Showing posts with label wife. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wife. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

दहेज का फर्जी केसः पत्नी को 7 साल की कैद

दहेज का फर्जी केसः पत्नी को 7 साल की कैद

as on नवभारत टाइम्स| Dec 10, 2014, 03.24PM IST

विधि संवाददाता, लखनऊ
पति को दहेज प्रताड़ना के फर्जी मामले में फंसाना एक युवती को भारी पड़ गया। मंगलवार को अपर सत्र न्यायाधीश की कोर्ट ने पत्नी को दहेज प्रताड़ना के फर्जी मामले में फंसाकर पति को आत्महत्या के लिए विवश करने का दोषी करार दिया है। कोर्ट ने पत्नी को सात साल की कैद की सजा सुनाते हुए 10 हजार रुपये का जुर्माना भी लगाया। पत्नी को जेल भेज दिया गया।
अभियोजन पक्ष के मुताबिक राजेश केसरवानी व श्रद्धा वर्मा उर्फ सरला ने 20 मई 2011 को आर्यसमाज मंदिर में प्रेम विवाह किया था। सरला शादी के 25 दिन बाद ही मायके लौट गई और राजेश पर दहेज प्रताड़ना समेत कई केस कर दिए। फर्जी मुकदमों से परेशान होकर पति राजेश ने 24 मार्च 2012 को फांसी लगाकर आत्महत्या कर ली। मरते समय पति ने सूइसाइड नोट लिखा और उसमें पत्नी को अपनी मौत का जिम्मेदार बताया था। घटना की प्राथमिकी मृतक के भाई राकेश केसरवानी ने हुसैनगंज थाने पर लिखाई थी।

जांच के बाद पुलिस ने पत्नी को पति को आत्महत्या के लिए उकसाने का दोषी पाया और आईपीसी की धारा 306 के तहत आरोपपत्र दाखिल किया। कोर्ट में ट्रायल के दौरान अपर सत्र न्यायाधीश एएन पांडेय ने पत्नी को शादी के बाद से ही पति को प्रताड़ित करने का दोषी पाया था। मंगलवार को फैसला सुनाते हुए उन्होंने आरोपित सरला को सात साल की सजा सुनाई है।

http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/metro/lucknow/crime/wife-got-7-year-of-imprisonment-for-fake-dowery-case/articleshow/45440963.cms


Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Man attempts suicide after attacks by wife, in-laws

Man attempts suicide after attacks by wife, in-laws

Yagnesh Mehta,TNN | Mar 22, 2014, 08.56 PM IST
SURAT: A resident of Ved Road in the city attempted suicide by consuming poisonous material on Wednesday following alleged torture by his wife and in-laws. Father of two sons alleged that his wife took help of goons to thrash him repetitively. Wife and her family were allegedly forcing the husband to discontinue relation with his family.
Mahesh Pardhi, married to Chandrika around 12 years ago and the couple has two sons. A jari worker, Pardhi, consumed poisonous material at his residence and attempted to kill self. He was shifted to a hospital and currently under treatment in critical condition.
He wrote a suicide not before attempting suicide in which he alleged that his wife, brother-in-law, father and mother-in-law have repeatedly tortured him during past few years. Demanding discontinuation of relation with his family Pardhi was thrashed by his wife. Pardhi was pressurised by his wife to stop meeting his mother, sister and brother. His wife thrashed him number of times, Pardhi alleged.
Pardhi alleged that his wife called goons to thrash him. His brother-in-law, mother and father-in-law thrashed him forming a group. Recently Pardhi's wife approached police after which he was threatened by her of police actions. Police are now investigating the case.

Saturday, March 8, 2014

No maintenance to wife in domestic feud case:Court

No maintenance to wife in domestic feud case:Court

Last Updated: Thursday, August 30, 2012, 15:25 
  
Thane: The Thane District court has set aside an order of a lower court granting maintenance to a housewife and her child. 

In his order, Additional Sessions Judge A P Raghuvanshi, on August 28, held that the housewife was not entitled to any relief under the provisions of Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 

The case related to one Ramji and Sheetal (names changed) who were married on April, 29, 2002 in Mumbai. After 15 months of marriage, the husband had filed a divorce petition in the Bandra court on ground of cruelty, under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 

He had stated in the petition that his wife was adamant, rude and quarrelsome and her conduct had led to the deterioration of their relationship. 

However, before the counsellor, the wife reportedly admitted to her faults and a consent term was prepared and filed on January 1, 2004 and the couple started living together. 

Later, the wife, after taking into possession all the jewellery which she had received during the marriage, filed an application for maintenance and also filed a complaint under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and lodged an FIR against her spouse. 

The magisterial court then ordered a maintenance of Rs 3,000 each per month for the wife and their child. 

The court also ordered the husband to return Rs 1.50 lakh, that he borrowed from his mother-in-law. 

The husband and his parents then filed an appeal challenging the order of the lower court, which was allowed by the sessions court at Thane. 

In his order, the judge observed that "all these allegations made by the wife clearly establish the probability in favour of husband that it is he who had tried to settle the mater from time-to-time and he even resided separately along with the wife, but still the dispute continued between them".

"In this position, the allegations made by wife that husband was not providing food to her and she had to sleep empty stomach are totally false," the court observed. 

"This admission also establishes that when the husband could not provide separate accommodation for his wife, he had even allowed her to cook separately by making partitions in the same house where his parents were living. Thus, it is the wife who did not cooperate with the husband even though, he tried to mould himself as per the whims of his wife," the court further observed. The admission given by the wife in her cross-examination brushes aside the allegations of domestic violence committed by the husband, the court said. 

