Archive for the 'DVA Act' Category

Kapil Rastogi Vs Urvashi: DV Case – 2009

Kapil and his mother found themselves as the accused in a domestic violence case.

Kapil managed to get his mom out of it due to a provision in the DV Act that prohibits the DV Act from being filed against any women members of the family.

We need to thank god for his tender mercies and one of them is the stupendous stupidity he bestowed the draftees of this silly law with !

Is it a wonder that the Supreme Court called it a “clumsily drafted” law?

Here is the provision that allowed Kapil to get his mom out:


Here it is the judgment:

Kapil Rastogi Vs Urvashi: DV Case – 2009


AP HC: DV Act Not Retrospective – CRL. P. NO: 3714 of 2007

I finally got my hands on this judgment thanks to Aejaz_Legal, a reader who posted this judgment as a comment.

If you find yourself accused under the Domestic Violence act, and the accusations date from prior to the passing of this act into law (Oct/26/2006), you must know:

Crl.P 3714 of 2007 delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh where in it was held

“It is a fundamental principle of law that any penal provision has no retrospective operation but only prospective. There is no allegation either in the report or in the statement or in the complaint on the 1st Respondent with regards to the acts of domestic violence that took place on or after 26-10-2006.Therefore continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of court”.

Here is the judgment:


Delhi Court: DV Act Has No Retrospective Effect – Ashma Vs Afsar – CC No.311/8- Oct 2008

All of you aware of the injustice meted out to families unlucky enough to have welcomed a DV Act or 498A bahu into their homes.

Here is a judgment that may provide some relief to some of these families. A Delhi Metropolitan court has ruled that the DV Act has no retrospective effect.

The case is  Ashma VS Afsar,c.

You can download the judgment here: Ashma Vs Afsar – CC No.311/8

Here is the text if the link doesn’t work:

