Kerala helplines

Here are the helplines for Kerala:

Unnikrishnan Nair(Cochin): 9995876301

Sumesh Nadaria (Cochin): 9497030739

Vinod Krishna (Trivandrum/Cochin): 8891198545

Deepu (Thiruvananthapuram) 9995341952

Gokul (Thrissur) 9633409355

Francis(Thrissur): 9846159688, 9061757177

Vincent(Thrissur): 9605666248

Mohanan Pillai(Alapuzha): 9495269388

Rajendran(Palakkad): 9526852338

Gafar Khan(Pathanamthitta): 9142464636

Ashraf Moulavi(Calicut): 9846627710

(Rajan’s(cochin) & Sanju’s(Trivandrum) numbers which were helplines earlier, are not in use now)

___________________________________

SC Explains Section 188 – Thota Venkateswarlu Vs. State of A.P

Thota Venkateswarlu Vs. State of A.P. through Principal Secretary

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. This Special Leave Petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th August, 2008, passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.3629 of 2008 dismissing the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) for quashing the proceedings in Complaint Case No.307 of 2007 pending before the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Addanki. This case raises certain interesting questions of law and to appreciate the same, some of the facts are required to be reproduced.

2. The Petitioner, Thota Venkateswarlu, was married to the Respondent No.2, Parvathareddy Suneetha, on 27th November, 2005, as per Hindu traditions and customs in the Sitharama Police Kalyana Mandapam, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. At the time of marriage 12 lakhs in cash, 45 sovereigns of gold and 50,000/- as Adapaduchu Katnam is alleged to have been given to the Accused Nos.1 to 4, who are the husband, the mother-in-law and other relatives of the husband. According to the Respondent No.2, the Petitioner left India for Botswana in January 2006 without taking her along with him. However, in February, 2006, the Respondent No.2 went to Botswana to join the Petitioner. While in Botswana, the Respondent No.2 is alleged to have been severely ill-treated by the Petitioner and apart from the above, various demands were also made including a demand for additional dowry of 5 lakhs.

On account of such physical and mental torture not only by the Petitioner/husband, but also by his immediate relatives, who continued to demand additional dowry by way of phone calls from India, the Respondent No.2 addressed a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh, from Botswana and the same was registered as Case (Crl.) No.25 of 2007 under Sections 498-A and 506 Indian Penal Code (‘I.P.C.’ for short) together with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1986, by the Station House Officer, Medarametla Police Station, on the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District. Upon investigation into the complaint filed by the Respondent No.2, the Inspector of Police, Medarametla, filed a charge-sheet in CC No.307 of 2007 in the Court of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Addanki, Prakasam District, under Sections 498-A and 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the Petitioner and his father, mother and sister, who were named as Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid case and by his order dated 19th February, 2007, ordered issuance of summons against the accused.

3. The cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate was questioned by the Petitioner and the other co-accused before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Petition Nos.3629 and 2746 of 2008 respectively and a prayer was made for quashing of the same under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court by its order dated 27th August, 2008, allowed Criminal Petition No.2746 of 2008 filed by the Accused Nos.2 to 4 and quashed the proceedings against them. However, Criminal Petition No.3629 of 2008 filed by the Petitioner herein was dismissed. The present Special Leave Petition is directed against the said order of the High Court rejecting the Petitioner’s petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and declining to quash Complaint Case No.307 of 2007 initiated against him.

4. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner before this Court have raised certain important questions which warrant the attention of this Court.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that as will appear from the complaint made by the Respondent No.2 to the Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh on 22nd March, 2007, no grounds had been made out therein to continue with the proceedings in India, having regard to the provisions of Section 188 Cr.P.C., which provides as follows :- “188. Offence committed outside India – When an offence is committed outside India- (a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or (b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India. he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found: Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.”

6. Learned counsel urged that Section 188 Cr.P.C. recognizes that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, he would have to be dealt with as if such offence had been committed in any place within India at which he may be found. Learned counsel, however, laid stress on the proviso which indicates that no such offence could be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government [Emphasis Supplied]. Learned counsel submitted that in respect of an offence committed outside India, the same could not be proceeded with without previous sanction of the Central Government and that, accordingly, even if any of the offences was allegedly committed inside India, trial in respect of the same could continue, but the trial in respect of the offences committed outside India could not be continued, without the previous sanction of the Central Government.

7. On behalf of the Respondents it was urged that a part of the alleged offences relating to the Dowry Prohibition Act did appear to have arisen in India, even at the initial stage when various articles, including large sums of cash and jewellery were given in dowry by the father of the Respondent No.2. It was submitted that since a part of the cause of action had arisen in India on account of alleged offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1968, the learned Magistrate trying the said complaint could also try the other offences alleged to have been committed outside India along with the said offences. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Ajay Aggarwal vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 3 SCC 609], wherein it had been held that obtaining the previous sanction of the Central Government was not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of offences, since sanction could be obtained before trial begins.

8. The question which we have been called upon to consider in this case is whether in respect of a series of offences arising out of the same transaction, some of which were committed within India and some outside India, such offences could be tried together, without the previous sanction of the Central Government, as envisaged in the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C.

9. From the complaint made by the Respondent No.2 in the present case, it is clear that the cases relating to alleged offences under Section 498-A and 506 I.P.C. had been committed outside India in Botswana, where the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 were residing. At best it may be said that the alleged offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in India and could, therefore, be tried by the Courts in India without having to obtain the previous sanction of the Central Government. However, we are still left with the question as to whether in cases where the offences are alleged to have been committed outside India, any previous sanction is required to be taken by the prosecuting agency, before the trial can commence.

10. The language of Section 188 Cr.P.C. is quite clear that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offences as if they had been committed in India. The proviso, however, indicates that such offences could be inquired into or tried only after having obtained the previous sanction of the Central Government. As mentioned hereinbefore, in Ajay Aggarwal’s case (supra), it was held that sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of an offence and, if need be, it could be obtained before the trial begins. Even in his concurring judgment, R.M. Sahai, J., observed as follows :-

“29. Language of the section is plain and simple. It operates where an offence is committed by a citizen of India outside the country. Requirements are, therefore, one – commission of an offence; second by an Indian citizen; and third — that it should have been committed outside the country.”Although the decision in Ajay Aggarwal’s case (supra) was rendered in the background of a conspiracy alleged to have been hatched by the accused, the ratio of the decision is confined to what has been observed hereinabove in the interpretation of Section 188 Cr.P.C.