As regards the payment of Rs 1.50 lakhs, the court stated that "the recovery of said amount is a transaction in between husband and the parents of his wife, for which civil suit is required to be filed by his in-laws. The said transaction has nothing to do with any act of domestic violence." 

Setting aside the order of the lower court the district court observed, "JMFC has totally neglected the admissions given by wife during the cross-examination showing that her husband had provided all sorts of opportunities to her. The applicant has failed to establish any allegations against her husband. Therefore she is not entitled to any relief under the provisions of the Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, 2005".

Therefore, the Magistrate has incorrectly passed the order in favour of the wife and the findings arrived by the lower Court require interference at the hands of this Court, the Judge added. 

PTI 

Sunday, January 5, 2014

Mental Cruelty Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: HC

Mental Cruelty Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: HC

04 January 2014 By Umesh R Yadav

The High Court granted divorce to an assistant film producer, accepting his contention that he had been subjected to mental cruelty by his wife.

The word ‘cruelty’ is not defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, but cruelty includes mental cruelty, the High Court observed.
Its order said, “Mental cruelty can particularly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other.”

Kishor had approached the HC, seeking divorce from Ananya (names changed) after his petition was rejected by a family court.

Ananya made unreasonable demands for money, filed motivated complaints against Kishor and his family, threatened and attempted suicide, and refused to consummate the marriage. All these amount to mental cruelty, the HC ruled.

A Division Bench headed by Justice K L Manjunath dissolved the marriage, stating Kishore has sufficiently proved the cruelty meted out to him by his wife, once his “dream girl”.

Demand for `20L

The HC described as unjustified the wife’s demands for `20 lakh as a lump sum, `20,000 as monthly maintenance and a separate house. It also took a stern view of her actions, such as filing a dowry harassment case to coincide with Kishor’s younger brother’s engagement. Following this, members of his family were arrested and whisked away from a marriage hall. This definitely amounts to mental cruelty, the court ruled. Given the mentality of Ananya, it is unrealistic to expect Kishor to live with her, the court remarked.

“If the husband and wife are not living together, it also leads to mental cruelty on the husband,” the order said.

Failed Romance

Kishor married Ananya on March 26, 2006 by giving `1 lakh to her father as demanded by her, but she told him they could make love only after he had produced HIV test results.

An upset Kishor went to a lab soon after and tested negative. She then demanded certificates to prove he had no diabetes or high blood pressure. She reportedly asked him for an overall ‘fitness certificate’.

Kishor underwent all tests, and the results showed he was in good health. Kishor then decided life would be difficult with her since she was full of suspicion and moved out.

SOURCE - http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bangalore/Mental-Cruelty-Sufficient-Grounds-for-Divorce-HC/2014/01/04/article1982198.ece

Sunday, May 19, 2013

HC relief to husband from paying maintenance



HC relief to husband from paying maintenance


TNN | May 18, 2013, 07.07 PM IST

MUMBAI: A man who was directed by the family court to pay maintenance to his wife even though it had dismissed his plea for divorce has got relief from Bombay high court which has stayed the order.

A division bench of Justice V M Kanade and Justice F M Reis decided an application in a pending appeal filed by Subhash Ganguly (name changed) challenging the apex court's February 21, 2013 order dismissing his divorce petition and directing him to pay his wife Babita (name changed) Rs 20,000 as monthly maintenance.

Subhash filed for divorce in 2008. Babita filed her counterclaim and urged the court to restrain him, his family and agents from dispossessing her from the matrimonial home at Bandra (west). She also sought Rs 50,000 towards litigation expenses.

Subhash's advocate Smita Gaidhani, relying on a Supreme Court judgment, argued that the petition for divorce having been dismissed, the marital status was not disrupted by the court's order and hence the FC could not have granted maintenance under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Babita's advocate Taubon Irani said the trial judge had already granted maintenance of Rs 20,000 and hence the SC judgment cannot be made applicable.

The judges said the wife had not prayed for maintenance but only for Rs 50,000 towards litigation expenses. "As the petition for divorce is dismissed, no further order of maintenance could have been passed either in the petition filed by the husband for divorce or in the counter claim," they said, in their April 18, 2013 order uploaded last week. The judges said the SC judgment applies to the present case and the trial court erred in awarding maintenance. They agreed with Gaidhani that the wife can seek maintenance either under section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act or under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The judges allowed Subhash, during pendency of his appeal, to stay in his 2BHK 700 square feet house. Subhash left his house on July 22, 2007 due to harassment at the hands of his wife and her relatives and thereafter was not allowed to enter the hosue. Irani argued that Subhash had subjected Babita to physical and mental cruelty and if he is permitted to stay further complications would arise.

Noting that Subhash is staying in a hotel, the judges said he is entitled to stay in his own house, which he purchased before marriage. They said he has legal right to stay in his own house and laid conditions that the couple would stay in separate bedrooms, have access to common facilities including the kitchen and bathroom and shall not obstruct or interfere with each. They directed Babita to hand the duplicate keys to Subhash. They rejected her plea to stay the order.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Uttar Pradesh urges Centre to make Section 498A of IPC a bailable offence


Uttar Pradesh urges Centre to make Section 498A of IPC a bailable offence

Posted on: 11 Nov 2011 on jagran
Make 498A of IPC bailable: UP to Centre

Lucknow: In a bid check the misuse of the Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) that came into force against accused in dowry cases and to save women from domestic violence, the Uttar Pradesh government has urged the Centre to amend this Section to make it a bailable offence.

Citing misuse of 498-A (Husband or Relative of Husband of a women subjecting her to cruelty) by unscrupulous women to extort money and to harass husband’s entire family, the state government has written a letter to the Central government seeking amendment.