Ashma Vs. Afsar Etc.
CC No.311/8
Date of institution :28.07.2008

Present: Parties with their respective counsels.
The applicant Smt. Ashma W/o Afsar has launched the present proceedings U/s
12 read with Section 17, 18, 19, 20 & 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Act) against the respondents namely Afsar
(her husband), Imran (brother-in-law), Khused and Nizam (the maternal uncles of her
husband) with the following prayers:-
(i).that the respondents may be directed to secure same level of alternate
accommodation for the complainant as enjoyed by her in the shared house
hold or to pay rent for the same;
(ii).a protection order may be passed u/s 18 of the Act in favour of the applicant
and against the respondents;
(iii).monetary relief u/s 20 of the Act may be granted in favour of the applicant
and against the respondents;
(iv).compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- for damages including mental
torture etc. order U/s 22 of the Act may be passed in favour of the applicant
and against the respondents.
According to applicant the marriage/nikah of the applicant with respondent
no.1 was solemnized about 24/25 years back at parental resident of the applicant at New
Delhi according to Muslim rites and customs. In the marriage the handsome dowry was
given to the respondent. After marriage the applicant joined the matrimonial home at
Jafrabad. The marriage was duly consummated and three children were born out of this
wed lock. Soon after the marriage, the father of applicant and the applicant were scolded
CC No.311/8 Page no.1 of pages 4
by the relatives of the respondent on the pretext of insufficient dowry, particularly for not
brining the scooter. The applicant was also being beaten by them but she kept on
tolerating the same with the hope that one day the good sense will prevail upon the
respondents. She was being beaten with danda. Parents of applicant later on paid
Rs.25,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.7,000/- to respondent no.1, so that the life of the
applicant could change but they were not satisfied as their demand was raised to the tune
of Rs.50,000/-. Their greed became so grave that the maternal uncles of respondent no.1
incited him to put kerosene oil on the body of applicant and they even tried to put fire but
the applicant some how manage to save herself by saying that she would bring the
money. Ultimately, the applicant was kicked out of her matrimonial home in the year
1997 and her entire articles including the jewellery were retained by them. Subsequently,
the applicant came to know that the respondent no.1 got married with some one and
living with her without the consent of applicant. The applicant was left with no
alternative but to file a compliant at CAW Cell upon which FIR no.503/99 U/s
498A/406/34 IPC was registered at PS Ambedkar Nagar. The children of applicant were
brought up by her without having any resources and not even education could be
provided to the children. The respondent no.1 is earning handsomely. His income is
more than Rs.25,000/- per month. He is having a very big and luxurious house. The
applicant is now seeking protection, residence, possession of her stridhan, jewelly and
clothes etc. she is also praying for the award of compensation in her favour. The
application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant. Alongwith the application, the
applicant has also filed an application u/s23 of the Act for grant of interim relief to the
tune of Rs.6,000/- per month.
The respondents contested the application by filing the reply in which it is
claimed that the present application is totally based on wrong facts. Even to the
knowledge of the applicant herself she is not residing in Delhi, rather she is residing in
Kasba Baxer Village Sambhawali District Ghaziabad U.P. The applicant has intentionally
concealed this fact that she herself deserted the respondent no.1 on 14.01.1995.
CC No.311/8 Page no.2 of pages 4
respondent no.3 & 4 are not the resident of Delhi. As per the allegations of the applicant
herself the alleged act of domestic violence occurred in 1997 and during the period prior
to 1997 and that the present act came into force in the year 2005 and the act has not
retrospective effect and hence this application is not maintainable. It is further submitted
that the applicant herself willfully left the company of respondent no.1 on 14.01.1995
with her brother Sh. Mohd. Faroq on the pretext that she was going to meet her parents at
her native place. While going to her native place she took away all her gold and silver
jewellery and other valuable in a trunk alongwith two sons namely Mohd. Parvez and
Mohd. Javed. The respondent no.1 made repeated efforts for bringing the applicant back
to her matrimonial home but she remained adamant and did not join the company of
respondent no.1. Even notices were issued in this regard but they also brought no fruitful
result. It is denied that the the marriage/nikah took place in Delhi, rather it solemnized at
Kasba Buxer, P.S. Buxer, Village Sambhabli, District Ghaziabad U.P. It is specifically
stated that respondents never harassed to the applicant. Spending of amount of Rs.2.5 lacs
to Rs.3.00 lacs by the father of the applicant in the marriage/nikah is also denied. The
respondent no.1 is doing the work of Kabari and he is hardly earning Rs.3,000/- per
month. On the other hand the applicant is residing in Baxer Ghaziabad and she is earning
Rs.5,000/- per month from selling the Buffalo milk. Both the sons of the applicant are
also earning handsomely. The respondent no.1 does not have any house in Delhi. He is
living in one room accommodation with his son (from second marriage) in his mother’s
house. Since the applicant herself deserted the company of respondent no.1 and she was
never subjected to any injury, metal torture and imotional distress, so she is also not
entitled for any relief of compensation.
The applicant did not file any rejoinder to the reply of the respondents.
I have gone through the contents of the application and also the reply filed by
the respondents. I have also heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties.
It is an admitted fact that the applicant is not residing with the respondents at
her matrimonial house after leaving the same in the year 1997, rather she has been
CC No.311/8 Page no.3 of pages 4
residing with her parents since more than a decade. It is also not denied that after leaving
the company of respondent no.1, the application never came back. All the allegations of
domestic violence and harassment etc. pertain to the period prior to the year 1997 i.e.
much before the present Act came into force i.e. the year 2005. The Act also not does not
have retrospective effect. It is also not denied that the applicant as well as her both the
sons are the earning hands. As such in my considered opinion, the application is devoid
of merits and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed.
With this, the petition stands disposed off.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (RAKESH KUMAR)
today i.e 15th October, 2008. Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
New Delhi
CC No.311/8 Page no.4 of pages 4


Indira Jaising Was Paid US $1,40,000 For “Staying Alive”


I have always maintained that pussy politics is a very profitable venture.

How profitable?

A whopping US $1,40,000 or Rs 60,00,000 Lakhs (approx) a report profitable.

What am I talking about ?

Staying Alive for a $1,40,000 is what I am talking about.

Okay. Still didn’t get it?

You will…

On the first anniversary of the “clumsily drafted” domestic violence act, Indira Jaising had moaned  that an year after the law to protect women from domestic violence was enacted, it was being defeated by social prejudice, blindspots, brickbats from bloggers and searing criticism from the Justices of the Supreme Court in the form of Batra Vs Batra, 2007.