The proviso to Section 188, which has been extracted hereinbefore, is a fetter on the powers of the investigating authority to inquire into or try any offence mentioned in the earlier part of the Section, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. The fetters, however, are imposed only when the stage of trial is reached, which clearly indicates that no sanction in terms of Section 188 is required till commencement of the trial. It is only after the decision to try the offender in India was felt necessary that the previous sanction of the Central Government would be required before the trial could commence.

11. Accordingly, upto the stage of taking cognizance, no previous sanction would be required from the Central Government in terms of the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C. However, the trial cannot proceed beyond the cognizance stage without the previous sanction of the Central Government. The Magistrate is, therefore, free to proceed against the accused in respect of offences having been committed in India and to complete the trial and pass judgment therein, without being inhibited by the other alleged offences for which sanction would be required.

12. It may also be indicated that the provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been extended to offences committed by any citizen of India in any place within and beyond India by virtue of Section 4 thereof. Accordingly, offences committed in Botswana by an Indian citizen would also be amenable to the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, subject to the limitation imposed under the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C.

13. Having regard to the above, while we see no reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision to reject the petitioner’s prayer for quashing of the proceedings in Complaint Case No.307 of 2007, we also make it clear that the learned Magistrate may proceed with the trial relating to the offences alleged to have been committed in India. However, in respect of offences alleged to have been committed outside India, the learned Magistrate shall not proceed with the trial without the sanction of the Central Government as envisaged in the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C.

14. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.

………………………………………………………J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

………………………………………………………J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

………………………………………………………J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

New Delhi,

Dated: 02.09.2011.

================================================================

Justice Regupathy, Chennai HC: Mechanical Judicial Remand Is ILLEGAL

It is an established fact that the Indian Judiciary, higher or lower is corrupt. The recent exposes regarding the PF scam and the Punjab HC wiretap scandals have revealed the extent of the rot.

A the lower level, the mechanical remand of the accused in 498A cases by lower court magistrates is rampant.

My mother and sister were remanded for 11 days by such a  magistrate. He was bribed by my ex-father-in-law in the belief that I would pay up and settle the case if I my family was jailed.

This practice of remanding innocents is illegal. This was declared as such by the  Justice Regupathy of the Chennai HC. This is what he has to say:

(M.P. No.1/2008 in Criminal Original Petition No.10896/2008 filed by Tr.Romaiah)

• When the investigating officers seek for remand of the accused, the Magistrates must examine the necessity for the same and only where there are valid grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well- founded and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within a period of 24 hours, remand may be ordered. Violation of human rights and infringement of personal liberties must be viewed seriously. Except in cases of grave nature viz., dowry death, murder, suicide, hurt, etc., in other matters like matrimonial disputes between spouses where it may not take much time for the police officer to interrogate/investigate, remand should not be ordered mechanically, for, remand of an accused by a Magistrate is not automatic one on the mere request of the investigating officer and sufficient grounds must exist for the Magistrate to exercise the power of remand.
• Of course, it is provided in the Code that remand should not exceed 15 days at a time, but, it does not mean that in all cases, remand for 15 days should be ordered invariably.
• Though the law is manifestly clear, plain and patent, in many cases, it is witnessed that, on the mere request of the investigating officers, remand is ordered mechanically without application of mind and such illegal practice must be avoided.
• The preliminary job of an Investigating Officer including that of the Officers posted at the All Women Police Stations is only to collect the materials in respect of the dispute they are investigating and place the same before the court/Magistrate. For adjudicating any issue, the dispute must be forwarded only to the learned Magistrate or the Family court. In this type of fragile matters, in the name of ‘petition enquiry’ or investigation after registration of F.I.R., the police should not be allowed to conduct lengthy panchayats in police stations.

When applying for bail, or when being presented before a magistrate, please have a copy of Justics Regupathy’s orders with you. They are applicable all over India by the doctrine of binding precedence and because the Code Of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is the national code.

Besides, the right to life and liberty is a guaranteed, cherished,  FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, which these magistrates can’t and shouldn’t violate for any reason, except just cause.

____________________________________________________________

US State Dept Describes The Indian Criminal Justice System

Click on the text in red to go to the State Dept website on India Travel Info

==============================================

CRIMINAL PENALTIES:

While in a foreign country, a U.S. citizen is subject to that country’s laws and regulations, which sometimes differ significantly from those in the United States and may not afford the protections available to the individual under U.S. law.  Penalties for breaking the law can be more severe than in the United States for similar offenses.  Persons violating Indian laws, even unknowingly, may be expelled, arrested or imprisoned.  For example, certain comments or gestures towards women, Indian national symbols, or religion that are legal in the United States may be considered a criminal violation in India, subjecting the accused to possible fines or imprisonment. 

* Furthermore, since the police may arrest anyone who is accused of committing a crime (even if the allegation is frivolous in nature), the Indian criminal justice system is often used to escalate personal disagreements into criminal charges.  This practice has been increasingly exploited by dissatisfied business partners, contractors, estranged spouses, or other persons with whom the U.S. citizen has a disagreement, occasionally resulting in the jailing of U.S. citizens pending resolution of their disputes.  At the very least, such circumstances can delay the U.S. citizen’s timely departure from India, and may result in an unintended long-term stay in the country.  Corruption in India, especially at local levels, is a concern, as evidenced by Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index of 3.5, ranking India in 72nd place of the world’s countries.

Penalties for possession, use, or trafficking in illegal drugs in India are severe, and convicted offenders can expect long jail sentences and heavy fines.  Engaging in sexual conduct with children or using or disseminating child pornography in India is a crime, and is prosecutable in the United States.  Please see our information on Criminal Penalties.

*NOTE:

The State Dept is being factually incorrect when it states that:

“Furthermore, since the police may arrest anyone who is accused of committing a crime (even if the allegation is frivolous in nature)”

In fact, arrests in India are governed by the Supreme Court Judgment of Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP. This judgment clearly states:

“No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified.

