को पहले ही दहेज प्रताडऩा के मामलों में निर्दोष व्यक्तियों पर मामला न दर्ज करने के आदेश जारी किए हुए हैं। माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट के दिशा-निर्देशों की पूरी तरह पालना की जाएगी।


 Source

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

GF/concubine can't be prosecuted for cruelty: SC

Full text available @

http://legalmanthan498adowrymisuse.blogspot.com/2010/09/sc-girl-friend-concubine-though-staying.html

 

GF/concubine can't be prosecuted for cruelty: SC

15 sep 2010

New Delhi: A girl friend, concubine or live-in-partner cannot be prosecuted for cruelty by an estranged wife though the husband and other family members can be made liable for the offence, the Supreme Court has held.


A Bench of Justices Altamas Kabir and AK Patnaik in a judgement said that under Section 498A, it is the husband and his other relatives who can be prosecuted but not the girl friend, live-in partner or concubine even if they are staying with him.

The Bench passed the judgement while upholding an appeal filed by Sunita Jha, challenging the cognizance taken by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, Jharkhand, under Section 498A IPC on the basis of a complaint filed by estranged wife Asha Rani.

Rani had filed the case not only against her husband Mukund Chandra Pandit but also against Sunita who was living with him without marrying him. Rani argued that even though Sunita was not married, yet by her conduct of staying with Pandit they were deemed to be husband and wife. The sessions court dismissed Sunita's plea for quashing of the criminal case and the Jharkhand High Court also refused to interfere with the decision.

The High Court took the view that since Sunita was living with the accused husband of the complainant, she must be deemed to have become a family member of Mukund Chandra Pandit for the purpose of Section 498A IPC. Aggrieved, Sunita appealed in the apex court. Interpreting the provision, the apex court said that under Section "498A, 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 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 apex court recalled its earlier ruling in the U Suvetha's case that neither a girl friend nor a concubine is a relative of the husband within the meaning of Section 498A IPC since they were not connected by blood or marriage to the husband.
"We agree with the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that the learned Judge of the High Court committed an error in bestowing upon the Appellant the status of wife and, therefore, a member of Mukund Chandra Pandit's family.
"The doctrine of acknowledgement would not be available in the facts of this case. No doubt, there is direct allegation against the appellant of cruelty against the Respondent No.2, Asha Rani Pal, but as indicated in U Suvetha's case, the same would enable the Respondent No.2 to proceed against her husband under Section 498A I.P.C. and also against the appellant under the different provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but not under Section 498A I.P.C.," Justice Kabir, writing the judgement, said.

http://www.zeenews.com/news655315.html

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Delhi Court expresses concern over misuse of Domestic Violence Act

Delhi Court expresses concern over misuse of Domestic Violence Act

New Delhi, Aug 29 (PTI) A Delhi court has expressed its concern over the misuse of the Domestic Violence Act to settle civil dispute between sparring couples with the use of women as "pawn" by the male relatives.


"The misuse and abuse of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a matter of serious concern for the courts which are required to be careful and ensure that a woman petitioner is not made a puppet or pawn in the hands of her male relatives so as to manipulate the Act and use it for ulterior motives," Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau said.
The court said the purpose of passing the welfare law was to protect the family value system and not to create a civil right.
"The provisions of special legislation in favour of women cannot be abused as the short cut for establishing a civil rights where none exists," the court said.


"The intent of the Act is to protect the value system and institution of family and save it from destruction. This being so, the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted to ensure that the existing family system is preserved," it said.
The court made the observation while dismissing an appeal of a woman who challenged an order rejecting her plea to be given a wholesome right to reside in a shanty also being occupied by her brother-in-law and sister-in-law.


"It is evident that the attempt of the appellant (woman) is to ensure the division of the property and create her independent right in the same under the garb of the present petition," the court said.


It also noted that the woman as well as her husband have "collusively" filed the petition by "camouflaging a dispute" and have sought the invocation of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, with the sole object of seeking the removal of her brother-in-law and sister-in-law from the property in question.


"This court cannot be a party to any such attempt of the parties to abuse the special legislation enacted to grant immediate relief to women who are victims of Domestic Violence. The right of one woman (the appellant) cannot be implemented by infringing upon a similar right of another woman i.e. sister-in-law/jethani in the same property," ASJ Lau said.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_delhi-court-expresses-concern-over-misuse-of-domestic-violence-act_1430257

http://www.asianage.com/delhi/need-check-misuse-dv-act-says-court-359

Domestic Violence Act: Court pulls up woman

 

A Delhi court has slammed a woman petitioner for misusing of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.

Noting that Sunita Devi connived with her husband to file the petition against her in-laws, Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau said: “The intent of the Act is to protect the value system and institution of family. The misuse and abuse of the Act is a matter of serious concern for courts who must ensure that a woman petitioner is not made a puppet in the hands of her male relatives so as to manipulate the Act and use it for ulterior motives.”

The court was hearing the appeal of Sunita, who had appealed against the March order of a Metropolitan Magistrate, dismissing her petition under the Act.

The appellant said that her brother-in-law and sister-in-law requested shelter at her Delhi house in July 2008. Since then they abused her verbally and physically and with the brother-in-law even tried to kill her under the influence of alcohol, she claimed.

Alleging that they also looted Rs 7,700 from her, Sunita requested the court for grant of maintenance, compensation and also to pass protection orders under the Act.

The brother-in-law pleaded that it was his property and he had allowed Sunita and her husband to live there, but the papers of his ownership had been lost.

The court noted that none of the parties have papers to establish their ownership over the property constructed by DDA, and the home in which Sunita was living with her husband was separate from the one that her in-laws were residing in.

The domestic incident report also revealed that when Sunita came to live in the house, her husband and in-laws were already residing there.

The court said, “The attempt of the appellant is to ensure division of property and create her right under the garb of the petition. It is clear that she and her husband have collusively filed the petition by camouflaging a dispute. Such kind of abuse of the special legislation should be checked at the earliest.”

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/domestic-violence-act-court-pulls-up-woman/674243/0

Friday, August 27, 2010

Girlfriend can't be called kin, says Bombay HC

Girlfriend can't be called kin, says HC

MUMBAI: With live-in relations being accorded sanctity by law, can a girlfriend be a relative, the Bombay high court wondered on Thursday. The court was hearing an application filed by a woman, Sunita, who had been named in a dowry harassment case. She had been dragged into the case filed by another woman, who claimed that Sunita was her husband's girlfriend and had accused her of cruelty.
A division bench of Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice U D Salvi, in an interim order, stayed the criminal charges in the case against her till further orders.
Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code deals with cruelty to a married woman by her husband or his relatives. The cruelty could also be for failing to meet the unlawful demands of property or valuable security. Cruelty could refer to the conduct of a husband or in-laws that is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself.
Earlier, the Supreme Court, in a landmark order, had said that a girlfriend cannot be treated as a "relative'' in a 498 A case. The apex court had held that a concubine or a mistress cannot be charged under Section 498A. By no stretch of imagination can a girlfriend or even a concubine... be a relative. The word relative brings within its purview a status that can be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption, the SC bench had remarked.
(Names changed to protect identity