Haryana 'rape victim' put behind bars

Chandigarh: The Haryana Police have pulled off a shocking one. A rape victim who has been seeking justice for herself was arrested before being bailed out Wednesday.
The victim, who had alleged that a youth, Rahul, had sexual relations with her for two years after promising to marry her, was arrested in Hisar town, 260 km from here, Monday.
She was arrested after she allegedly threatened to kill woman Deputy Superintendent of Police Dharna Yadav in the presence of another officer.
The rape victim, who lives in Hisar's Sector 13, was arrested by police on charges of criminal intimidation.
The victim complained to police in February against Rahul. Police booked him for rape but did not arrest him, apparently owing to his family's political links.
The victim started a protest against police Monday.
A police officer of Hisar district said they took action as per law.

http://www.samachar.com/Haryana-rape-victim-put-behind-bars-njlxK4jgjij.html 

1 in 10 men in Asia Pacific has raped an unknown woman, finds study

Feminism spread in such way that study results are coming the way they wants to show to others.

LONDON: In a new study to be announced on Tuesday by the British medical journal The Lancet, a survey of more than 10,000 men in Asia Pacific region has found that over 1 in 10 men report having raped a woman who was not their partner.

The number rose tremendously when rape of a partner was included.

Nearly 75% of those who committed rape said that they did so for sexual entitlement and over 50% said they did it for entertainment. Another 50% of men reported having committed some form of physical or sexual violence or abuse against their partner.

Men were surveyed from nine different sites across six different countries: Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Sri Lanka as part of a UN study on men and violence for prevention of gender-based violence in Asia and the Pacific.

Professor Rachel Jewkes of South Africa's Medical Research Council who carried out the study said, "In view of the high prevalence of rape worldwide, our findings clearly show that prevention strategies need to show increased focus on the structural and social risk factors for rape. We now need to move towards a culture of preventing the perpetration of rape from ever occurring, rather than relying on prevention through responses."

The surveys were performed by trained male interviewers who recorded results onto handheld computer devices with bespoke software. Participants answered the most sensitive questions alone by self-completing audio recordings in response to questions.

Men were not asked directly whether they had committed rape or violence, but were rather asked questions such as, "Have you ever forced a woman who was not your wife or girlfriend at the time to have sex?", or "Have you ever had sex with a woman who was too drugged or drunk to indicate whether she wanted it?"

Overall, over one in ten men surveyed (11%) reported having raped a woman who was not their partner.

When raping a partner was included, this proportion rose to nearly 24%. Of those men who reported having committed rape, just under half (45%) said they had raped more than one woman.

The prevalence of rape perpetration varied widely between study sites. The lowest prevalence of single perpetrator rape of a female non-partner was in rural Bangladesh (3%), while the highest prevalence (27%) was in Bougainville, Papua New Guinea.

The lowest prevalence (2%) of male rape was found in Jayapura and Jakarta in Indonesia while the highest (8%) was again found in Bougainville, Papua New Guinea.

When asked why they had committed rape, 73% of respondents who had committed rape said that they did so for reasons of sexual entitlement.

Over half (59%) said they did it for entertainment, while over a third (38%) said they had raped a woman in order to punish her. Over half (58%) of men who had raped somebody who was not their partner had committed their first rape as teenagers.

Men with a history of victimization especially childhood sexual abuses were more likely to have committed rape than those without such a past.

A history of physical violence towards a partner, having paid for sex, or having had a large number of sexual partners were also associated with an increased likelihood of having committed rape against a non-partner. 

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/1-in-10-men-in-Asia-Pacific-has-raped-an-unknown-woman-finds-study/articleshow/22452776.cms 

Bill without benefits

The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill is aimed at addressing two different concerns — making divorce easy and protecting the economic rights of women, but succeeds in doing neither