If you don’t know who Indira Jaising is, check out her resume to get an Idea:

Jaisin’s Bio

And here’s her picture:

In an article published in the Indian Express, titled Family against woman, she wrote that:

“One year is an appropriate time to evaluate the functioning of a law. However, there are no systems to do this on a systematic basis since there are no computerised data bases of orders and judgments. Given this, the Lawyers Collective, which was largely involved with this law in its formative stages, undertook the task of evaluating enforcement, using available data. The chief justice of India facilitated the collection of data from different high courts. Our report, ‘Staying Alive’, is based on this.

I started to read the report and realized it was nonsense. Bored me to death. (You can’t download the report as the Unifem link is dead)

Here is copy from 2012:

I wondered about the time spent on developing this report; the pretty graphics to adorn it; the money spent on it. It must have taken many man hours to write that report and I am sure that unlike us activists, the practitioners of pussy politics don’t do things for free. After all, their livelihood is based on peddling slogans about “protecting women”.

To illustrate, A Guide To Surviving IPC 498A has been downloaded close to 100,000 times as of today. I wrote it at no cost except for the investment in time.

That brings us to the question. How many people do you think would have read ‘Staying Alive’? Ain’t that a colossal waste of cash?

I actually thought (for a short while) that she did it for free as part of her commitment to women’s issues. I can get a little delusional at times !

Here is a revelation.

UNIFEM paid the Lawyers Collective (meaning Indira Jaising) a whopping $1,40,000.00 US Dollars to write that report. That means Rs 60,00,000.00 (approx).

To truly understand the meaning of this princely sum, I want you to ask yourself if you’ll ever see that kind of money in your life, in one cheque, and for doing just one task.

I know that I won’t.  At least for not indulging in pussy politics.
Think about it this way: can you imagine the Chief Of Army Staff walk away with Rs 60,00,000 upon retiring, and after putting in 30+ years in the country’s service?

What about your neighborhood bank manager. Can you see him walk away with half that amount in his PF fund ?

And here is my question. What did she do with all that money? Please don’t tell me that the shoddy report consumed all the $1,40,000.00 US Dollars !

Here’s a snippet from the report: 

Here is the UNIFEM annual report that shows the breakdown of payments. The payment to Indira Jaising’s Lawyers’ Collective is on page 23:

Here is the extracted page that shows the funding received by the Lawyers Collective:

Lawyers Collective UNIFEM $140K USD Payment For Report (extract)

Indira Jaising is the architect of the clumsily drafted Indian domestic violence Act whose most egregious provision is the right to residence.  She has been paid to do an assessment on her own work. Would you expect her to do an impartial assessment and not paper over the flaws in the law affecting the rights and lives of millions ?

Where is the integrity in this process?

Since we are talking about Indira Jaising,  I think you need to know about she said about the Indian police force.  See the article below:

Indira Jaising: “Torture And Police Brutality Are Endemic In India”

She should know. She enabled the extortion of Rs 40 Lakhs from an NRI  by aiding the jailing of his Delhi resident sister in a Calcutta jail for a month. The jailed lady was released after her NRI brother paid Rs 40Lakhs to his estranged wife. You can read about this here:

And did anyone wonder why the woman was jailed though she didn’t commit any crime…?

Hey ! What about due process rights of the jailed lady protected in Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP? Did Indira Jaising think about the seminal judgment of the Supreme Court or for an instant?

And this egregious action was done by a supposed defender of Human Rights  and a constitutional lawyer !!


This is what pussy politics is about folks. The practitioners scream and shout about women’s right, but in reality, there is nothing done to empower women. There is nothing noble about this.  It is a business — a very profitable business where $1,40,000 can be paid for producing a silly report!!!

Is it a wonder that there is such a strong opposition by Indian pussy politicians to the amendment of 498A and the domestic violence act ?

Darn !

I am on the wrong side of pussy politics. There is a load of money to be made + the perks and lifestyle and access to power and privilege. All you need to do is shout yourself hoarse and claim your commitment to “womens issues” and play ostrich to the fact that over a 1,20,000 women have been illegally arrested by the corrupt and brutal Indian police since 2004.