Corrupt and/or illiterate magistrates in the lower courts often remand people applying for bail to judicial or police custody for days on end. This practice is illegal too as Justice Regupathy of the Chennai HC states in the order below:

• Justice Regupathy, Chennai HC: Mechanical Judicial Remand Is ILLEGAL

______________________________________

Advocate Pradeep Nawani Nails The Wife, The In Laws And Corrupt Cops

Adv Pradeep Nawani has shown us the way on how to go about nailing the scum that infest the ranks of the Indian police and has also shown us to how to nail the bitter half and her enablers under Dowry Prohibition Act Section 3 (DP3).

Here is the coverage in the news. This is reproduced from DNA India:

NEW DELHI: A Noida court has ordered police to book a woman and her parents for giving dowry. The chief judicial magistrate (CJM) of Noida ordered the police to register an FIR against Noida-based call centre employee Natasha Juyal and her parents under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (DPA) for giving dowry. The CJM also ordered action against police officers who refused to register Natasha’s husband Namit Juyal’s complaint.

Giving or taking dowry is a criminal offence under Section 3 of the DPA with imprisonment. This is a rare case where the section was evoked against a woman and her family.

Namit’s lawyer Pradeep Nawani argued that Natasha had not only accepted to giving dowry, but also submitted a list of stridhan that was not as per the DPA. Even her claim of huge wedding expense did not match her father’s financial capacity.

According to Nawani, Natasha filed a complaint of dowry harassment in Noida’s sector-20 police station last year, saying Namit was given Rs10 lakh as dowry in 2005.

The Noida police arrested Namit and packed him off to Dasna jail in UP. After getting bail, Namit sought information under RTI from the Noida police, seeking to know on what basis he was arrested.

He was horrified to hear that he was arrested on the basis of his wife’s mere written complaint and verbal statement with no records to back her allegations. He then asked police to register a complaint against his wife and family for giving dowry.

On refusal by the police, he approached court to get a complaint registered against his wife and her parents. He also sought contempt of court action against the police for failing to comply with a supreme court order, stipulating that refusing to register police complaint by a husband in a dowry case is tantamount to the contempt of court.

Here are the orders: 

____________________________________________

How Fair Is 498A? TOI Reporter Radhika Oberoi Answers The Question

_________________________________________

Kerala DGP Circulars Related To 498A

Here are two circulars issued by the Kerala police detailing the the ranks of police officers qualified to investigate 498A cases and categorizing 498A as a grave offence. Both circulars were uncovered by the volunteers of SIF Kerala with Protect India Family Foundation assisting.

More such revelations to come:

• Kerala Police Circular Specifying The Ranks Qualified To Investigate 498A Cases
• Kerala Police Circular Categorizing 498A As Grave Crime

_________________________________________________

Maharashtra Home And Police Depts Joginder Kumar Compliance Orders

The last order in issued by former CJI, Justice MN VENKATACHALLIAH, in joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP directed the DGPs of all states to issue the necessary orders for compliance.

The Protect India Family Foundation filed a bunch of RTIs and were able to get the Maharashtra Govt to produce the orders issued by the then DGP and Dpty Home Secy (Home) to comply with the orders issued by the most hon’ble former CJI.

Here they are:

• Mumbai Police Compliance Orders With Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP

• Maha Dpty Home Secy Orders Complying With Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP -1994

This is yet another circular uncovered by PIFF.

In this circular, the police pretty much come up with their own rules, in defiance of the directives of the Supreme Court on the arrest of women.  Using the justification outlined in this circular, corrupt cops can categorize grandmothers, mothers and innocent sibling as “unscrupulous females” and arrest them. Justice AN Mulla* was so right about the nature of the Indian police force !

Here is the circular: Mumbai Police Circular On Arresting Women – 2004

Inspite of these orders, the Maharashtra police have been arresting innocents and subjecting them to threats, intimidation, illegal detention and extortion in 498A cases.

They are prima facie guilty of contempt of court.

*Justice A N Mulla had once commented, ” I say it with all sense of responsibility that there is not a single lawless group in the whole country whose record of crime is anywhere near the record of that organized unit which is known as the Indian Police Force.”

_________________________________________________________________________________

Justice R Regupathi (Chennai HC) Ends The Abuse Of 498A

This year has been significant for those of us fighting to end this extortion racket known as IPC 498A.

The four most significant events that have occurred this year and that will lead to the eventual end of 498A are the following:

• The Justice Kailash Gambhir (Delhi HC) Guidelines On 498A Cases
• Delhi Police Commissioner: No 498A Arrests W/O Permission Of DCP
• Hyderabad Police: No Arrest In 498A Cases Without Permission Of DCP – 2002

The fourth of these events are orders issued by Justice Regupathi of the Chennai HC. You can read about the news coverage from the Indian Express:

Women Police Resorting To 3rd Degree Restrained By HC

To understand one of the reasons why these orders were issued, we need to look no further than at this news clipping of this sack of shit, caught accepting a bribe:

I don’t have his original orders from July/2008, but I got my hands on the acknowledgment filed by the DGP’s office, Chennai, from a SIF volunteer. The gist of the orders were the following as per news reports:

The Honorable High Court has issued the following observation in M.P. No.1/2008 in Criminal Original Petition No.10896/2008 filed by Tr.Romaiah.

i) Except in cases of Dowry Death/suicide and offences of serious nature, the Station House Officers of the All Women Police Stations are to register F.I.R. only on approval of the Dowry Prohibition Officer concerned.
ii) Social workers/mediators with experience may be nominated and housed in the same premises of All Women Police Stations along with Dowry Prohibition Officers.
iii) Arrest in matrimonial disputes, in particular arrest of aged, infirm, sick persons and minors, shall not be made by the Station House Officers of the All Women Police Stations.
iv) If arrest is necessary during investigation, sanction must be obtained from the Superintendent of Police concerned by forwarding the reasons recorded in writing.
v) Arrest can be made after filing of the final report before the Magistrate concerned if there is non-cooperation and abscondance of accused persons, and after receipt of appropriate order (Non-Bailable Warrant).
vi) Charge sheet must be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of registration of the F.I.R. and in case of failure, extension of time shall be sought for from the jurisdiction Magistrate indicating the reasons for the failure.
vii) No weapon including Lathis/physical force be used while handling cases at the All Women Police Stations.
viii) Complainants/victims should be provided with adequate security/accommodation at Government Home and interest of the children must be taken care of.
ix) Sridana properties/movables and immovable to be restored at the earliest to the victims/complainants and legal aid may be arranged for them through Legal Services Authority for immediate redressal of their grievances.

