Swarup Sarkar DV Act Judgment 2007

Swarup Sarkar won the Domestic Violence case filed by his wife.

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 judgment: Swarup Sarkar DV Act Judgment 2007

You may also want to read this: Indira Jaising On The First Anniversary Of The “Clumsily Drafted” DV Act

______________________________________________

India To Register Pregnancies To Fight Foeticide

Another act of stupidity emanates from the hallways of the Ministry of Women and Child Development. The Hon’ble Minister, you can see her in action here on YouTube, would like to register all pregnancies in the country to prevent foeticide. Forget the logistics involved. I would like to see the Hon’ble Minister, taking her daughter to the responsible Govt Office and saying to the chap on duty, “Here is my daughter and she is pregnant, the father is my son-in-law, please register the pregnancy.”

Another bit player in this silly act is the Minister Ambumani Ramdoss. He has allegedly been pushing for the appointments of doctors to AIIMS, the premier health care institute, based on their caste and not on the strength of their credentials.

Back to this story, I have a few questions:

• Apart from the issues of privacy involved, we can toss in the issue of religion. Can you imagine a Muslim couple doing this? or will they be exempt to fend off the backlash?
• What about the conservative people in the cow belt? Would they be willing to parade their pregnant wives before unknown men or women?
• How about this situation where a women unfortunately has an abortion due to reasons beyond her control and the foetus is a female? Will she be booked for murder?
• What if a woman wants to abort regardless? Aren’t we now infringing on the reproductive rights for women? The feminists, internationally, will be up in arms.
• What does one do if a woman has an abortion just because she wants a male child and gets a certificate from a doctor saying that the pregnancy was putting her life at risk?

And then think about logistics involved in implementing this law.

You can read about the whole thing here.

All in all, this is a classic example of a self goal, as this law is bound to piss off the feminists, internationally.

Here is Gloria Steinem saying: “I would say that a crucial contribution of feminism is to add reproductive freedom as a fundamental human right. Controlling women’s bodies as the most basic means of production, the means of reproduction, is the origin of patriarchy; thus of domination and hierarchy. Women are reversing that process by seizing control of the means of reproduction, and restoring balance.”

Righto! and we can see women standing before the Babus and saying that “Hey! We are pregnant! Register it!” What would good old Gloria say to that ?

At the least, this is an act of stupidity, literally.

___________________________________

The Emotional Terrorist: Erin Pizzey

This is by a lady called Ernie Prizzy.

What she writes here is applicable to the kind of women proliferating through the Indian society and cheered on by the likes of Indira Jaising in the garb of women’s rights.

Here is the article: Erin Pizzey: The Emotional Terrorist

______________________________________

Bombay HC 498A Divorce Appeal Judgement

Here is the judgment:   Bombay HC 498A Divorce Appeal Judgement

________________________________

How To Catch A Cheating Wife Or Husband

Someone left me a comment on the blog with the link to this site:

http://www.signsofacheatingspouse.net/

The links are messed up, but I added it here ad adultery is a common cause for filing a 498A.

_____________________________

AP HC Quotes Dowry Prohibition Act In 498A Quash Judgment: 2005

Here is the judgment: AP HC Quotes Dowry Prohibition Act In Judgment: 2005

Here is the definition from a judgment of the AP High Court:

Dowry Prohibition Act

3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry:- (1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more:]

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than [five years.]

[(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,-

(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf):

Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;

(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf):

Provided that such present are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act:

Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.]

[4. Penalty for demanding dowry:- If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.]

Delhi HC Quashes A 498A Against A Sister: Mar 2007

Here is an excerpt:

“Lately, a tendency has emerged to set the criminal law into
motion, either to settle scores, or to seek quick fix solutions to essentially
civil disputes”

Expect another tirade by Indira Jaising in the near future ..

I’ve been sloppy of late, just very busy and tired. Bear with me !

Here is the judgment: Delhi HC Squashes A 498A Against A Sister: Mar 2007

_______________________________

Stats On Complaints Against Police Personnel

Here is the link to the NCRB website.

I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

________________________________

Delhi HC: Bail Judgement

Here is the judgment: Delhi HC Naveen Saini Bail Order – 2007

__________________________________________

Delhi HC: Mandatory Registration Of FIR In A Cognizable Case

Here is a judgment from the Delhi HC. When a complaint that is cognizable is made, the police are required to file an FIR. They can file the FIR and then investigate, but not investigate first. The court also says that in the event that the allegations are false, the complainant must be charged under section 182 of IPC.

Here is the judgement: Delhi HC: Mandatory Registration Of FIR In A Cognizable Case

___________________________

Misc. Judgments Tying 498A, 304 And 306

Folks.