Though the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010, passed by the Rajya Sabha last week, granting some women a limited right in their husband’s property, is a step in the right direction, it falls short of expectations. The right has been extended only to Hindu women and those who marry under the Special Marriage Act and whose husbands have filed for divorce on the ground of marriage breakdown. What was needed was a separate statute (like the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act) to protect the economic rights of all married women and not just of a privileged few, and that too through convoluted clauses.
The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill is aimed at addressing two different concerns — making divorce easy and protecting the economic rights of women, but succeeds in doing neither. To waive the statutory six month “cooling period” for securing a divorce by mutual consent, when both parties desire it due to hardships caused to them, one did not need a major law reform. The family courts across the country were routinely doing this in cases where the parties made a joint application explaining the hardship. In 2002, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the Anjana Kishore vs Puneet Kishore case had directed the courts to do away with this provision. The higher judiciary was also granting divorce on the ground of breakdown of marriage in specific cases of protracted litigation. In 1995, in the Romesh Chander vs Savitri case, the Supreme Court, while upholding the principle of marriage breakdown, had directed the husband to transfer the matrimonial home to the wife’s name at the time of divorce.
Even while puncturing holes in the bill, one must admit that it is an improved version of the earlier bill introduced unceremoniously in the Rajya Sabha in August 2010 and later referred to the Joint Select Committee. The urgency for the 2010 bill was to rectify the harmful precedent set by a ruling of the Supreme Court which concerned the daughter of Sushil Kumar Shinde, the Union home minister. The Supreme Court had, in 2009, upheld the ruling of the Bombay high court which had set aside an irregular divorce granted by the family court of Mumbai under rather peculiar circumstances, disregarding the provisions of law. So a bill was hastily introduced, touted as a “women friendly” bill as it would make divorce easy for women despite the fact that it did not make any financial provisions to safeguard their rights. Not surprisingly, the bill received the support of men’s rights groups, which, in itself, ought to have been a warning signal.
Proverbially, one swallow does not a summer make. The need to obtain a quick divorce and “move on in life” is a luxury enjoyed by only a microscopic minority of women who are independent with sufficient means or family backing. For the rest, marriage is an economic partnership, and its dissolution, especially one that disregards their non-monetary contribution to the household in the form of unpaid labour, deprives them of their shelter and sustenance, rendering them destitute. In fact, most women approach the courts for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code when they are abandoned by their husbands. When orders are passed in their favour, the husbands file divorce proceedings to spite them. But under the present system, the husband has to prove cruelty or desertion, which even in the hands of the most astute lawyers is not easy. It is at this stage that the woman gets an opportunity to negotiate for her economic rights and a husband, eager to obtain a divorce, may be willing to negotiate a lump sum financial settlement. But if divorce becomes a certainty, women will be deprived of this negotiating power and the state would then have to step in and make a statutory provision to make their lives financially secure.
Rather unfortunately, this dire need to protect women was overlooked by the various law commissions while recommending the introduction of irretrievable breakdown of marriage within the Indian context, though all countries which they mention in support of their recommendations have a property division clause attached to the breakdown clause. The first official mention of this provision is found only in the Report of the Joint Select Committee submitted to the Rajya Sabha in March 2011, after several women’s groups made written and oral depositions before it.
But the present bill has several provisions which are counterproductive. It stipulates that if a petition for divorce is pending before a court for over three years, the courts have the power to dissolve the marriage. But the provision to keep a petition pending for three years is not available in law as it lapses at the end of 18 months. Soon after a petition lapses, the party desiring divorce can file on the ground of marriage breakdown without having to wait for a further period of one-and-a-half years.
Second, even for obtaining divorce on “no fault ground”, evidence would have to be led to prove the three years separation. To make matters worse, it allows a period of not more than three months of cohabitation in between. Third, in order to avail of the provision of property division, the wife would have to file a separate “petition” rather than a simple “interim application”.
And the most contentious issue — adequate provision to remedy the hardship caused to the wife, would need lengthy and elaborate trial. If the couple could reach a consensus, they would have opted for a divorce by mutual consent. The fact that it has reached a stage of invoking the ground of breakdown of marriage is a sure sign that it will lead to protracted litigation. The courts would then have to determine what is “self acquired”, what is ancestral and the notional value of “heritable” property as compared to other heirs and use the living standard criteria to ascertain undisclosed wealth — all this is a nightmare for any trial court judge.
It would have been simpler to declare that all property acquired by husband at the time of marriage or in the course of marriage be deemed as “joint property” to be divided at the time of divorce, with an additional clause to secure the wife’s rights in the matrimonial residence, as is done in Britain and other Commonwealth countries. This simple solution, along with a state scheme to prevent destitution of all abandoned women whose husbands do not own property, nor have any means of livelihood, would have been beneficial.
The writer is a women’s rights lawyer
 

http://www.asianage.com/columnists/bill-without-benefits-043 

Man dies in 'police custody'

Man dies in 'police custody'

PATNA: A man, arrested in a dowry case, allegedly died in police custody at Salimpur on Thursday morning.

Salimpur SHO said, "Deceased - Gajendra Prasad Mishra was arrested on Wednesday night in a dowry case lodged by one Dinesh Jha, the father-in-law of Mishra's youngest son Ravi Mishra. On Thursday morning, he started vomiting. We immediately took him to Bahadurpur hospital where he was declared brought dead by the doctors. We are investigating the reason of his death."

According to the police, Ravi Mishra was married to Manita, Dinesh's daughter, who on April 2 this year committed suicide after consuming poison. Dinesh lodged an FIR against Gajendra, Ravi and his mother Shubhkala Mishra for dowry death.

Deceased brother Vijay Mishra said that Dinesh had struck a deal of Rs 3 lakh with his brother to take back the case. "My brother went to meet Dinesh on Wednesday and gave Rs 2.5 lakh with condition of paying rest of the amount only after the withdrawal of the case. Dinesh took the money and offered him a soft drink. Later when my brother left the place, Dinesh called up the police and get him arrested. He was brought to Salimpur police station on Wednesday night," Vijay said.

Vijay further said Dinesh must have poisoned the soft drink that he offered to his brother. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/Man-dies-in-police-custody/articleshow/21718809.cms 

wife & in law jailed for 5 years