Here are some excerpts from the acknowledgment of the above orders of Justice Regupathi that will go a long way in ending the extortion racket called 498A in Chennai/TN:

• Arrest in matrimonial disputes, in particular arrest of aged, infirm, sick persons and minors, shall not be made by the Station House Officers of the All Women Police Stations.
• If arrest is necessary during investigation, sanction must be obtained from the Superintendent of Police concerned by forwarding the reasons recorded in writing.
• Commissioners of Police and the Superintendents of Police in the State have been instructed to scrupulously follow the suggestions.
• When the investigating officers seek for remand of the accused, the Magistrates must examine the necessity for the same and only where there are valid grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well- founded and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within a period of 24 hours, remand may be ordered. Violation of human rights and infringement of personal liberties must be viewed seriously. Except in cases of grave nature viz., dowry death, murder, suicide, hurt, etc., in other matters like matrimonial disputes between spouses where it may not take much time for the police officer to interrogate/investigate, remand should not be ordered mechanically, for, remand of an accused by a Magistrate is not automatic one on the mere request of the investigating officer and sufficient grounds must exist for the Magistrate to exercise the power of remand.
• Of course, it is provided in the Code that remand should not exceed 15 days at a time, but, it does not mean that in all cases, remand for 15 days should be ordered invariably.
• Though the law is manifestly clear, plain and patent, in many cases, it is witnessed that, on the mere request of the investigating officers, remand is ordered mechanically without application of mind and such illegal practice must be avoided.
• The preliminary job of an Investigating Officer including that of the Officers posted at the All Women Police Stations is only to collect the materials in respect of the dispute they are investigating and place the same before the court/Magistrate. For adjudicating any issue, the dispute must be forwarded only to the learned Magistrate or the Family court. In this type of fragile matters, in the name of ‘petition enquiry’ or investigation after registration of F.I.R., the police should not be allowed to conduct lengthy panchayats in police stations.

Here is the acknowledgment of the police compliance of Justice Regupathi’s earlier orders:

Justice Regupathi 498A Orders Compliance Aknowledgement-2008

__________________________________________________________________________

Judgments To Fight Accusations Under Domestic Violence Act

Here are a few citations that will allow you to win DV Act cases.

Before you get into that, read the FAQ compiled by the mother of the flawed DV Act, Indira Jaising and her crooked cohorts of the Lawyers Collective:

Lawyer’s Collective FAQ On PWDVA – 2007

The DV Act is touted as a civil law and a “second chance” by the likes of Indira Jaising. But the fine print says that the proceedings are to be conducted as in criminal cases.

In effect, like all the other things touted by these Feminazis, this is a pernicious law designed to bypass the higher requirements of proof needed for criminal cases like 498A. It is designed to be a wolf in a sheep’s clothing. If you don’t adhere to the orders of a magistrate who is required to pass protection orders for immediate relief, this civil case turns into a criminal case for contempt and then you are really screwed. What makes this law so pernicious is that unlike 498A, which hinges on the sheer terror unleashed by corrupt Indian Police officers to cow the victims, this case can deprive you of the sanctuary offered by your home and can have the entire family tossed out on the street.

I will compile all the judgment related to the DV act here.  If anyone has new judgments, please leave a comment or paste the judgment below in the comments section.

Please start by reading this judgment of Justice Dhingra given below. He interprets Batra Vs Batra and also explains the meaning and rights of shared household and matrimonial home:

Justice Dhingra Explains The Meaning Of Shared Household

If you face the false and fabricated Domestic Violence act, you must know the following:

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”.

I finally got my hands on this judgment thanks to Aejaz_legal, a reader who posted this judgment:

• AP HC DV NOT RETROSPECTIVE – 3714/2007

To understand this principle, read this article:

• http://cs.anu.edu.au/~James.Popple/publications/articles/retroactive/
  

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

• Justice Dhingra Explains The Meaning Of Shared Household Defined In The DV Act
  
• In  ( 2008 ) DMC 1, delivered by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that Complaint for this offence can only be filed against adult male person and further held in 3( C ) that as provided by sec 2(q)of the act, such application u/s 12 of the act can’t be filed against petitioner’s who are ladies .

Here is the judgment:

https://ipc498a.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/mp-hc-women-cant-be-respondents-in-dv-act-2007.pdf

Here is another judgment from the Chennai HC stating the same:

https://ipc498a.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/chennai-hc-dv-act-to-be-filed-only-against-male.pdf

Here is the Kapil Rastogi Judgment – Jan/2009, stating the same:

Kapil Rastogi Vs Urvashi: DV Case – 2009

• 2007(2) ALT (Crl.) 504(A.P) delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh where in it was held “as there is no claim made against the other respondents, continuing process against them is a clear abuse of law”.  I am missing the judgment:
• I (2007) DMC 1 (SC) = 2007(3) ALT (Crl.) 1(SC) delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India where in it was held”claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband but not to the In-laws”.

Here is the judgment:  SC judgment, Batra Vs Batra, 2007.

• Shaleen Kabra DV Act Judgment:  You can read about this story here: A Delhi additional sessions court has ruled that allegations of domestic violence need to be proved and victims need to face cross-examination and provide evidence in support of their charges to be liable for relief. This ruling was upheld by the Delhi High Court. This is marked in red as this blows a hole in the DV Act. The judgments are given below:

PMO Official Accused Of Domestic Violence By Wife

• Suraj Prakash Vs Sushila. Can anyone translate this and post this as a comment? You’ll be doing the rest of the victims of this filthy act a huge favor.

Here is the judgment (Hindi): Suraj Prakash Vs Sushil DV Act – 2007

• Swarup Sarkars’ DV Act judgment: Here is some background information from the TOI which sheds some light on the Swarup Sarkar story:  Man complains, wife summoned over abortion

Here is the very interesting judgment: Swarup Sarkar DV Act Judgment 2007

• Sonia Vs Vinod: “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

Also, check out Vinayaks blog, link is given below. He has some tips to fight the DV Act:

General Suggestions for victims of DV act

________________________________________

Justice Kailash Gambhir (Delhi HC) Guidelines On 498A Cases

Here are the orders of Justice Gambhir. You can read about him here and I very well consider him to be the next Justice Dhingra.