Under 498 A, 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 matter was brought into light by Allahabad High Court during the hearing of a petition filed by Sanjeev Kumar. The High Court directed the state government to put forth its views on the misuse of 498-A.

Acting on the directives, state administration took review of dowry deaths and domestic violence in the state. It was found that from 2007-2010, more than 5500 cases of dowry deaths and 20,000 cases of domestic violence were registered.

In majority of the cases, kin of the victim filed an FIR against the husband and his family under 498-A of IPC as of which elderly, pregnant women and even juveniles were declared guilty. It was also found that in many cases allegations imposed by the victim and her family was totally wrong as there was no proof of any kind of physical assault. However, the husband and his family had to be put behind the bars in compliance with the rule.

http://post.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh-urges-centre-to-make-section-498a-of-ipc-a-bailable-offence-1321002676

Sunday, August 28, 2011

China tries to stop women marrying for money, rather than love

China tries to stop women marrying for money, rather than love 

21 Aug 2011 By Malcolm Moore

With divorce rates soaring, and widespread worries about a new culture of hyper-materialism, the Chinese government is now trying to stop women marrying for money.


In China's booming cities, prospective husbands are now routinely vetted about whether they own a house, and preferably also a car, before a match can be agreed. Tying the knot without a house as part of the deal is jokingly called a "naked marriage" and widely thought to be a risky choice.
"I would choose a luxury house over a boyfriend that always makes me happy without hesitation," said one 24-year-old contestant on If You Are the One, one of China's most popular television dating shows. "And my boyfriend has to have a monthly salary of 200,000 yuan (£18,900)," she demanded.

In a bid to temper the rising expectations of Chinese women, China's Supreme Court has now ruled that from now on, the person who buys the family home, or the parents who advance them the money, will get to keep it after divorce.

"Hopefully this will help educate younger people, especially younger women, to be more independent, and to think of marriage in the right way rather than worshipping money so much," said Hu Jiachu, a lawyer in Hunan province.

The ruling should also help relieve some of the burden on young Chinese men, many of whom fret about the difficulty of buying even a small apartment. China's huge property bubble has driven property prices in Shanghai up to £5,000 per square metre when annual salaries average just £6,000.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8714097/China-tries-to-stop-women-marrying-for-money-rather-than-love.html

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Relief to woman booked in dowry prohibition case

Relief to woman booked in dowry prohibition case

Abhinav Garg, TNN, Apr 11, 2010, 05.19am IST

NEW DELHI: At a time when there is a new trend of courts booking the woman and her kin for giving dowry, the Delhi high court has stayed one such FIR lodged against a woman and decided to examine the law in this regard.

Justice Vipin Sanghi recently stayed an FIR registered on the orders of a magistrate against one Payal and her family for allegedly giving dowry in her marriage. Payal had been pursuing a dowry harassment case against her husband in the court.

However, taking a strict view of her admitting in the FIR that she and her parents gave a substantial dowry amount to the husband's family, additional chief metropolitan magistrate Sanjay Bansal had slapped dowry prohibition sections against Payal and her family too.

This prompted her to approach HC for relief, through her lawyers Vijay Aggarwal and Rakesh Makhija. They argued before HC that a court can't book a victim of dowry harassment under the Dowry Prohibition Act as this is explicitly barred in the Act itself. Seeking relief, the lawyers further claimed the lower court went beyond the law to slap another FIR against the girl and her family.


Pointing to section 7 (3) of Dowry Prohibition Act the advocates for Payal argued before HC that a girl's statement she had been forced to give dowry can't be held against her or her family to book her under the act as here the woman is the victim.


Payal got married in Nov 2006 and according to the FIR two years later the husband dropped Payal with their few months old son at her parental home. Though he had promised to take them back to his house he never appeared, that led Payal to lodge a complaint with the Crime Against Woman Cell. Later, efforts at mediation having failed, a case under the the Domestic violence Act was also lodged against the husband.

But to Payal's utter shock, the lower court said being an educated woman she should have shown a better judgment than to agree to give dowry and invoked sections of the Dowry Prohibition Act against her. The HC is expected to specify the law once it delivers a judgment on her petition.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Relief-to-woman-booked-in-dowry-prohibition-case-/articleshow/5783454.cms#ixzz10HTXf6wc

Court asks police to lodge FIR against bride for giving dowry

Court asks police to lodge FIR against bride for giving dowry

Friday, March 19, 2010

New Delhi: A Delhi court has directed the police to register an FIR against a woman and her family members, who alleged dowry harassment by her husband and in-laws, for meeting their demands during the marriage.


Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Sanjay Bansal directed the police to proceed against the woman and her parents under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

"In my considered view at this stage, it appears that the accused persons (woman and her parents) are accomplice and the present complaint discloses the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Thus, the SHO concerned is directed to register the FIR and conduct investigation as per law," ACMM Bansal said.


Sameer Saxena and his family members were accused of committing cruelty with his wife by harassing her for dowry.
The wife, in an FIR with Roop Nagar police station, claimed her family members had given huge dowry to Saxena at the time of their marriage.

Saxena's counsel Ganganpreet Singh and Karanbir Singh submitted that in the FIR the woman had herself admitted giving huge dowry, which was an offence under the statute.

