‘Rape cases will drop 70% if HC ruling is enforced’

‘Rape cases will drop 70% if HC ruling is enforced’

City lawyers handling domestic and family disputes have welcomed a recent judgement by the Bombay High Court (HC) stating that women filing false rape cases should be prosecuted.

Mens organisations have said that this judgement will help create a gender neutral society and if properly executed will help to bring down the number of rape cases by 70 per cent. They allege that most rape cases are filed after relations break down after consensual sex.

www.wikipedia.org

Justice Sadhna Jadhav of the HC on Wednesday observed that women who file rape cases in a fit of rage to fix their partners and later withdraw complaints, should be prosecuted.

She remarked that of late several cases were coming before the HC in which victims filed complaints alleging rape and contending that they had entered relationships after being promised marriage.

In a relationship between consenting adults, sometimes such complaints are filed in the heat of moment and withdrawn later. This has be-come a trend and sends wrong signal to the society, the judge observed on Wednesday.

The court cautioned the police to be vigilant and hold an initial inquiry to find out whether a rape complaint was genuine before registering the case.

The judge was hearing an anticipatory bail plea by Divyesh Vala (35), who admitted that he was in a relationship with a 42-year-old central excise inspector. He pleaded that he was falsely implicated and the case was causing him harm and agony.

The two had met through a social networking site and came close to each other after joining an Art of Living course. The woman alleged that she was raped by Vala, who promised to marry her. However, he married another woman and she felt cheated. Hence, she filed a complaint of rape.

The judge granted anticipatory bail to Vala for the sum of Rs 15,000 and asked him to report to the police station every Sunday until the investigation was over. The judge said it was not inclined to send Vala in custody because no useful purposes would be served in doing so, except satisfying the victim’s vendetta.

Talking to Mirror senior lawyer Milind Pawar said, “Some 90 per cent cases get registered just to satisfy vendetta after break ups. Though such cases are registered it is hard to prove them medically.”

In some cases, the Supreme Court has directed that FIRs in rape cases should be filed immediately, since later on it is difficult to prove it medically Pawar said. “This judgement will certainly teach a lesson to those who use the law to settle their own scores.”

Criminal layer Vijay Pamnani said, “In such rape cases the investigation officer’s role is very important to understand whether rape was actually committed or not. In the said case, the victim being a 42 years old, educated and  working as a central excise inspector knew very well that such a relationship is illicit in Indian society. I believe the HC has passed perfect orders considering facts of the case.”

Atit Rajpara, founder president of the Men’s Rights Association (MRA), Pune said, “Figures of increasing rape cases are only because of such false cases. Some women misuse the law like in domestic violence related cases.

In a recent survey, it was revealed that in Pune over 74 per cent cases of rape are consensual. We welcome this judgement as it has shown sensitivity towards men.”

However, lawyer Shirish Gade has a different opinion. He said, “As a criminal lawyer I believe that if the HC passes such orders against rape victim, those who wish to rape a girl will propose marriage and rape them. Unfortunately, victims won’t come forward due to such orders.

Additionally, in our society girls keep quiet about these serious offences as they are scared of society and fear nobody will marry them thereafter.”

http://www.punemirror.in/article/2/2013080220130802101256762a000d010/%E2%80%98Rape-cases-will-drop-70-if-HC-ruling-is-enforced%E2%80%99.html 