These guidelines follow the Commissioner YS Dadwal order prohibiting 498A arrests in Delhi.

Delhi Police: No 498A Arrests Without DCP’s Permission

There won’t be hordes of radical feminists attacking Justice Gambhir for these guidelines, as they risk being exposed and ridiculed by Indian bloggers affected by 498A.

More later. I’ve been working many hours in my new job and I have been sick since yesterday. Trying to wrap up as many pending posts as possible.

Here is the judgment: Justice Kailash Gambhir (Delhi HC) Guidelines On 498A Cases

The guidelines are given below:

Guidelines:
1. Social workers/NGO
There is no iota of doubt that most of the complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trifling fights and ego clashes. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in their tussle and ongoing hostility the hapless children are the worst victims. Before a wife moves to file a complaint with the Women Cell, a lot of persuasion and conciliation is required.
(a) The Delhi Legal Service Authority, National Commission for Women, NGOs and social workers working for upliftment of women should set up a desk in crime against women cell to provide them with conciliation services, so that before the State machinery is set in motion, the matter is amicably settled at that very stage. But, if ultimately even after efforts put by the social workers reconciliation seems not possible then the matter should be undertaken by the police officials of Crime against Women cell and there also, serious efforts should be made to settle the matter amicably.
2. Police Authorities:
(a) Pursuant to directions given by the Apex Court, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi vide Standing Order No. 330/2007 had already issued guidelines for arrest in the dowry cases registered under Sections 498-A/406 IPC and the said guidelines should be followed by the Delhi Police strictly and scrupulously.
(i) No case under Section 498-A/406 IPC should be registered without the prior approval of DCP/Addl. DCP.
(ii) Arrest of main accused should be made only after thorough investigation has been conducted and with the prior approval of the ACP/DCP.
(iii) Arrest of the collateral accused such as father-in-law, mother- in-law, brother-in-law or sister-in-law etc should only be made after prior approval of DCP on file.
(b) Police should also depute a well trained and a well behaved staff in all the crime against women cells especially the lady officers, all well equipped with the abilities of perseverance, persuasion, patience and forbearance.
(c) FIR in such cases should not be registered in a routine manner.
(d) The endeavor of the Police should be to scrutinize complaints very carefully and then register FIR.
(e) The FIR should be registered only against those persons against whom there are strong allegations of causing any kind of physical or mental cruelty as well as breach of trust.
(f) All possible efforts should be made, before recommending registration of any FIR, for reconciliation and in case it is found that there is no possibility of settlement, then necessary steps in the first instance be taken to ensure return of stridhan and dowry articles etc. by the accused party to the complainant.
3. Lawyers:
Lawyers also have a great responsibility in this regard.
(a) While drafting pleadings/complaints, the lawyers should not unnecessarily suggest incorporation of wild allegations, or in character assassination of any of the parties or their family members whatever the case may be.
(b) Lawyers are also to endeavor to bring about amicable settlement between the parties as they are expected to discharge sacred duty as social engineers in such cases instead of making them target for monetary considerations by multiplying their cases.
4. Courts:
Subordinate courts, be it trying civil or criminal cases concerning bail, maintenance, custody, divorce or other related matters shall in the first instance, in every case where it is possible so to do consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case, to make every endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the parties.
a) The first endeavor should be for possible reunion and restitution of the parties and as a last endeavor to bring about peaceful separation.
b) If possible extra time should be devoted to such matters to restore peace in the lives of rival parties be it by re-uniting them or even in case of their parting ways.
c) Conciliatory proceedings by the court should preferably be held in camera to avoid embarrassment.
d) Wherever, the courts are overburdened with the work, necessary assistance of Mediation and Conciliation cells should be sought.
Apart from above directions it would not be out of place to ask parties also to themselves adopt a conciliatory approach without intervention of any outside agency and unless there are very compelling reasons, steps for launching prosecution against any spouse or his/her in-laws be not initiated just in a huff, anger, desperation or frustration.

________________________________________________________________

Protected: Rajesh Motwani Shows Us How To Win A Maintenance Case

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Delhi HC Landmark Judgment On Paternity (DNA) Test – 2008

Folks,

finally got my hands on this landmark judgment. The Delhi HC allowed DNA tests to establish paternity. This is a landmark judgment for victims of paternity fraud in India.

Just imagine this situation. A devoted husband and father spends years of his life building a life for his wife and offspring and suddenly one day, he finds out that his wife had cheated on him years ago and what he perceived to be his own flesh and blood wasn’t after all, his own. And worse, his now exposed adulterous wife files a 498A against him. This happened to a very dear and now devastated friend of mine.

Justice Vipin Sanghi has done us all a great service.

Thanks to him, these bitches can face the consequences of their actions.

Should any bleeding heart feminazis like Girija Vyas or Indira Jaising object to my words, or raise a hue and cry about how the child was becoming the victim or the mother was the victim, I implore them to do more than that, by adopting these signs of infidelity and sin into their homes and raising them as their own and better still, marrying these adulterous women to their nephews or grand nephews and random relatives. Don’t actions speak louder than words?

Here is the judgment: Delhi HC – DNA Test-HMA-2008- Justice Vipin Sanghi

For those of you who find yourselves in a similar situation or luckily, are just facing a 498A, please read the judgment (M.Srinivasulu Vs State of A.P. (10/09/2007)) below.

The reason for introducing this judgment is this. Most 498A complaints aren’t worth the paper they are written on. This judgment clearly establishes that the consequences of cruelty need to be proven, before a complaint can be brought under the purview of 498A. Click on the quote to download it:

“Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman is required to be established in order to bring home the application of Section 498A IPC.”

This judgment, coupled with Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP will go a long way in beating off the 498A. I promise you that !!!

I dedicate this post to my friend. Hopefully he’ll be able to climb out of the hole he’s been pushed into and overcome the ordeal he’s been subjected to…

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Terrorist Bombings And 498A

As all of you know, our country has been rocked by bombings again .

The cops have been clueless as to who is behind these bombings and here is something to think about.