It’s no wonder that the Indian police force is jumping on this  gravy train too, all in the name of protecting women

I leave you with what Madhu Purnima Kishwar has to say about feminism in India:

“Feminism in India has no integrity. You can’t trust it”

She is sooooo right !!!


The Rantings Of Indira Jaising

My previous post was on the writings of Madhu Kishwar.

I decided to post the rantings of Indira Jaising with a little touch of my own, to highlight the yawning chasm separating Indira Jaising and the unfortunately sidelined Madhu Purnima Kishwar.

Here we go:

  • It Was A Crime That I Was Born A Woman: This is the vicious article she wrote smearing the noble Justice Dhingra, a classic tactic of any practioner of pussy politics. By the way, Justice Dhingra is on his way for inclusion in the pantheon of great Indian judges, for his seminal judgments that are leading to the end of the extortion racket known as IPC 498A in Delhi. And just to remind you folks,  he is the primary reason for the existence of this blog !!
  • Of Crying Hoarse, Not Wolf!- Indira Jaising: This is the crap that resulted from Batra Vs Batra. The Supreme Court had said that the expression “shared household” was clumsily drafted. Of course it is. Only morons can draft something like this and yes, that is precisely what the Hon’ble judges said.
  • Dangerous Bill-Domestic Violence Bill: This was published in Indiatogether, a famous place where fellow practitioners of pussy politics, such as the now disgraced Vikram Jeet Batra, air their myopic views. This article espouses the DV Bill as the panacea for the ills plaguing women. She lobbies in this article to deprive men of the right to self defense. Activists like myself didn’t know what all this was about, otherwise, the TWICE divorced Ms Jaising would have been moaning before the advent of the bill, not after.

News flash:


Over 27,000 Women Arrested Per Year Under 498A Cases

Here is a revelation.

There are approximately 27,000 women being arrested per year in 498A cases a majority of whom are acquitted.

I gathered this from the statistics published by the NCRB. Here is the data from 2004-2006.

NCRB Data On The Women Arrested Under 498A

How can one call 498A a law meant to protect women ?

498A Women Arrested stats


Indira Jaising Moans On The First Anniversary Of The “Clumsily Drafted” DV Act

Matrimonial home is  not just a building made of bricks and walls. It is a home/place comprising of sweetness of relations of family members and elders, full of blessing.

-Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra

In contrast to what the noble Justice Dhingra has written, please read the drivel dished out by the leading Indian Feminazi, Indira Jaising. Here is the link to the IE article titled Family Against Woman. I believe it should have been titled Woman Against Family:

Here is the report she published on the first anniversary of the DV Act called “Staying Alive”. This report was paid for by UNIFEM and it is full of bullshit. This is the report that establishes the link between her and the IGP called S Umapathi, who has allegedly been selling Interpol Red Corner notices against NRI techies from AP.

An excerpt: “This provision suffered a major setback at the hands of the judiciary. The Supreme Court, even before the ink on the Act was dry, declared in a judgment that a woman could claim this right only in relation to a household owned/ rented by her husband. This means that even if her husband lives with his parents and she has her matrimonial residence there, she cannot claim right to residence there. The judgment not only overlooks the law itself, it also overlooks the existing social reality of the joint family, which continues to be the predominant pattern.”

Here is the excerpt from the SC judgment, Batra Vs Batra, 2007.

Below is what the judges of the Supreme Court had to say about this badly drafted law, and this is what Indira Jaising is moaning.

“20. If the aforesaid submission is accepted, then it will mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past that property becomes a shared household. It is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with the husband’s father, husband’s paternal grand parents, his maternal parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces etc. If the interpretation canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respondent is accepted, all these houses of the husband’s relatives will be shared households and the wife can well insist in living in the all these houses of her husband’s relatives merely because she had stayed with her husband for some time in those houses in the past.

Such a view would lead to chaos and would be absurd.. It is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted.


23. No doubt, the definition of ‘shared household’ in Section 2(s) of the Act is not very happily worded, and appears to be the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and which does not lead to chaos in society.”

The strategy of Indian feminazis has been to attack, and encourage attacks, on the judiciary whenever they faced a set back. The ongoing attacks on Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra are prime examples of this strategy in action.

Here is a classic from the idiocy called the PWDVA, 2005.

