498A Counter Cases To Fight Back With – Compiled By Rudy

Rudy’s compilation for avenues of possible counter cases
32, 120B,
167 (investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours),
182 (offenses committed by letters),
191 (transfer on application of the accused),
197 (prosecution of judges and public servants),
199 (defamation) ,
200 (examination of complainant) ,
201 (Magistrate not competent), 204,
209 (triable exclusively by Court of Session), 211,
249 (absence of complainant) ,
250 (compensation for accusation), 306,
321 (withdrawl from prosecution) ,
323 (commit to Session Court), 355, 378, 379,
384 (summary dismissal of appeal),
392 (judge of Court of Appeal are equally divided),
406 (criminal breach of trust), 420,
467 (period of limitation), 471,
497 (adultery), 499,
500 (defamation) ,
504 (insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace),
506 (criminal intimidation) , RCR
Damage recovery case u/s 9 of CPC (law of torts):
If she breaks into your home, creates a scene, and goes to ” protection
officer ” and lies that you abused her “physically, emotionally or
economically” , file a damage recovery case u/s 9 of CPC against her. Legally,
you must issue notice on the same day or next day. The suit will continue for
long time. It has no risk.

What I had compiled sometime back, may some repetition wrt Rudy’s options. S.191 :Giving false evidence+ S.340(1) of CrPC for Perjury @ Family/Magistrate Court
matter
S.209 : Dishonest claim
S.211 : False charge of offence made with intent to injure
S.361 : For child – Kidnapping from lawful guardianship
S.378 :Theft
S.383 : Extortion
S.463 : Forgery
S.499: Defamation

Sections which u can check with ur advocate(I dont remember the IPC section offhand for these crimes) – Criminal Intimidation, Criminal breach of trust(non return of loans), Threatening, Abbetment of crime, these may be referring to a period before even your wife filed cases against you.

Some other sections of IPC helpful for husband side:
182 False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person
191 Giving false evidence
192 Fabricating false evidence
195A Threatening any person to
give false evidence
196 Using evidence known to be false
197 Issuing or signing false certificate
198 Using as true a certificate known to be false
199 False statement made in declaration which is by law
receivable as evidence
200 Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false
201 Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or
giving false information to screen offender
202 Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform
203 Giving false information respecting an offence commited
204 destruction of document to prevent its production as evidence
205 False personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution there are
more

___________________________________________

Shaleen Kabra DV Act Judgment

Finally, got my hands on this thanks to a reader.

This is important as a Delhi additional sessions court had 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.

The order of the ASJ was also upheld by the Delhi HC.

You can read the full story here:

PMO Official Accused Of Domestic Violence By Wife

You can download the ASJ and the Delhi HC judgments  here:

Shaleen Kabra DV Act Judgments-2008

___________________________________

On The Feminazis Of The Bell Bajao Campaign

I was wondering what this Bell Bajao thing was about and after googling it, found this site:

Breakthrough.tv | Bell Bajao

Upon closer scrutiny, I noticed it had a large paid staff with fancy titles. You can check out their profiles here:  The Bell Bajao Team

So far so good. Next question. Who is funding or supporting these guys ?

One component of the answer was provided by a faint but familiar stench, wafting by this site. I recognized it immediately !!

Lawyers Collective !!!!

I followed the stench and found the source:

http://www.breakthrough.tv/pdf/dvpamphlet.pdf

The pdf contains the usual  propaganda about the PWDVA, highlights being:

• The PWDVA is a civil law aimed at providing relief to millions of women, including wives, mothers, daughters & sisters affected by violence in their homes.
• Residence: The woman cannot be evicted from the shared household
• Monetary relief and maintenance: She is entitled to maintenance, including loss of earning, medical expenses, damage to property
• Compensation: She can claim damages for mental and physical injuries
• Interim Order/Ex Parte order: The court can pass an interim order to prevent violence before the final order. In the absence of the other party to the dispute, an Ex Parte order can be passed.

Here is a post to help the victims of the Indian domestic violence act :

Citations From Judgments To WIN DV Act Cases

What is wrong with this stupid law, apart from being clumsily drafted?