They filed an application in the court seeking registration of the FIR against the woman and her family members.
The counsel also referred to a Delhi High Court judgement support their contention, besides a circular issued by the Commissioner of Police, which stated that a woman can be prosecuted if she allegedly gave dowry.
PTI

http://www.zeenews.com/news612668.html

Bride, kin charged with giving dowry – Court orders FIR against woman for harassing husband-Delhi court

Bride, kin charged with giving dowry – Delhi court

19 sep 2010
Beware those who give hefty amounts in dowry even if there was no demand from the groom’s side. In an interesting case recently, a woman and his family were in the dock for giving hefty dowry even when it was not asked for. The woman later levelled charges of torture against her in-laws, despite giving a hefty dowry.

The woman landed in trouble when the court ordered to file a criminal case against her and her family members for giving dowry.
The additional chief metropolitan magistrate (ACMM) Lokesh Kumar Sharma also pulled up a Delhi police official for delaying action after receiving a complaint.
“It is a settled law that if a woman, who is well-educated, marries in a house inspite of dowry demands, she is accomplice to the crime,” the court said.
The ACMM also said that “It appears that the SHO prepares reply without applying his mind. Previously also, he placed on record certain communications which were uncalled and unwarranted.”
The ACMM ordered the Station House Officer (SHO) of Shahdara to register an FIR on a complaint filed by the harassed husband. The couple had got married in 2009 but the husband and wife strained relations soonafter.
The complainant husband alleged that he was given dowry by his in-laws at the time of marriage but he did not complain about the same and accepted the articles of properties of his wife.

---
also @

CITY | Tuesday, August 31, 2010 | Print | Close


Court orders FIR against woman for harassing husband

Shikha verma | New Delhi

A city court pulled up an official of the Delhi Police for delaying action against a complaint. The court directed the SHO concerned to register an FIR against the woman and her family in a matrimonial dispute and dowry case.

“It appears that the SHO prepares reply without applying his mind. Previously also, he placed on record certain communications which were uncalled and unwarranted," said Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Lokesh Kumar Sharma.

The court ordered the Station House Officer (SHO) of Shahdara to register the FIR on a complaint filed in the court by the harassed husband within 48 hours of the order.

The woman had complaint of being tortured by her in-laws despite giving a hefty dowry. However the woman landed in trouble after the court ordered to file a criminal case against the woman and her family members for giving dowry. The SHO submitted before the court, "Due to delayed reporting of the matter, I was unable to takes cognisance in this case."

Annoyed with the reply of the SHO, ACMM Sharma said, "I fail to understand as to under which provision of law, the SHO has been empowered to take cognisance of the cases. Additional Commissioner of Police (ACP) Shahdara DV Joshi has been called along with the SHO."

In the complaint filed through counsels Gagan Preet Singh and Karan Bir Singh, the husband referred to the allegations made by his wife before the Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell of the Delhi Police that a huge dowry was paid by his wife family without being asked for the same.

The couple got married on December 2, 2009 and as apparent from the complaint, differences between the husband and the wife developed soon after the marriage. The complainant husband alleged that he was given dowry by his in-laws at the time of marriage but he did not complain about the same and accepted the articles of properties of his wife. Whereas, the wife had made similar allegation in her petitions filed in the court for seeking maintenance and prosecution of her husband and his family members under Domestic Violence Act.

"It is a settled law that if a woman, who is well-educated, marries in the same house inspite of dowry demands, she is accomplice to the crime," the court said. In her complaint before the CAW, she had alleged that her mother and brother had spent Rs 10 lakh in the marriage and given handsome dowry articles, gold jewellery and Rs 50,000 cash, the counsels Gagan Preet Singh and Karan Bir Singh submitted before the court.

The court acted on the complaint filed by the man seeking registration of the FIR against his wife and family members as police had refused to act on his plea earlier.


More DP 3 case on wife and gang news @

http://www.saveindianfamily.org/articles/news/752-case-filed-against-woman-relatives-for-giving-dowry.html

Woman unable to choose between parents, husband

Woman unable to choose between parents, husband

CHENNAI: Caught between her husband and her parents, a 25-year-old M Phil degree-holder expressed contrasting views — one inside the court and another as she was coming out of it — on Monday, and ended up in a Government Home in Mylapore.

It was high drama on the Madras High Court premises when Deepa, who was produced before a division bench comprising Justice M Chocka­lingam and Justice M Sathya­nara­yanan, following a habeas corpus writ petition by her husband Manimaran, told the court that she wanted to go with her parents but changed her mind when she came out.

When her father, Sakthivel, and some relatives tried to drag Deepa towards a car despite her protests and cries, advocates on the premises intervened. Deepa was again produ­ced bef­ore the judges in their chambers, where Advocate R C Paul Kana­karaj told them she wanted to join her husband but was being prevented by her father and his henchmen.

The bench, in its second brief order, said, “In appraisement of the situation and in view of the safety of the detenue”, Deepa will stay at the government home “until further orders” — and made it clear that neither Manimaran nor Sakthivel should disturb her.

According to Manimaran’s advocate Y Deva Arul Prakash, the couple got married on October 10, 2008, but started living together only this June as they had been pursuing their studies –– Manimaran was doing his BL. On August 13, Sakthivel took his daughter away by force, prompting the habeas corpus petition seeking that she be produced in court. Both Deepa and Manimaran are Dalits but he is a Christian, whereas she is a Hindu.