I’ve been very busy and lack the bandwidth to summarize. Please bear with me. Time isn’t something I can spare right now. Anyway, here are the links:

• SC – DILAWAR BALU Vs Maharashtra 2002
• SC – Kaliyaperumal Vs St Of Tamil Nadu
• Delhi HC: Sunil Bansal Vs St Of Delhi

_______________________________

SC Upholds Constitutionality Of Section 498-A

This judgment is explained in this article by Rakesh Shukla

The article is from InfoChange India

_____________________

Delhi Mediation Center

Here is the link

Here is an excerpt of what is covered by this center:

“The working of the mediation centres has revealed that Suits for Injunction, Specific Performance, Suit for Recovery, Labour Management disputes, Motor Accident Claims cases and Matrimonial Disputes have met with a positive result during mediation.
As far as criminal cases are concerned, cases of harassment on account of dowry and cruelty under section 406/498-A IPC and under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are suitable for mediation.”

_________________________________

Stats On Persons Arrested Under The IPC Cases

These are stats from the NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau).

I stumbled upon them due to an act of god.

Stats on Persons Arrested Nationwide Under IPC Cases.

The report states that there is an increase in the number of people arrested under dowry harassment cases.

Here is an excerpt:

“The crime head-wise and sex-wise break-up of persons arrested for IPC crimes during 2005 are presented in Table-12.2. The female criminality in the total IPC crimes accounted to 5.8 percent only (same as previous year), however, the percentage share of female arrestees was higher for those crimes which are perpetrated on women such as Cruelty by Husband and Relatives (22.5%) followed by Dowry Deaths (22.4%) and Kidnapping & Abduction of Women & Girls (7.1%).”

Here is the link which details the stats on Crimes Against Women

_________________________________

Delhi HC: The Reasoning Behind Permitting The Compounding Of 498A Cases

Folks,
for a while, I’ve wondered why the courts allow the compounding of 498A cases when 498A is NON-COMPOUNDABLE. Justice Dhingra offers an explanation in this judgment. This is a judgment from 2007. Here is an excerpt:

“The Courts have been allowing quashing of proceedings under Section 498A /406 Indian Penal Code, 1860 because in such cases the FIRs are result of matrimonial discord and more often the effort of the Court is that either the parties should settle for a compromise for living together or they should part their company peacefully, so that, there is peace and amity in the society. In cases resulting from matrimonial discord, the Court is not dealing with criminal but dealing with broken marriages and broken homes where resort is more often made to Sections 498A/406 Indian Penal Code, 1860 to teach lessons to the family of husband or to take revenge”

Here is the link to the judgment: Delhi HC: Permitting The Compounding Of 498A Cases

_______________________________________

SC Judgment: Jagraj Singh Vs Birpal Kaur – 2007

This is a divorce case which deals with jurisdiction and the consequences for not obeying summons issued by an Indian Court AFTER submitting to its jurisdiction.

Here is the judgment:  SC Judgment: Jagraj Singh Vs Birpal Kaur

_________________________

Implications In A False Case

This is a case from 1999.

This is an issue of rape where the accuser recanted.

In our country, a person accused of rape has more rights than a mother or sister or any other member of the family of a male falsely accused in a 498A case.

Here is the judgment: Allahabad HC-False Rape Case 1999

Clinck here to find out when you can file damages/compensation for being implicated in a false case.

_______________________________

Delhi HC: Passport revocation (NRI 498A Case) Oct 2005

This is a case dealing with an NRI and the revocation of his passport.

Link to news article

Before the passport issue, looks like the guy had applied for AB, but I am not sure if it is the same person though the names match. Here is the link to the Raj Kishore Tayal AB Order.

Looks like they issued a red corner notice too. Here is the link to the CBI Interpol site.

Link to Delhi HC Passport revocation judgment

_________________________

Delhi HC: Justice JD Kapoor “Make 498A Bailable”

Folks,

Finally found the judgment by Justice JD Kapoor from 2003. He describes the predicament of families facing a 498A accurately.

Here is the link to the news article.

Here is a link to the news article where the desi Taliban were trotted out to protest this judgment, that reflects reality so well.

Here is an excerpt of this judgment:

“Once a complaint is lodged under Sections 498A/406 IPC whether there are vague, unspecific or exaggerate allegations or there is no evidence of any physical or mental harm or injury inflicted upon woman that is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, it comes as an easy tool in the hands of Police and agencies like Crime Agains Women Cell to hound them with the threat of arrest making them run here and there and force them to hide at their friends or relatives houses till they get anticipatory bail as the offence has been made cognizable and non-bailable. Thousands of such c mplaints and cases are pending and are being lodged day in and day out.”

Here is the judgment: Justice JD Kapoor “Make 498A Bailable”

________________________

Hindu Joint Family

I need to dig deeper.

In the mean time, check this out.

__________________________