For starters, it mandates that only women are victims of domestic violence and attempts to prop up this myth with some numbers conjured up from someone’s rear end. One such Feminazi statistic is this much publicized:

“One out of every three women faces violence behind closed doors“

Really ??!!!

Let’s take a look at this number again.

India has a population of 1,000,000,000 (1+ Billion.  What a shame !)

Let’s say approximately half of them are women of all ages so that makes it 500,000,000.

According to this Feminazi statistic,  1/3 of these women of all ages face domestic violence behind closed doors.

This means

500,000,000 / 3 = 166,666,667

which is effectively a little more than half the population of the US.

Considering that this law (PWDVA) defines domestic violence as being inflicted only by men upon women, then we have an equal number of men, 166,666,667,  subjecting women to domestic violence behind closed doors.

This effectively means, 320,000,000 Indians are living in violence and misery.

What does this number really mean?

This number means that the entire Indian Middle Class is living in misery and subjecting itself to domestic violence.

Why would I say middle class?

Because nobody cares about the  poor and the abjectly  poor brethen of our country, whose number goes into 600,000,000+. They face a greater violence: poverty.

How does one apply the DV in its present form, with compensations, right to residence and all its idiocies to the poor and the very poor?  Heck  ! If you don’t live in a house which Bell will you Bajao?

In reality the poor don’t have the taste for the finer aspects of life like the PWDVA.

You can forget about the political class and the very rich. Things like the DV Act don’t apply to them, because if it did, the beneficiaries of this nonsense would be booted onto the streets, instead of hob nobbing with the elites and the political class in fancy hotels and conference venues. Try getting past the security guards and the throngs of hangers on to Bajao the Bell of the homes of the political class and the very rich.  To illustrate my point, try to Bajao the Bell of Union Minister “498A accused” Arjun Singh !!

By this reasoning,  a huge chunk of the Indian population can be eliminated from the purview of the DV Act.

This leaves the upper middle, the middle, and the lower middle classes, which are estimated to be around 400,000,000. The PWDVA is targeted precisely towards this strata of Indian society and so does this shoddy campaign. The middles classes have not organized themselves into a solid voting block. They remain divided and are a tempting target for Indian Feminazis to extract their pound of flesh from.

For a population size that is still greater than that of the US, that is a lot of Bells To Bajao, cases to stuff down into clogged courts, protection orders to issue and prime properties to be taken over under the excuse of right to residence!!

One last question. If all this domestic violence was going on behind closed doors, how on earth did these people compile these statistics ?

Talking about statistics, here are some real ones compiled by the NCRB.

The first set is the comparison of the rates of suicide by Men Vs Women from 2006 and 2007

• NCRB-Male/Female Suicides: 2006 to 2007

Here is another somber number from the NCRB.

The illegal arrest of over 1,30, 000 women on account of the same kind of malicious propaganda as this silly Bell Bajao campaign, the dowry law:

• NCRB DATA On Women Arrested Under 498A-Since-2004

I end with a little ditty that is sure to Bajao the Ghanti  of these Bell Bajao types !

Ding Dong Bell
Frog in the well
She pulled his hair
You think it is fair?
He screamed his lungs out
As he was being thrown out
Who goes to jail?
It’s Johnny, without fail
Oh what a nasty bitch you are
To gloat on a gender war!

-Ditty By A 498 A sister And warrior

_____________________________________________

Email The CIC, Wajahat Habibullah – Indian Express

I just came across this article in the express.

Here is the email address of the CIC: whabibullah@nic.in

This is what he looks like:

You can read the article here: 

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/cic-and-his-inbox-of-rti-requests/419231/2

______________________________________________

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

_________________________________________________

CrPC Sec 41 Amendment Maybe The Law Someday

====================UPDATE=====================

Jun/14/09

The amendments are on hold due to sustained opposition by some of the beneficiaries of arbitrary arrests, the lawyers. They consider this “anti-lawyer” as they will lose a huge revenue stream due to the cut back in bail applications, once the gazette notification is issued.

Regardless, please remember that the CrPC amendment to Section 41, is the codification of Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP, 1994. This judgment clearly states that an arrest is an exception and that an arrest should only be made in heinous crimes and that too only after an investigation and must be justified. Please download this judgment and keep a copy with you if you fear an arrest by the police for any reason:

Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP – 1994

=====================E=N=D=======================

The amendment to Section 41 of the CrPC has been signed into law by the President Of India.