17. Right to reside in a shared household.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.

Hello !! This is a carte blanche to legally occupy the home of anyone unfortunate enough to have had a “domestic relationship” with a woman in India. A woman who has been in a domestic relationship, now has more power than the PM or the CM to strip a person of his right to own his own property. It is no wonder that the SC called it a clumsily drafted law.


MP HC: DV Act Cannot Be Filed Against Female Relatives

A judge of the MP High Court has passed a judgment which says:

Thus, it is clear by the definition of respondent that for obtaining any relief under this Act an application can be filed or a proceeding can be initiated against only adult male person and on such application or under such proceeding, aforementioned protection order can be passed. Obviously those orders will also be passed only against the adult male person.

Here is the judgment: MP HC: DV Act Cannot Be Filed Against Female Relatives


Protest On First Anniversary Of The “Clumsily Drafted” DV Act

Here is the link: Men To Celebrate First Barsi Of Domestic Violence Act


Domestic Violence Act Is For Live-In Couples Too

Here is the link from HT:’DV+Act+is+for+live-in+couples+too’

Here is the pdf if the link breaks up: Domestic Violence Act Is For Live-In Couples Too


Another Babu Gets Hit With DV Act

A while ago, I blogged the story of the PMO official who was DV “Acted”.

PMO Official Accused Of Domestic Violence By Wife

Here is another IAS officer who finds himself the accused in a DV Act. I hope that more Babus  and politicians get ensnared in this mess.

This is from TOI:

IAS officer alleges torture by cop wife
9 Oct 2007, 1316 hrs IST,TNN
MUMBAI: Senior IAS officer Amitabh Joshi on Monday accused his wife of physical assault and torture. He claimed that his police sub-inspector wife should be held responsible in case of any harm to him.

Joshi, who is MD of the Maharashtra Fisheries Development Corporation, held a press conference sharing details of his troubled marriage.

Joshi’s charges were later refuted by his wife Veena Sawkar, stating she was a victim of mental harassment and violence allegedly by Joshi.

The IAS officer claimed he and his mother were being beaten up by Sawkar and his complaints to the police would not be acted upon as his wife belonged to the police force.

Joshi has been given police protection by the state. Sawkar said a complaint of domestic violence has been filed by her against Joshi.


Domestic Violence Law – A Recipe For Disaster?

Here is the link to the article:


DV Complaint Dismissed: Protection Officer Hauled Up By Local Court

Here is the link from the Tribune: Domestic violence complaint dismissed

An excerpt: “Dismissing a complaint of domestic violence by a woman against herhusband, metropolitan magistrate Neerja Bhatia expressed anguish overan attempt to overreach an order of the Delhi High Court byconcealing certain facts and took to task the officer for notperforming her duty with diligence.

The report of the protection officer is astonishingly lacking andmisleading to the extent that it does not reveal the status of thecomplainant to be that of a lunatic, the magistrate said in a recentorder.”


Sonia Vs Vinod: Domestic Violence Case


Here is the judgment on the Sonia Vs Vinod domestic violence case. This case is from the Delhi Rohini court. Here is the write up:

“A CITY court has dismissed a petition of a woman against her family members on finding she was harassing them, misusing the Domestic Violence Act in the process. Dismissing the complaint, Metropolitan Magistrate Shahabuddin said, “I am prima facie of the considered opinion that the complainant is not cooperating with her in-laws. She prima facie appears to be harassing them on trivial matters”. Complainant Sonia had approached the court in August, alleging her husband Vinod and his mother and sisters used to physically harass her for bringing insufficient dowry The court, however, declined to allow her complaint, asking a number of relief s, including right to residence. “The woman failed to satisfy this court that her husband or any of his other family members had really committed any domestic violence against her”. “

Here is the judgment: Sonia Vs Vinod: Domestic Violence Case


Domestic Violence Is Not A Gender Issue

I wonder what the Indian radical feminists have to say about this. Respected fighters for womens rights like Madhu Kishwar have already come out against coercive legislation. So have people like Erin Pizzey.