These morons in uniform had a significant time since the last set of bombings in Mumbai trains, to try and anticipate and prepare for the next round of terrorist attacks.

I can safely bet that after the initial round of media coverage was over and the last set of bombings faded from the front page, the criminal organisation, also known as the Indian police force (In the words of Justice AN Mulla), went back to business as usual, which included capturing and jailing grand mothers and women in their homes to extort money under ponzi schemes and extortion rackets such as 498A.

We need the appointment of officers like Delhi Police Commissioner YS Dadwal around the country if the Indian Police are serious about combating this menace.

Will they police learn from their past mistakes? Will we ever know who was really behind these bombings ? Will the Indian police force ever learn to truly understand the purpose of their existence and hunt down these terrorists instead of grandmothers living in their homes ?

Shame of these grandmother capturing heroes!!

__________________________________

Delhi Police Commissioner: No 498A Arrests W/O Permission Of DCP

Folks,

if you remember, YS (Yudhbir Singh) Dadwal was appointed as the commissioner of Police, Delhi, amid a controversy.

Here is a photograph of former Delhi Police Commissioner, YS Dadwal:

I wondered who YS Dadwal was, but had stated that this establishment needs capable officers in key posts in order to continue their ventures without the distractions of issues with Law and Order etc. I was right about this and what came as a pleasant surprise to me is that, after the assumption of office, Commissioner Dadwal publicly stated that he wouldn’t allow the police to be used as instruments of revenge, especially in 498A cases.

This enlightened officer has followed up on his words with actions and has issued standing orders to the effect that no one is to be arrested in 498A cases without the permission of the DCP.

Here is the order in pdf format:

Delhi Police Comm YS Dadwal: No 498A Arrests Without Approval Of DCP (pdf)

______________________________

Here is another order from the Delhi police enforcing Justice Dhingra’s Smt Neera Singh Judgment:

• Delhi Police Circular Enforcing Delhi HC Instructions Regarding Dowry (498A) cases
• For Reference: Justice Dhingra’s Smt Neera Singh Judgment

What is the impact of Commissioner Dadwal’s order ? In Delhi, this order:

• Eliminates the need for Anticipatory bail
• Ensures the 498A can no longer be used to jail entire families and extort money.
• Eliminates the police as a factor in this extortion racket.
• Takes away the power to arrest from the morons who infest the Indian criminal justice system. These morons range from the goons in uniform to corrupt lower court magistrates.
• The lawyers will see a huge source of revenue dry up in the form of the elimination for the need for Anticipatory bail and defense in 498A cases.
• The Delhi courts will see a drop in the number of cases getting into the filthy sewer known as the Indian Criminal Justice System.
• The number of final reports filed in Delhi will go up. Read this to know what a final report is: The 498A Final Report Of Film Actor Prashanth
• Commissioner Dadwal can now focus the energies of the Delhi police force on real issues, such as rapes, traficking of women, terrorist attacks and real crimes, instead of allowing goons in uniform to capture middle aged women and grandmothers in their home in the early morning or the start of the weekend, all in the name of “protecting women”.

This order is in line with the order issued by the AP Police Commissioner, MV Krishna Rao, in 2002. You can read about that order here:

Hyderabad Police: No Arrest In 498A Cases Without Permission Of DCP – 2002

All these orders are based on the Supreme Court Judgment of Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP. You can read about the importance and the rationale behind this judgment here:

Habeas Corpus, Magna Carta And Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP

That brings me back to Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra, who undoubtedly ranks amongst the greatest judges of India. He wrote (Crl. Appeal No. 696/2004, 01.Nov.2007):

“In all these cases in the name of investigation, except recording statement of complainant and her few relatives nothing is done by police. The police do not verify any circumstantial evidence nor collect any other evidence about the claims made by the complainant. No evidence about giving of dowry or resources of the complainant’s family claiming spending of huge amounts is collected by the police. This all is resulting into gross misuse of the provisions of law.”

You can download this judgment from here:

Justice Dhingra (Crl. Appeal No. 696/2004, 01.Nov.2007)

It is this excerpt that Commissioner Dadwal quotes in his order.

Personally, I feel a sense of satisfaction as I had quoted the same excerpt in the last chapter of The Guide To Surviving IPC 498A.

This is it. For all you folks from Delhi, this signals the end of the extortion racket known as section 498A. For the rest of you in this country, use this to nail the cops who showed up/show up at your door to effect an illegal arrest. We have turned the corner in this fight against this extortion racket known as 498A and against the practitioners of pussy politics, aka, The Feminazis of India.

Update: Aug/16/08

This order has been reinforced:

The Justice Kailash Gambhir (Delhi HC) Guidelines On 498A Cases

Next steps:

• Use this to pressure other states to issue similar standing orders for the police to comply with the Joginder Kumar Vs UP judgment.
• Set a target date to eliminate 498A as an extortion racket and make it bailable and non-compoundable across the country.
• File compensation for illegal detention against police officers who violated the Joginder Kumar arrest guidelines. If 20 people per state do this, this will break the budgets of the states for law and order and cause the scum in uniform to think twice before entering our homes to terrorize our families to extort large sums of money under the pretext of women protection laws.
• Prepare to force an amendment to the DV Act to sanitize it and make it gender neural and implementable. This will be the next evil to overcome and give Indira Jaising more reasons to moan about 🙂.

____________________________________

Taking Stock After An Year Of Activism

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

– Madhu Purnima Kishwar

It’s time to reflect.

I was thrust into this mess on account of the ill advised actions of my ex-wife and her conniving father. The 498A was filed as means to force me into a settlement (they had my family in custody) or to take her back and sell myself for the money they offered me. I was never arrested. A charge sheet was never filed after my sister filed complaints against the police for their illegal actions.

I knew about 498A the day I filed for divorce, except, as time went by, I let down my guard and expected her to go her way and not resort to these tricks. I hoped she would gauge the depth of this pile of dung before jumping in. Fond hope on my part.

While my family was in custody and was being terrorized by the police, I looked for info on the web and talked to SIF volunteers. The SIF volunteers were great and were available round the clock. I can’t thank them enough, but, the info given didn’t go very far. I failed to understand the extent and depth of the mess my family and I were tossed into. In short, I was given helpful suggestions, but they were not applicable to my case and my situation.