 

http://expressbuzz.com/cities/chennai/woman-unable-to-choose-between-parents-husband/208671.html

Thursday, September 16, 2010

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

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Vengeful aunt kills 8-year-old, surrenders

Read more: Vengeful aunt kills 8-year-old, surrenders

NEW DELHI: Forced to live away from her two children for the past six months, a 32-year-old woman, in an act of revenge, throttled her brother's eight-year-old son. The accused, Shivangi, had reportedly even grown fond of her nephew after her in-laws barred her from meeting her own kids. Police said the accused believed her brother was responsible for the problems in her family. The incident took place around 3.30pm on Sunday in Sitaram Apartments in IP Extension, east Delhi. An hour later, the woman surrendered at a nearby police station.
Police recovered the body of Laksh Gosai a student of Amity International School, Mayur Vihar from the terrace. It was found exactly in the manner Shivangi had described to the cops. According to K C Dwivedi, additional commissioner (east), "Shivangi had married one Sumit, who owns a computer hardware business, in Rohini seven years ago. The couple had two children. However, problems cropped up and Shivangi's in-laws forced her out of the house. She was not allowed to meet her children.''
Shivangi then moved into her brother's house at Sitaram Apartments. Her brother, Rajkumar Gosai, runs a business in Karol Bagh. Laksh's mother, Rita, who is physically-handicapped, did not object when Shivangi came to stay with them.
However, Shivangi believed that her brother and his wife were responsible for her problems. Dwivedi added, "Shivangi was convinced that her brother had abused her husband as a result of which she was separated from her kids. She told us she could not see her brother happy after he brought so much misery to her. She thought her brother will understand the loss of a child only when his son is taken away,'' said Dwivedi.
According to Laksh's maternal uncle, Rajender Sharma, Shivangi had asked Rita if she could take the boy out for a walk around 3pm. "Instead, she took him to the seventh-floor terrace,'' said Sharma.
The accused took with her a kitchen knife. "Shivangi first attacked Laksh with the knife, but couldn't kill him. She then used her stole to throttle him. After the crime, she came out of the complex and took a rickshaw to the Krishna Nagar police station. There, she asked the duty officer if she could use the phone. On being asked why, she confessed to her crime and said she wanted to surrender. Shocked, the SHO informed his counterpart at Madhu Vihar police station, which has jurisdiction over the are where the murder took place. The family was finally informed around 5pm,'' said Dwivedi.
The police has sent the accused for medical examination. "We are trying to contact her husband and in-laws in Rohini. After a postmortem, we will ask her family if she had ever been this violent before,'' said a senior investigating officer.
Psychiatrist Dr Sandeep Bora said a general increase in aggression has been noticed among people. "Sometimes personality problems lead people to equate certain situations as personal embarrassments. It is then that they forget what is right and wrong. Since this crime was well-planned, we have to meet the accused to understand her mental condition,'' said Dr Bora.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Vengeful-aunt-kills-8-year-old-surrenders/articleshow/6549652.cms#ixzz0zV5azNCU

-------

बुआ ने की आठ साल के मासूम भतीजे की हत्या

 

नई दिल्ली। नई दिल्ली। पूर्वी दिल्ली के मधुविहार क्षेत्र के सीताराम अपार्टमेंट में बहन ने अपने भाई से बदला लेने के लिए आठ साल के मासूम भतीजे की हत्या कर दी है। पुलिस से मिली जानकारी के अनुसार राजू गोसाईं का परिवार सीताराम अपार्टमेंट के 132 नंबर में रहता था। पिछले कुछ महीनों से उनकी बहन शिवानी भी अपने पति से कुछ अनबन होने की वजह से उनके साथ रह रही थी। शिवानी का पति से झगड़ा होने के पीछे भाई का हाथ होने की आशंका थी।

रविवार को जब परिवार में तीसरी कक्षा में पढ़ने वाला लक्ष्य घर में अकेला था तो शिवानी ने छत पर ले जाकर उसकी गला घोंट कर हत्या कर दी। हत्या करने के बाद शिवानी ने खुद थाने जाकर अपना जुर्म कबूल कर लिया। शिवानी को गिरफ्तार कर पुलिस मामले की जांच कर रही है।

 

http://khabar.ibnlive.in.com/news/39622/3

Sunday, September 12, 2010

The Economic Value of Homemaking

The Economic Value of Homemaking

The History of Homemaking
A homemaker is a person whose main activity is to care for a family and home. This is traditionally an unpaid occupation.
In an effort to understand the value of a private homemaker’s unpaid labor, experts have attempted to quantify the dollar value of the job. No one has come up with a perfectly accurate way to do so.
Four different methods of assessing the economic value of homemaking are listed below. Each method has serious drawbacks and disadvantages.

NOTE: Women Work! does not promote one method over another; we have simply gathered the following data for your information.

Opportunity Cost
In economics, the opportunity cost is the value of what someone gives up when they choose to do something else. The opportunity cost, or trade-off, of homemaking is the income the homemaker would have earned if she had been in the paid workforce. If a woman could have earned $20,000 per year as a bookkeeper, but instead was a homemaker for 15 years, the opportunity cost of being a homemaker would be $300,000.

Problems:
If a woman had not become a homemaker, she may have achieved a higher level of education, received promotions, or even changed career paths. There is no way to truly know what her income would have been if she had stayed in the workforce. Women’s work in paid employment is frequently undervalued. They often earn less money than men who hold the same or comparable positions. Using these undervalued wages to determine the value of homemaking undervalues homemaking as well.

Replacement Cost
This method evaluates homemaking by determining how much it would cost to replace a homemaker with paid workers. All of the homemaker’s tasks and the amount of time spent on each are listed in the table on page 1 of this tip sheet. The hourly rate to hire an individual to perform each of these tasks is determined, and the cost is added up.
Problems:
This method does not take into account the premiums that would have to be paid to get a professional to do the task for a small portion of time or to be on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The cost to hire an individual to complete a particular task could vary greatly. For example, when estimating the value of a mother’s care for her children, should you equate a mother’s care to the time and care given by a typical child care worker or a child development specialist? Depending on which you use, the value of homemaking is very different.