Here is an excerpt:

“The tragedy for me is that I had a vision whereby people who were infected by dysfunctional and violent parenting could find a place that would give them a chance to learn how to live in peace and harmony. This dream was destroyed, along with all my evidence and projects. The feminist movement resolutely refuted any argument that women should be allowed to take responsibility for their choice of relationships. The image of women as victims, as helpless childish dependents upon brutal men world-wide has damaged relationships between the sexes. The idea that the family is a danger to women and children has destroyed much of our traditional concepts of marriage. The feminisation of the family and Western society has caused men to become outcasts and a source of ridicule in their children’s eyes.”

Here is the article by Errin Pizzey: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS NOT A GENDER ISSUE


Justice Dhingra Quashes An NRI 498A Case: Sept 12, 2007

This judgment is of considerable significance to NRIs.

Here is the news article from DNA India

Click here for the pdf of the same.

Here is the judgment: Justice Dhingra Quashes An NRI 498A Case


Woman Fined For Abusing DV Act

The original article has been taken down by The Statesman.

You can read the pdf, think of it like a news clipping, here: Woman Fined For Abusing DV Act


Delhi HC Defines Powers Of The CAW Cell

Here are several judgments by Justice Dhingra since his return. He clearly defines the powers of the Crimes Against Women (CAW) cells and maintains that the proceeding before the CAW cell are reconciliatory and voluntary only. The CAW cells have no power to take coercive action. The proceedings of these cells are not judicial or quasi-judicial nor can they issue summons to appear before it. That power remains with the judiciary. With these judgments, Justice Dhingra has effectively ended the tyranny of these corrupt CAW cells.

Here is the news from the Tribune.

There is an earlier judgment about the CAW cells, again by the Delhi HC.

Here is the judgment:  Jasbir Kaur Vs State, Delhi HC – 2006.

I quote:

“Police Headquarter framed the procedure to be followed by the C.A.W. Cell with the intention of preventing abuse of the process of law. But in this case police committed abuse of the process established by its Commissioner. No attempt was made to resolve the difference between Manoj Kumar and respondent No.5 nor efforts were made to bring about amicable settlement for which purpose Crime Against Women Cell was created. This cell is meant to safeguard the marriage and not to ruin it by registering case immediately on the asking of the complainant. Once an FIR is registered it becomes difficult to solve matrimonial tangles and things reaches such a pass that it cannot be restored back”

Here are some articles about CAW:

Finally, here are the short and concise judgments of Justice Dhingra on the Delhi CAW cells.

NOTE: I thank the volunteer from Delhi who has been helping me with gathering these judgments.




Present: Mr. Vinay Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for the respondent.

Crl. M. No.9052/2007 and W.P. (Crl.)1045/2007

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the conversation recorded by the petitioner between father of the petitioner and the father of the respondent should be heard by the CAW Cell and should be made part of the investigation. I consider that CAW Cell has no power to investigate the crime. It is not a police station where FIRs are registered. Investigation in any crime can be done only after registration of FIR. CAW Cell only makes reconciliatory efforts between the parties that also up to the stage of pre- registration of FIR. The investigation can also be done by CAW Cell if it is referred to it after registration of FIR. Since no FIR has been registered in this case, no directions can be given to CAW Cell for investigation. The petition is infructuous and is hereby dismissed.


August 13, 2007




Present: Mr. Keshav Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mukta Gupta, Standing Counsel for State with

Ms. Rajdipa Behura and Mr. Akshai Malik, Adocates

W.P. (Crl.) No.1032/2007 and Crl.M.A.No. 8989/07

It is stated by the counsel for petitioner that CAW Cell was threatening the petitioner for appearance. It is made clear that CAW Cell has no authority to secure the presence of any person either by coercion or by threat. CAW Cell is only a conciliatory body where efforts are made for conciliation with the free will of the parties. If any person is not willing to go to CAW Cell, he cannot be compelled. It is also directed that CAW Cell, in future, instead of issuing summons to the parties shall send request letters asking them to appear for the purpose of conciliation and not for the purpose of investigation. The petitioner is at liberty not to appear before CAW Cell. No threat or coercive steps shall be taken by the CAW Cell. No further direction can be given by the Court in respect of respondent No. 5, who according to the petitioner has refused to accompany him. It is alleged that she was living under the influence of her parents. Earlier when she appeared in this Court, she was living with the petitioner. She refused to meet her parents at that time. If the respondent is such an immature lady that when she comes under the influence of petitioner, she refuses to meet her parents and next time when she comes under the influence of her parents, she refuses to meet the petitioner, the Court cannot help the petitioner. The petition is disposed of in above terms.