The info on the web was sketchy at the best and inaccurate at the worst. An example was about the meaning of cognizable*, which was portrayed as the unrestricted power of the police to arrest, which is inaccurate.

*In a cognizable offense, the police are duty bound to register and investigate the complaint. Cognizable does not mean that the police can arrest you upon the filing of the FIR. They are required to investigate as a first step. 498A is a cognizable offence.

After writing a bunch of memos and press notes, enduring the rantings of Ranjana Kumari, Girija Vyas and the random Feminazis of India in the press, I was restless and felt a pervasive sense of not doing enough.

At this point I was introduced to blogging thanks to the idiocy of a bunch of embittered ex-wives, who spewed venom and gloated about the trouble they got their ex-hubbies and their families into. I was enraged over the fact that they felt smug about the plight of their mothers and sisters in law. I started blogging to mock them and developed an appreciation for the possibilities that blogging opens up. As a footnote, I take full credit for shutting them down.

I felt the need for A Guide To Surviving IPC 498A, as at this stage, though I knew and understood a lot, it was obvious to me that there was nothing anywhere that tied it all together or served as a repository of information.

The motivation to educate others about their Fundamental Rights was given by the book by Prof Som K Shah, Faith Belied, which mentioned Joginder Kumar Vs The State Of UP, which, for the first time, detailed the limits on the powers of the police to arrest.

Taking that as a base, I started digging and soon found DK Basu Vs State Of WB and more judgments from the Supreme Court. Initially I focused on the judgments curtailing/defining the powers of the Indian Police. I got pretty good at digging up judgments at Judis.

Around this time, I received a gift from the gods, in the form of a Judgment by Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra, which is now popularly known as the 498A Income Tax judgment. This and the following judgments by him were my first posts.

I put all this together and wrote up the Survivor’s Guide To IPC 498A. I did have some friends proof read it and had to edit it, as my anger was apparent in tone and the choice of words. As an example, I referred to the 498A wives as bitches. Nothing wrong with that, except, when writing, moderation should be exercised, to reach out to a wider audience.

I kept digging through Judis and the web and as I came across relevant judgments and material, I blogged them in order to serve as a repository of information.

By July, I had it all together, but had to wait until November to inaugurate the 498A Survival Kit, as I was having the document reviewed for accuracy by a former IPS officer.

By then, I was burnt out and decided to walk away for a short time. Upon my return, I was able to have the Gujju version up. I also made a major update and uploaded it.

The blog averages over 400 visitors a day and they are from all over the world. Check out the cluster map on the lower right side of this page, to see the spread. It also looks like I may have a small but regular set of readers, though I don’t know who they are.

498A and the associated asinine laws, though formulated with good intentions, are inherently flawed. The establishment has taken advantage of these flaws and it is now an extortion racket feeding the ravenous appetite of the corrupt Indian Police force, the lower judiciary, NGOs like CSR, statutory bodies like the NCW and worse, has become a component of vote bank politics.

Who cares if more than a 100,000 women have been arrested in 4 years, or the Indian criminal justice system is clogged, or the fact that the real victims of domestic violence or dowry harassment will never get justice as the cases will drag on for years due to the numerous frivolous cases that have been filed?

As depressing as this situation seems, the tide is turning.

I have asserted, from the moment that I came across Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP, that the police have been arresting people in 498A cases in contravention of the orders of the Supreme Court. My stand has been vindicated by the recent emergence of a memo from 2002, by the Hyderabad Comm Of Police, MV Krishna Rao, who forbade any 498A arrests without the authorisation of the DCP of the investigating officer. This is a standing order, in accordance with the Supreme Court judgment. Further vindication came in the form of the Delhi Police Commissioner issuing a circular forbidding 498A Arrests W/O Permission Of DCP

People on the ground are finally questioning the cops about arbitrary arrests and I expect this to spread, especially as the translations in the regional languages come into play.

I have made some lasting friendships in this time of my activism and also had to endure the idiocy of morons. This battle can be fought and will be won, though it will take time.

So how does one fight this hydra headed monster?

As a first step, it must be recognized that it is the radical feminists and crass opportunists of India, who are preventing any kind of a discussion or amendment to this flawed law from taking place. These radical feminists are like the Taliban. They are radical, they are stupid, they are corrupt and they will be defeated. The domestic violence act is their swan song and the sinking of the Sati Law is proof of their diminishing clout.

As a next step, it is essential to re-frame this fight as anything else other than that between men and women. The Feminazis got this far as they successfully portrayed themselves as “Abala Nari” vs the “Rakshas Ravana” .

SIF is fighting this as a way to protect the Indian family structure. The petrol pump scam tainted Girija Vyas, feeling the sting of the inroads made by SIF, is now attempting to claim this mantle. I feel that this issue can also be framed as a fight against corruption in India.

The Feminazis of India are like hyenas and vultures, they feed on the helpless. They have successfully pushed aside respected women rights activists like Madhu Kishwar and have hijacked the cause of the empowerment of women to serve their selfish ends. They are the enablers in setting the corrupt establishment upon vulnerable individuals and families. They play the role of useful idiots for the establishment, in return for access and privilege, and they have the MPs cowed. They have been attempting to intimidate the judiciary with varying degrees of success, under the garb of “gender sensitization”.

The Feminazis haven’t faced organized opposition due to the nature of this problem. This is not oppression of a particular caste, religion, language or sex. This is persecution of small units in this multitude of millions for the purposes of empty propaganda; to claim that the establishment has legislated laws for women, is pro women and thus pandering to a perceived vote bank. In reality, as with everything else, this is empty propaganda which enriches the establishment and nothing concrete is accomplished. If 100,000 women have been arrested in 4 years, you won’t hear a peep of protest as it doesn’t matter. They don’t count as a voting block as they are scattered across the country and so they won’t dent an election. Besides, who really understands fully the pernicious theory of vote-bank politics?. These numbers are a drop in the 500,000,000 women of India. In addition, these persecuted individuals and their families come from the middle and upper middle classes and they are spread out over the country with the only unifying thread being that they have been 498A’d or DV Act’d. Finally groups like SIF, though small in number are unifying and fighting the establishment.