As soon as the gazette notification is issued, no person can be arrested under 498A by the police without an investigation.

This is what the new Home Minister had to say:

“Referring to Section 41 of the Act, Chidambaram said in his letter, “This provision was severely criticised as capable of being misused and, in fact, was being misused.” To substantiate his point, he advised CMs to refer to reports of the Law Commission and the Malimath Committee and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in D K Basu case which laid down guidelines for effecting arrest. “

It is not just DK Basu Vs State Of WB, Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP has what has been codified into the CrPC amendment. This is an action that has been long overdue.

Bar associations across the country have been protesting under the pretext that these CrPC amendment (Section 41, CrPC), doing away with mandatory arrest provisions, would remove fear from the minds of criminals who would misuse the provisions under the garb of personal liberty.

What the bar associations will never tell you is that the police never had the power to make such arrests and that arrest is an exception and not the norm.

The fact is that by law,  it is the seminal  judgment of the Supreme Court, Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP,  that governs arrests in India.

The reasons the bar associations are giving for protesting against the CrPC amendments, such  as criminals not fearing the law and other such excuses is just plain bullshit.

They are giving their game away by saying with the same breath that these amendments are anti-lawyer and will reduce their income. Really !

How low can you get?

For a measly few thousand Rupees, these lawyers want to have entire families entangled in the corrupt criminal justice system for years !! Talk about ethics!

“Among the grouses of the lawyers is that the law if enacted will eat into their work substantially reducing their income. A sizeable income of the lawyers is generated by Bail related works.”

Now you know why these lawyers are protesting so that they can get bail related gravy. How about doing an honest days work for a change?

In reality, this amendment does away with the need to get bails and anticipatory bails,  a rich source of revenue for the lawyers, the dirty Indian cops, some filthy lower court magistrates and public prosecutors.

To see what I mean, take a look at the NCRB stats about the women arrested under 498A. If the SC guidelines had been judiciously followed, do you think so many men, women or children would have been arrested? Click here to look at the stats.

The CrPC amendments effectively signals the end of using 498A for extortion as the cops can no longer use arrests for extortion. Also remember this, the cops never had the power to arrest without cause or justification.  Hence, almost all 498A arrests have been illegal detentions.

This is a significant win for all who are fighting against the tyranny on men and their families imposed by this law, IPC 498A.

The Indian Feminazis are so stupid that they did not foresee the immediate consequence of this law or they would have been up in arms. I saw this coming and kept my mouth shut in order to not draw any attention to this beneficial side effect in the fight against 498A. The stupidity of the Feminazis can be guaged by the fact that they are ignoring the basic tenet of the Constitution, Habeas Corpus or the right against arbitrary detention, which this amendment codifies into the CrPC. They can try to change the Constitution Of India if they are unhappy about these amendments.

PS:

Should the govt decide to reverse course and allow arrests under 498A, I would be very happy. Why ?

The reason being that more Swarup Sarkars will emerge to bash the Feminazis and roll back the gains they made.

So Indian Feminazis, please do your best to roll back these amendments !

________________________________________

The Important Sections Of The Dowry Prohibition Act

Penalty for giving or taking dowry–  5[ (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  6[ with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than  7[ 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 judgement, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than  8[ five years].
1[(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to, –

1. 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;
2. presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in the behalf).
   Provided that such presents 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].

8A. Burden of proof in certain cases – Where any person is prosecuted for taking or abetting the taking of any dowry under section 3, or the demanding of dowry under section 4, the burden of proving that he had not committed an offence under those sections shall be on him

The Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985

G.S.R.664(E)-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 9 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), the Central Government hereby make the following rules, namely:-

1. Short title and commencement-(1) These rules may be called the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985.
   (2) They shall come into force on the 2nd day of October, 1985 being the date appointed for the coming into force of the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (63 of 1984).
2. Rules in accordance with which lists of presents are to be maintained-
   (1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bride shall be maintained by the bride.
   (2) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bridegroom shall be maintained by the bridegroom.
   (3) Every list of presents referred to in sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2)-

1. shall be prepared at the time of the marriage or as soon as possible after the marriage;
2. shall be in writing;
3. shall contain-
   1. a brief description of each present;
   2. the approximate value of the present;
   3. the name of the person who has given the present; and
   4. where the person giving the present is related to the bride or bridegroom, a description of such relationship;
4. shall be signed by both the bride and the bridegroom.