Many jobs done by homemakers are undervalued in the paid economy. Most child care workers, cleaning personnel and food service employees receive very low wages, few benefits and little opportunity for growth and advancement within the field. Valuing homemaking in this way reflects the undervaluing of these tasks.

Replacement Cost
This method evaluates homemaking by determining how much it would cost to replace the homemaker by hiring one individual to complete all of her tasks.

Problems:
As noted before, domestic workers are generally undervalued in our economy. When using these depressed wages to place a value on homemaking, we are undervaluing homemaking. For example, the median hourly earning, as listed in the May 2004 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the occupation of Home Health Aide is $8.81. Based on this value, a full-time (40 hours/week) worker earns $18,324 per year (52 weeks/year). This value is below poverty level for the average family of four ($18,850 a year).

http://www.womenwork.org/resources/tipsheets/valuehomemaking.htm

Partnership
In this method, it is assumed that a marriage is an equal economic partnership, that there is an equal division of responsibilities and that all the gains of partnership are shared equally by the partners. When a wife takes on the role of a homemaker, it allows her husband to earn income without being overburdened by family and household responsibilities. Using this method, a homemaker is worth half of her husband=s salary.

Problems:
The wife of a man who earns $20,000 does not necessarily have half of the duties of the wife of a man who earns $40,000. In other words, her value is not dependent on her own productivity, only on that of her husband. This method also assumes the homemaker has a partner.

Quick Tips for Financial Stability

  • Pay off debt, contribute as much as possible to retirement funds and keep a hefty emergency fund.
  • Get insured.
  • Make sure you have retirement savings in your own name.
  • Consider working at least part-time once your children are school-age.

Tip sheet last updated 11/05

पत्नी को पाने के लिए पति की ससुराल वालों से जंग

पत्नी को पाने के लिए पति की ससुराल वालों से जंग

 

गाजियाबाद। एक शख्स ने आज अपनी पत्नी को पाने की आस नहीं छोड़ी है। उसे लगता है कि उसकी पत्नी जिंदा है और वो एक दिन जरूर वापस आएगी। इसी आस में वो इंसाफ की लड़ाई लड रहा है। ये दर्दभरी कहानी सिटीजन जर्नलिस्ट गौरव सैनी की है।

दरअसल गौरव की पत्नी मोनिका डागर अब इस दुनिया में नहीं है। लेकिन गौरव उसे भूल नहीं पाया है। गौरव की मानें तो मोनिका के परिवार वाले एक साल पहले मोनिका को गौरव के पास से लेकर चले गए और फिर बाद में बताया कि उसकी मौत हो गई। गौरव का कहना है कि मोनिका को उसके परिजनों ने कहीं छुपा कर रखा है।

गौरव ने बताया कि मोनिका बेहद होशियार लड़की थी, वो आईएएस आफिसर बनना चाहती थी। शादी के बाद वो एक बेटी को जन्म देना चाहती थी ताकि अपने परिवार को दिखा सके कि लड़कियां बेकार नहीं होती। गौरव की मानें तो दोनों ने मिलकर कई सपने देखे थे जो पूरे नहीं हो सके।

गौरव और मोनिका दोनों अलग जाति के होने के वाबजूद शादी कर ली। मोनिका के परिवार वाले दूसरी जाति के लड़के से शादी करने के लिए राजी नहीं थे। गौरव की मानें तो उसे धमकियां भी मिली थी। जवाब में गौरव ने मोनिका के परिवार वालों से कहा कि कानून उसके साथ है।

फिर दोनों ने 6 जुलाई 2009 को को आर्य समाज मन्दिर में शादी कर ली। कुछ दिन बाद मोनिका के घरवाले पुलिस लेकर गौरव के घर पहुंचे और गौरव के खिलाफ अपहरण का केस दर्ज करवा दिया।

शादी का प्रमाण पत्र दिखाने के बाद भी वो जबर्दस्ती मोनिका को साथ ले गए और पुलिस ने गौरव को हिरासत में ले लिया। एक महीना डासना जेल में रहने के बाद गौरव रिहा हुआ। फिर उसने दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट में अपील दायर की। जिस पर कोर्ट ने मोनिका को 7 अक्टूबर 2009 को कोर्ट के सामने पेश करने के लिए कहा। जिसके बाद दिल्ली पुलिस मोनिका को लाने के गई तो उस गांव के सरपंच ने पुलिस से कहा कि मोनिका मर चुकी है। लेकिन गौरव नहीं मानता की मोनिका मर चुकी है।

सबूत के तौर पर मोनिका के परिवार वालों ने पेपर पेश किए की उसे एक अस्पताल मे भर्ती किया गया था। लेकिन अस्पताल के रिकार्ड में लिखा है कि मोनिका को कुछ दिन बाद स्वस्थ हालत में डिस्चॉर्ज किया गया। गौरव का कहना है कि अगर मोनिका मर चुकी है तो उसके परिवार वालों के पास सबूत के तौर पर पोस्टमार्टम रिपोर्ट या किसी डॉक्टर का डेथ सर्टीफिकेट पर साइन क्यों नहीं है।

पुलिस ने जब केस रिव्यू किया तो मोनिका के परिवार वालों पर क्रिमिनल कॉनपिरेसी और मर्डर का चार्ज लगाया। लेकिन वो बेल पर छूट गए हैं। जिस जांच अधिकारी ने मेरे ऊपर अपहरण का केस लगाया था उसे सस्पेंड कर दिया गया है। लेकिन गौरव आज भी मोनिका की आस में इंसाफ की लड़ाई लड़ रहा है।

http://khabar.ibnlive.in.com/news/37741/3

Its complicated The twilight area between marriage and divorce

Its complicated The twilight area between marriage and divorce

Many estranged couples choose to separate, but not divorce. Seema Sinha meets some to discover how they negotiate their parallel lives


Breaking all convention, Babita decided to walk out of the Kapoor household along with her two daughters, Karisma and Kareena. Reportedly, Babita could not cope with the larger-than-life figure of Randhir's father and filmmaker Raj Kapoor over his life. Decades later, Randhir Kapoor and Babita continue to remain husband and wife, though leading separate lives. "Randhir Kapoor believes in the sanctity of marriage. He has always said that she is the mother of their daughters," says Madhu Jain, author of Kapoors: The First Family of Indian Cinema.