August 10, 2007


Present: Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Mukta Gupta, Standing Counsel for the state with
Mr. Ahshal Mehtra, Advocate
W.P.(Crl.) No. 1009/2007

Issue notice of the petition to the respondents returnable for 17th January, 2008. Notice is accepted by the Standing Counsel of the State. Crl.M. A. No. 8813/07 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 1009/2007.
The parties were referred to CAW Cell where CAW Cell after making enquiries, came to the conclusion that it was not a case of cruelty or harassment on the part of the husband. The CAW Cell recommended a Closure Report saying that no case is made out against the husband or family of the husband. After this recommendation, respondent no. 2 made an application under Section 156(3) before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate without giving any reason as to why he considered that a case was made out, ordered for registration of an FIR. I consider that it is a fit case where operation of the order can be stayed. The operation of the order dated 3rd August, 2007 wrongly mentioned as dated 30th July, 2007 is stayed. Trial Court record be called.


August 07, 2007


Here is the second judgment:

Present: Mr.R.P. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Advocate for the State.
W.P. (Crl.) No.849/2007
Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner for dropping of proceedings pending before the CAW Cell, Amar Colony against the petitioner and his family members on the ground that the complainant wife has already made a complaint under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts. Her allegations made before the Metropolitan Magistrate and CAW Cell are ditto.
CAW Cell is an agency created to make efforts for reconciliation between the families before initiation of criminal proceedings on the complaint of the wife. The petitioner is at liberty not to appear before the CAW Cell. No coercive action can be taken by the CAW Cell, compelling an unwilling person to put in appearance before it. CAW Cell can conduct proceedings only where both the parties are ready and willing to join the proceedings voluntarily.
I consider that there is no reason for the Court to pass any order in respect of proceedings before the CAW Cell as these proceedings are not judicial or quasi-judicial nor proceedings in the investigation of the crime. They are only reconciliatory proceedings. The petitioner is at liberty not to join the proceedings before CAW Cell.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed as such.
August 07, 2007


Domestic Violence: Online Books From Questia

These books are from the online library. You need to negotiate through the window. Unfortunately couldn’t download it.


Women Misuse DVA To Get Even With Spouses

An article from Deccan Chronicle.

I don’t have a link, just a scan of the article: Deccan DV Act Misuse



Visitors Since Mar/14/07

  • 2,077,839

Cluster Map

Live Traffic


Top Rated Posts

Some Interesting Stats On Arrests Of Women

In 1930, the British govt arrested 17,000 women for their involvement in the Dandi Yatra (Salt March). During 1937 to 1947 (10 Years), they arrested 5,000 women involved in the freedom struggle. From 2004 to 2006, the govt of India arrested 90,000 women of all ages under 498A. On the average, 27,000 women per year are being arrested under this flawed law. These are stats from the NCRB.

Copyright Notice:

The content of this blog is copyrighted. You are required to obtain prior permission before locally hosting or reproducing online or in print, any or part of the content. You are welcome to directly link to the content from your site. Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape Registered & Protected Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.


The family of the writer was tortured by the Indian Police in an attempt to extort over a $100,000 by holding them in custody for over a week. The police, in cahoots with the magistrate and the PP, did this due to the ridiculous allegations made in a 498A case by his embittered ex-wife. She filed the case years after he and his family had last seen her. Thousands of 498A cases are filed each year in India by women seeking to wreak vengeance on their husbands and in-laws. Enormous sums are extorted from intimidated families implicated in these cases by corrupt Indian police officers and elements of the Indian judiciary. The author and his family haven't bribed any public official nor have they given in to the extortion. This blog aims to raise awareness of due process in India. The content of this blog constitutes, opinions, observations, and publicly available documents. The intent is not to slander or defame anyone or any institution and is the manifestation of the author's right to freedom of expression – with all the protections this right guarantees.

Get Adobe Acrobat Reader

You will need adobe acrobat to read most of the documents. Please download adobe acrobat reader. Get Adobe Acrobat For Your System
July 2014
« Dec    


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 306 other followers