Explanation I- Where the bride is unable to sign, she may affix her thumb-impression in lieu of her signature after having the list read out to her and obtaining the signature, on the list, of the person who has so read out the particulars contained in the list.

Explanation II- Where the bridegroom is unable to sign he may affix his thumb-impression in lieu of his signature after having the list read out to him and obtaining the signature, on the list, of the person who has so read out the particulars contained in the list.

(4) The bride or the bridegroom may, if she or he so desires, obtain on either or both of the lists referred to in sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) the signature or signatures of any relations of the bride or the bridegroom or of any other person present at the time of the marriage.

The full act is given below:

THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961

———————————————–

Apne Aap Raaton Mein…

It’s really late and I should try to get some sleep. I have a ton of work to do in the morning and I need to prepare  for a grueling new project which starts next week in another country.

Somehow I stumbled across three hauntingly beautiful songs composed by the music director Khayyam, from the movie Shankar Husain.  I heard these songs years ago, in younger, kinder, and gentler days, when “Kahin Ek Maasoom, Nazuk Si Ladki” meant something.

I’m hooked on these songs and have been listening to them repeatedly. I’m unable to turn in for the night. I am overcome with nostalgia and a whole host of thoughts on what should have been. I cannot comprehend what my ex-wife  hoped to achieve by filing a 498A against me.

Anyway, these songs are FANTASTIC !!

And so, for  a change, instead of judgments and what ever, here is something to enjoy in a moment of quietude:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9enhZVCFNY0&feature=related
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OByaVKsCFMg&feature=related
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg-5S9RDyeY&feature=related

________________________________________________

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:

• AP HC DV NOT RETROSPECTIVE – 3714/2007

__________________________________

An NRI Wins An Interim Maintenance Case – 2008

An NRI has won his interim maintenance case.

He will remain anonymous, but he has shown us how to fight and win an interim maintenance case.

I hope to have more from him soon.

Here is the judgment:  an-nri-wins-an-interim-maintenance-case-2008

____________________________________________

Justice Dhingra: Courts Are Not Tools For Extortion

This is pretty what the noble Justice Dhingra has said in his recent judgment in the case of  SATINDER PAL SINGH VS. DAMAN PREET KAUR.

Why can’t we have more judges like him around the country ?

Here is the judgment:    SATINDER PAL SINGH VS. DAMAN PREET KAUR-2008

_________________________________________

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: 

____________________________________________

HRLN On Knowing Your Rights

HRLN Know Your Rights

_________________________________________________________________

SC: Reputation Is A Facet Of Right To Life – Nov 2008

I consider this judgment to be an important tool in the fight against this extortion racket.

Here are a few exceprts:

17.    If a person against whom a prevention detention order has been passed can show to the Court that the said detention order is clearly illegal why should he be compelled to go to jail? To tell such a person that although such a detention order is illegal he must yet go to jail though he will be released later is a meaningless and futile exercise.
18.    It must be remembered that every person has a fundamental right of liberty vide Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21, which gives the right of life and liberty, is the most fundamental of all the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution. Though, no doubt, restrictions can be placed on these rights in the interest of public order, security of the State, etc. but they are not to be lightly transgressed.
21.    If a person is sent to jail then even if he is subsequently released, his reputation may be irreparably tarnished. As observed by this Court in State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Public Concern for Governance Trust & Ors. 2007 (3) SCC 587, the reputation of a person is a facet of his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution (vide paragraphs 39 and 40 of the said decision).
22.    As observed by the three Judge bench of this Court in Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 1994 SC 1349 (vide para 24) : “………..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.” (emphasis supplied)
24.    If a person against whom a preventive detention order has been passed comes to Court at the pre execution stage and satisfies the Court that the detention order is clearly illegal, there is no reason why the Court should stay its hands and compel the petitioner to go to jail even though he is bound to be released subsequently (since the detention order was illegal). As already mentioned above, the liberty of a person is a precious fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and should not be likely transgressed. Hence in our opinion Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia’s case (supra) cannot be construed to mean that the five grounds mentioned therein for quashing the detention order at the pre execution stage are exhaustive. 28.
28.    Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a writ of habeas corpus lies only when there is illegal detention, and in the present case since the petitioner has not yet been arrested, no writ of habeas corpus can be issued. We regret we cannot agree, and that for two reasons. Firstly, Article 226 and Article 32 of the Constitution permit the High Court and the Supreme Court to not only issue the writs which were traditionally issued by British Courts but these Articles give much wider powers to this Court and the High Court. This is because Article 32 and Article 226 state that the Supreme Court and High Court can issue writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, etc. and they can also issue orders and directions apart from issuing writs. The words `in the nature of’ imply that the powers of this Court or the High Court are not subject to the traditional restrictions on the powers of the British Courts to issue writs. Thus the powers of this Court and the High Court are much wider than those of the British Courts vide Dwarka Nath vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, D Ward, Kanpur & Anr. AIR 1966 SC 81 (vide para 4), Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. vs. V.R. Rudani & Ors. AIR 1989 SC 1607 (vide para 16 to 18), etc. Secondly, what the petitioner really prays for is a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned detention order and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus for restraining the respondents from arresting him. Hence even if the petitioner is not in detention a writ of certiorari and/or mandamus can issue.
29.    The celebrated writ of habeas corpus has been described as `a great constitutional privilege of the citizen’ or `the first security of civil liberty’. The writ provides a prompt and effective remedy against illegal detention and its purpose is to safeguard the liberty of the citizen, which is a precious right not to be lightly transgressed by anyone. The imperative necessity to protect those precious rights is a lesson taught by all history and all human experience. Our founding fathers have lived through bitter years of the freedom struggle and seen an alien government trample upon the human rights of our citizens. It is for this reason that they introduced Article 21 in the Constitution and provided for the writs of habeas corpus, etc.

Here is the judgment: Deepak Bajaj Vs Ste Of Maharashtra-2008

__________________________________________________________________

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:

IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR: ACMM: NEW DELHI
Ashma Vs. Afsar Etc.
CC No.311/8
Date of institution :28.07.2008
15.10.2008

O R D E R
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

______________________________________________________

Justice JD Kapoor Clarifies Arrests/Bails/Chargesheets

This is 8 pages of valuable information. If you read this, this you will know more about arrests/bails and chargesheets than anyone else.

I here is the judgment: Court On Its Own Motion Vs CBI-2004: Justice JD Kapoor

________________________________________________________________________

Justice Dhingra’s Judgment Clarifying CrPC 125

CrPC 125 is meant to serve as a tool to prevent destitution. Highly qualified Indian women harass their husbands by filing these cases to park themselves on their butts and collect tax free pay checks.

Justice Dhingra has turned his attention to putting an end to this malaise of laziness. This judgment embodies everything that can be done to end the abuse of CrPC 125.

Here is the text of this short and sharp judgment:

The petitioner who is an MBBS qualified Doctor and admittedly had been in practice before, claims that she was sitting at home despite being a qualified Doctor and does not work. The petitioner claimed maintenance against her husband who is in service. The Trial Court granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month. This petition is made against observation of the Trial Court that she was working somewhere and earning around Rs.8,000 to 10,000/- PM and that the maintenance granted by the Trial Court was made subject to adjustment of the maintenance being received by her under Section 125. Since counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is not working anywhere, despite being a qualified Doctor, I consider that as she is receiving maintenance from husband, the Court should not allow her experience and qualification to go waste. I consider that she should be directed to work as a honorary Doctor in some public welfare institute or school free of charges where she can take care of health of the poor people. Let her come to Court and give an undertaking that she was prepared to work without charging anything in any institution named by this Court around her house minimum 5 hours a day and 6 days a week, so long she receives maintenance from her husband on the plea of being unemployed.

Here is the judgment: Justice Dhingra’s Landmark Judgment On Purpose Of CrPC 125

PS:

Thanks to the visitor who posted this judgment on my blog as a comment.