The love has faded, but the couple is wary of looking for new partners. In another case, Ratna Adarkar (name changed) and her husband of 25 years have decided to live a life of compromise, sans the "hassles" of divorce. These are not the only ones who are choosing to stay in the twilight area between marriage and divorce. According to the experts, breaking up is hard — and expensive!


Long after romance is dead, a separation or "non-divorce" offers a happier alternative. Sometimes, they stay together to avoid the expenses of a new household. Actor Saif Ali Khan reportedly decided to divorce Amrita Singh only after his career zoomed with Dil Chahta Hai. Till then, they lived under the same roof, though they remained emotionally distant, reveals a veteran film journalist.

There are no hard statistics, but some divorce experts say they're seeing more of this phenomenon. Says psychiatrist Rajendra Barve, "This gives them space, minus the commitment, which is like having their cake and eating it, too. They may also want to avoid the 'stigma' of divorce." Remarks psychiatrist Kersi Chawda, "If neither plans to marry again, they may simply want to avoid the expenses and time that goes into legally ending their marriage."

Prominent actress Raakhee Gulzar and her writer- director husband Gulzar are one such couple, who have lived separately for years. Says senior film journalist Dinesh Raheja, "Their daughter Bosky kept them bonded. Gulzar and Raakhee would meet for her sake, attend PTA meetings together." In fact, when Gulzar won an Oscar for his contribution to the film Slumdog Millionaire, Raakhee commented that "her husband" was the best.

One of the most glaring examples in Bollywood is of high-profile star couple Rajesh Khanna and Dimple Kapadia, who also chose the middle path of 'non-divorce'. In the 80s, both the auburn-haired gorgeous Dimple as well as the yesteryear superstar wanted divorce, but when Rajesh Khanna began dodging Dimple's demand for financial security for her young daughters, the actress too refused to sign the divorce papers. "Her daughter Twinkle, in her teens then, strongly felt that her parents shouldn't be living together," says the veteran journalist.

Adds Dinesh, "But over the years, the bitterness between Rajesh and Dimple washed away. I have seen them enjoy a party together and found them very comfortable in each other's company. Dimple campaigned for him during elections and also worked in his film. I guess it has worked out for them living separately rather than coming home to be with each other."

Explains a marriage counsellor, "A couple may not legally divorce for the children's sake, or if there is the issue of division of wealth and inheritance. They may also want to keep up appearances in society."

Relationship experts say the arrangement can allow partners to discreetly date other people while keeping up an illusion of marriage for children and the community at large. And finances, significantly, stay intact. "They are really making pragmatic, businesslike decisions for their marriage," point out experts. Also, with both partners working, not all women care for alimony.

But, it may not always turn out favourable. Married for three years and separated for a year, Anandita, an investment banker, who has a one-year-old daughter, feels embittered and cheated by her philandering husband. "He has not filed for divorce and I don't want to either, because I don't want to remarry. I can't have a stranger in my life. When my daughter grows up, I don't want her to blame me for the separation," says Anandita, who is stuck with responsibilities while her husband has it easy.

Talking about the rights of women in such a situation, women's right lawyer Flavia Agnes, points out that women can claim maintenance and demand their right to stay in the same house. "Often, when men decide to remarry, they pressurise their spouse for divorce. Here, the wife can negotiate for a good settlement, a lump sum amount and shelter in the same house," says Flavia. A marriage counsellor adds that she has witnessed couples staying together despite disagreements to claim benefits of medical and pension plans.

However, can the so-called "non-divorced" ever move on emotionally? The emotional and legal closure of an official divorce may forever elude them. They can also find themselves in a difficult spot when one or both partners begin to seriously date again.
It's also financially risky, point out the experts. A partner who no longer lives with you can still ruin your finances or put you in debt.

On the other hand, if you gain assets, your partner could still legally claim half.

Their status is definitely complicated!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/man-woman/Its-complicated/articleshow/6525606.cms#ixzz0zFSXF1Vg

Friday, September 10, 2010

High-earning wives to end in divorce

High-earning wives to end in divorce

High-flying career women, who make more money than their husbands and end up becoming the chief breadwinners in their domestic partnerships, are more likely to end up in a divorce, revealed a study.

Researchers admit that the reason is unclear, but it may be that male pride is wounded by not being the biggest earner in the household.

The finding comes from a 25-year study of more than 2,500 marriages, hot on the heels of other research showing that househusbands are prone to affairs.

With almost one third of British women earning more than their men, the results could sow doubt in millions of minds.

For the study, American researchers studied the marriages and income of more than 2,500 women who married for the first time between 1979 and 2002.

They found that those women who consistently made more money than their husbands were up to 38 per cent more likely to divorce than others.

Jay Teachman, of Western Washington University, said there could be several reasons behind the statistic.

For instance, financial independence makes it easier for women to find a way out of an unhappy marriage. Besides, dented egos - of both sexes - may also play a role.