The most prominent Feminazis are unmarried or divorced. Their temperament was never tempered by the pangs of birthing or gazing fondly upon their own flesh and blood, be it a boy or a girl. They want privilege, but don’t want to earn it, but want it handed over under the garb of equality. 498A and the DV Act have nothing to do with womens rights or feminism, these laws are designed to feed on the helpless and unsuspecting.

What do they have to gain from propagating and spreading this misery ? The explanation is simple. It is money, lifestyle, access to power and privilege, a paycheck and I don’t know what else. I can only stoop to a certain level of dirt in terms of speculating about motivation. Regardless they are the beneficiaries of this misery. They are backed up by large amounts of money in funds from the center or from the UN. They have the megaphone and can lock up the print media and the TV channels with their rants and propaganda.

But, alas, they have decisively lost the online battle. An example is the maligning of Justice Dhingra. Before the advent of this blog, anyone who read about him would pass him off as a male chauvinist and a sexist, thanks to the malicious propaganda of Indira Jaising.

I’ve set the record straight and effectively countered Indira Jaising’s mud slinging. She had made it her mission to malign Justice Dhingra at any given opportunity. As a writer with a guaranteed readership of at least 12,000 a month, I assert that Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra can be ranked amongst the greatest judges in the history of our nation. All you need to do is read his judgments, any judgments and you will understand what I mean. Those of us, who’ve been entangled in this mess need to thank the gods for their gift, in the form of this great judge.

I work hard, stay fit and have loads of fun and I don’t believe that I will ever marry again. My ex-wife gave me a precious gift, a gift so precious that few men would have ever received it. This is the ability to live alone and endure with ease, the pangs of loneliness. On the occasions that I felt it, all it took was a recollection of my life with her, of her nagging, her threats and accusations of incest and the blackmail she subjected me to, and I am back on my feet.

There is a lot to do, and I am an idea factory, but often, just like Cassandra, my words fall on deaf ears and I feel frustrated at the stupidity. This is the reason for the existence today of the 498A Survival Kit. Fortunately, unlike Cassandra who ended up as a slave to the Greeks, I’ve been gaining in credibility and being listened to. The biggest example of this is the widening recognition of the importance of Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP, as a cornerstone of defense against arbitrary arrest by the 498A accused and activists.

As I drift away to resurrect my once promising career, I leave with a hope that I may have laid a foundation.

Getting back to the 498A wives, here is a song, whose message their parents should have drilled into their stupid heads: Itna Nazuk Na Bano.

I want to share with you the approach I took to get through my darkest days.

When ever you feel overwhelmed and unable to go on, just remember this, get through today and wait for tomorrow. Tomorrow will dawn, glorious and bright, and you can pick up where you left off, filled with energy after a night’s rest.

The 498A wives have a biological clock ticking. Each day you’ve gained is a day they’ve lost. Run out the clock on them. This is the way to beat them.

______________________________________________________________________________________

SC 498A AB Judgment Explaining Some Misconceptions – 2003

Here is the judgment: SC 498A AB Judgment – 2003

Excerpts:

• From a careful reading of the said judgment we do not find any restriction or absolute bar on the concerned Court granting anticipatory bail even in cases where either cognizance has been taken or a chagesheet has been filed. This judgment only lays down a guideline that while considering the prima facie case against an accused the factum of cognizance having been taken and the laying of chargesheet would be of some assistance for coming to the conclusion whether the claimant for an anticipatory bail is entitled for such bail or not.
• We respectfully agree with the observations of this Court in the said case that the duration of anticipatory bail should be normally limited till the trial court has the necessary material before it to pass such orders and it thinks fit on the material available before it. That is only a restriction in regard to blanket anticipatory bail for an unspecified period. This judgment in our opinion does not support the extreme argument addressed on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent-State that the courts specified in Section 438 of the Crl.P.C. are denuded of their power under the said Section where either the cognizance is taken by the concerned court or charge sheet is filed before the appropriate Court. As stated above this would only amount to defeat the very object for which Section 438 was introduced in the Crl.P.C. in the year 1973.

__________________________________________________________

Steps To Get Anticipatory Bail After You Are Hit By 498A!!

Here is the link:

Steps To Get Anticipatory Bail After You Are Hit By 498A!!

_________________________________________

Garg Vs Garg: NRI Child Custody Battle Fought In The US

Here is the link to the document:

Garg Vs Garg: NRI Child Custody Battle

This judgment from a US court clarifies a lot of issue relating to NRI child custody battles.

Here is another judgment for X-Ref:  Gahun Vs Gahun

________________________________________________________

Rights And Responsibilities Of US Green Card Holders: A Reminder For The GC Holding 498A Wives

I am posting this here for the US based NRIs with marital issues.

They are a group often maligned by the radical feminists and by the media. What is never highlighted is the fact that these men are often used by their bitter halves to piggy back to the US and then dumped after these spouses get their green cards. They find themselves facing 498A and other cases in India especially after their spouses lose their case in the US court.

In an NRI divorce judgment, Justice Dhingra says:

“The decree passed by the court of USA has not been challenged by the complainant. She herself submitted to the jurisdiction of the USA Court and contested the case. She was living, at the time of contesting, the case in USA and continued to live in USA even after passing of decree till 2002. She even preferred an appeal, which was dismissed. Thus, it is not a case where decree was obtained by her husband clandestinely or she had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the US Court or the US Court had no jurisdiction. Once a competent Court has passed an order in respect of return or exchange of articles including dowry articles, no offence under Section 406 IPC can be tried for the same articles in India.”

NRI spouses with GCs are required to obey US laws, implicitly acceding to US jurisdiction. It is a responsibility, like paying taxes in the US, that they are REQUIRED to fulfil. This is an agreement they are signing when accepting the green card. These women may want to think twice before filing a case against their hubbies in India after getting their green cards. They may be faced with a contempt of court charges in the US if they try to challenge the divorce judgment in India after losing the case here.

Here is the text of the responsibilities:

• You are required to obey all of the laws of the United States, the States, and localities.
• You are required to file your income tax returns and report your income to the US Internal Revenue Service and State IRS.
• You are expected to support the democratic form of government and cannot attempt to change the government through illegal means.
• If you are a male, age 18 through 25, you are required to register with the Selective Service.

Here is the pdf: US Green Card Holders Rights And Responsibilities

Here is the link to the US CIS site where I pulled this information from.

__________________________________________________________