____________________________________________________________

Justice Dhingra Fines A Woman For Alienating The Son From The Father

Here are the excerpts from this case:

4.  The notice of the petition was served upon the wife who appeared along with her counsel and also brought the child to the Court. She stated that she could not comply with the order as the child was unwilling to meet his father. The child in this case is about five and a half years old and is student of Class-I. While her mother was addressing the Court the child started weeping loudly and cried that he does not want to meet his father and he continuously cried for some time. It looked as if weeping button has been switched on. Thereafter, this Court enquired from the child why he was unwilling to meet the father. The child told that his father used to beat him and his mother, during meetings. He could not give a single instance of beating either of him or his mother. It is not the case of respondent also that the petitioner used to beat them at the time of meeting under visitation rights. The enquiry made from the child showed that the mind of child was highly poisoned against the petitioner by the respondent and he was tutored to a great extent. It is amply clear that the respondent who was not agreeable to the visitation rights, had seen to it that the child himself created such a scene in the Court that the Court was convinced that child was unwilling to meet the father. The child is of tender years age. The manner in which the mind of the child has been poisoned against the father shows that the respondent was out to frustrate the order of the Court.
5.  It is apparent that there is a clear and willful design of defiance of the order of this Court by the respondent who used the child as a tool of her design by poisoning the mind of the child to such an extent that the child started crying on just seeing the father without any provocation in the Court itself.
6.  Although, it is a clear case of contempt committed by the wife but I consider that it would not be appropriate to sent the wife to the jail since that would cause further trauma of the child and it would be appropriate if a fine of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on the wife for defying the order of the Court. A fine of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on the respondent. In case of default of depositing the fine she shall suffer a simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks.

Here is the judgment: Mr.Aman Oberoi Versus Ms. Tina Oberoi

_______________________________________

Justice Dhingra Explains The Guidelines Used To Determine Child Custody

Here is what Justice Dhingra says while determining an interim child custody case:

“The principles of law in relation to the custody of a minor child are well settled. It is trite that while determining the question as to which parent the care and control of a child should be committed, the first and the paramount consideration is the welfare and interest of the child and not the rights of the parents under a statute. Indubitably the provisions of law pertaining to the custody of child contained in either the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980 (Section 17) or the Hindu Minority and guardianship Act, 1956 (Section 13) also hold out the welfare of the child are predominant consideration. In fact, no statute on the subject, can ignore, eschew or obliterate the vital factor of the welfare of the minor. The question of welfare of the minor child has again to be considered in the background of the relevant facts and circumstances. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and other decided cases can hardly serve as binding precedents insofar as the factual aspects of the case are concerned. It is, no doubt, true that father is presumed by the statutes to be better suited to look after the welfare of the child, being normally the working member and   head of the family, yet in each case the Court has to see primarily to the welfare of the child in determining the question of his or her custody. Better financial resources of either of the parents or their love for the child may be one of the relevant considerations but cannot be the sold determining factor for the custody of the child. It is here that a heavy duty is cast on the Court to exercise its judicial discretion judiciously in the background of all the relevant facts and circumstances, bearing in mind the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.”

Here is the judgment: J Dhingra: CM(M) No. 752/2000 Ram Murti Chopra and Anr. v. Nagesh Tyagi

More information can be had from here:

INTERPARENTAL CHILD CUSTODY DISPUTES – THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE

___________________________________________________

Justice Dhingra Rules That Attorney Can Represent Client In Mutual Divorce Cases

Justice Dhingra had to say the following:

“Where the parties are living far away from the jurisdiction of the Court competent to dissolve the marriage, the parties after filing their affidavits can appoint attorneys to act on their behalf. Attorney is competent to act on behalf of the principal on the basis of power of attorney executed by the principal. The Courts have been allowing attorneys to file the petition, to withdraw the petition, to carry on proceedings in the Court on behalf of their principal in all other cases. The attorney can also act in matrimonial cases as per instructions of their principle. The Court can take necessary precautions to prevent frauds being perpetuated on it but unless the Court smells some kind of fraud being played with it, the Court should normally recognize the act of the attorneys.”

Here is the judgment: Justice Dhingra Rules That Attorney Can Represent Client In Mutual Divorce Cases

_______________________________________________________________