"There may be 'wounded pride' on the part of the male that may lead to tension in the relationship. It may also be the case that some women react negatively to a mate that does not earn as much as themselves," the Daily Mail quoted Teachman as saying.

A sudden increase in hours worked was also linked to marriage break downs, according to the Journal Of Family Issues.
"This may simply be a reflection of a woman beginning to work more in response," said the professor.


For a happy marriage, Professor Teachman recommends a 60:40 split in income, with the husband being the highest earner.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/man-woman/High-earning-wives-to-end-in-divorce/articleshow/6523431.cms#ixzz0z9FHPjw4

Forget about freedom: SC to husbands

Forget about freedom: SC to husbands – Marry to be slaved by wife and her parents- husbands to become pet doggy

11 Jun, 2010, 02.53AM IST,IANS

NEW DELHI: Married men should forget about their freedom after they tie the nuptial knot as restrictions on their independence are like “dividends” they have to pay for matrimony, the Supreme Court said on Thursday in a divorce suit.


“Whenever a person is married, there is no question of independence,” Justice Deepak Verma said, hearing a divorce suit between Colonel Ajit Sharma (name changed) and his estranged wife and software professional Seema Sharma (name changed).


By making the observations, the court revisited the remarks of the vacation bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Verma of 2009 wherein it had said: “Do what the wife tells you and never question her authority.”


Justice Katju had said: “If men want to rule their life then they should always be on the right side of their wife. Otherwise, a defiant husband’s life would be ruled by others.”


He said that if the “wife says turn right, turn right and if she says turn left, then turn left”. On Thursday, the observation about husbands surrendering their independence came when the court was told that Seema had wished “happy Independence Day” to her husband when both of them filed a divorce suit by mutual consent.


The bench of Justice Verma and Justice K S Radhakrishnan was hearing an appeal filed by Ajit seeking divorce from his wife. They have a 14-year-old daughter Priyanka (name changed) studying at a boarding school in Dehradun.


Initially, the court said: “We are not made to break up marriages.” Thereafter, the court counselled the couple to go for reconciliation. The two were told by the court that for them, the welfare and the future of their child should be the top priority.
However, soon realising that the couple could not live peacefully under one roof, the court worked out a package that could mitigate the difficulties of the mother who was to bring up Priyanka after separation.


The court asked Ajit to suggest a package that he was willing to offer his estranged wife so that she could bear the expenses of bringing up their daughter. The court said that the package should factor in inflation, price rise and the cost of child’s education, her marriage and other needs. It gave Ajit time to think over it.


When SC resumed hearing, Seema was told that besides Ajit bearing entire expenses of Priyanka’s education till senior secondary, he would pay her Rs 4 lakh and give a 250 square metre plot in Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh.


Ajit said she could dispose the house to mop up more money. The package was in addition to the Rs 1.50 lakh that has already been given to Seema by him. An insurance policy of Rs 5 lakh in the name of their daughter has also been given to her.


After a second adjournment, Seema told SC that she wanted a plot of land in Delhi or Gurgaon and demanded an arrangement for their daughter’s education after school.

 

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/Forget-about-freedom-SC-to-husbands/articleshow/6034997.cms

Mom-in-law safe from Domestic Violence Act

Mom-in-law safe from Domestic Violence Act

BANGALORE: Can a woman try another woman under the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005? No, says the Karnataka High Court.

Clearing this confusion, the division Bench comprising Justice K L Manjunath and Justice B S Patil said a complaint under this act against her mother-in-law or sister-in-law or women relatives can be registered, but the police can initiate action against them (respondents) only under Section 498A of the IPC or any other suitable enactments of law.

The Bench gave this clarification while dealing with the petition filed by one Leelavati.


In respect of residential rights, custody rights or protection, women can file complaints against only male members under the Domestic Violence Act but not against female members like mother-in-law or sisters-in-law or any others, the division Bench clarified with regard to ambiguity of the meaning of the word relative, in the proviso in section 2(q) of the Act.

Leelavati, a resident of Okalipuram, had filed complaints against her husbandBhaskar, father-in-law Murugeshan, mother-in-law Nalini and sister-in-law Kavitha under this Act, before the magistrate court. This was challenged by her husband and others. The fast track court had ordered that except Bhaskar's, other names should be dropped from the complaint.

Leelavati challenged this decision before the high court. The single bench, while concurring with the fast track court, referred this matter to the division bench for clarification.

 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Mom-in-law-safe-from-Domestic-Violence-Act/articleshow/6526918.cms#ixzz0z7ZVcPxs

also @

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/95506/women-cant-respondents-hc.html
Women can't be respondents: HC

Bangalore, September 9, DHNS:
In a judgment that is bound to have wide social implications, a division bench of the High Court has ruled that a case filed under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 cannot include women as respondents. 


A division bench comprising Justice K L Manjunath and Justice B S Patil has ruled that "the definition of the term 'respondent' as defined under Section 2(q) of the Act, does not include a female relative of the husband or the male partner of the aggrieved female or a female living in a relationship of the nature of a marriage."


The ruling stands apart from the ruling of four other High Courts of the country including the Delhi High Court. The matter had been referred to the division bench by a single judge to define the term 'respondent' following a petition filed by Leelavathi S against her father-in-law Murugesh, her mother-in-law Nalini and her sister-in-law Kavitha under the Domestic Violence Act.


The debate on the inclusion or exclusion of women as respondents under this Act has been a long standing one. Many have felt that the Act, which was meant to protect women also has become a tool for targeting women. The Indian Penal Code already allows a case to be filed against women under Section 498A for dowry harassment. A complaint filed under Domestic Violence Act also provides for the respondent to be removed from the shared household or can be prevented from entering the household