What if you're in her shoes, SC asks rejecting man's divorce plea

What if you're in her shoes, SC asks rejecting man's divorce plea

New Delhi: A man's plea for divorce on the grounds that their marriage is beyond salvage and that he will pay a substantial alimony to his wife has been dismissed by the Supreme Court saying that the husband would have never accepted dissolution of matrimonial ties had the wife raised identical reasons.
The court made the observation while rejecting the plea for divorce by the husband who had contended that though his wife's mental condition was normal, they have been separated for over 12 years and as such their marriage has irretrievably broken down. Also he said that he is willing to pay his wife any amount determined by the court as alimony.
A bench of justices P. Sathasivam and J.S. Khehar said he cannot be granted divorce "for the simple reason that the breakdown is only from the side of the husband" while the wife has consistently maintained that her paramount desire was to rejoin her husband."
"We would in our endeavour to determine the issue in hand examine the matter by reversing roles of the parties. We will examine the matter as if the wife had approached the Family Court seeking divorce on the ground that her husband had suffered brain damage leading to cognitive deficiencies.
"Yet, despite the said deficiencies, his working memory had returned to ‘near normal’ after treatment. "And his mental condition was such, that it would not have any effect on his matrimonial obligations. And the wife's family is agreeable to pay an amount to be determined by this court, so as to enable their daughter to break away, and find a more suitable match.
"Should she have been granted freedom from her matrimonial ties, in the given facts, in order to do complete justice to the parties? We would ask ourselves, whether the husband would have accepted such a plea...?" The court said, "In such situation, if this Court had, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, granted compensation to the husband and had dissolved his marriage on the pretext of doing complete justice between the parties, would the same be acceptable to the husband? "We have no doubt in our mind, that on a reversal of roles, the husband, without any fault of his own, would have never accepted as just, the dissolution of his matrimonial ties, even if the couple had been separated for a duration, as is the case in hand," the bench said.
It also said the medical condition of the wife, on which the man had based his claim for divorce, was "of his own doing."
The apex court's order came on the appeal by the husband, who had challenged the decision of the Family court in Hyderabad and the Andhra Pradesh High Court which had rejected his plea for divorce from his wife.
The couple were married in 1997 when they were barely out of their teens.
After his wife's second pregnancy resulted in her suffering some mental disorder due to medical complications, he had moved the Family court in 2002 seeking divorce on the ground that she was not mentally sound.
The trial court had refused to grant him any relief saying that apart from his and his family's contentions that she had not recovered, there was no other evidence to support their claim.
The court also noted that as per medical professionals who had examined her, the woman's mental condition was found to be ‘normal’ and also that she was capable of discharging her marital obligations.
The high court had upheld the view of the trial court, and he had moved the apex court. He had contended before the apex court that they have been separated for over 12 years, their marriage is beyond salvage and as he is willing to pay a court determined amount as alimony, their marriage should be dissolved.
The apex court while refusing to grant him relief noted that "we cannot persuade ourselves to grant a decree of divorce, on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, for the simple reason that the breakdown is only from the side of the husband. The wife has consistently maintained, that she was intensely concerned with her future relationship with her husband, and that, her greatest and paramount desire was to rejoin her husband."
The bench also said that it was the husband himself who was ‘responsible for the state of affairs of his wife’.
 

 

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130702/news-current-affairs/article/what-if-youre-her-shoes-sc-asks-rejecting-mans-divorce-plea 

SC strikes gender equality note in grant of divorce

SC strikes gender equality note in grant of divorce

NEW DELHI: Irretrievable breakdown of marriage, coupled with promise of large amount of money as permanent alimony, has been cited by rich and powerful men to seek divorce from their wives when all was not well in the marital relationship.

Striking a gender equality note, the Supreme Court on Monday turned the tables and asked whether it would have granted divorce to a woman from her husband, who on developing some mental disorder had become completely dependent on her, if she promised a huge sum as permanent alimony.

The case related to Darshan Gupta and Radhika Gupta, who married when they were barely out of their teens in 1997. Radhika's first pregnancy was terminated due to medical reasons. The second pregnancy was again a very complicated one and the child had to be delivered through Caesarian section. She remained unconscious for a long time and developed serious mental disorder. The child died eight days after birth.

Though she was treated in reputed hospitals, she allegedly remained mentally ill. The husband claimed separation from her since 2002, breakdown of marriage and offered a large sum of money as permanent alimony to seek termination of marriage.

A bench of Justices P Sathasivam and J S Khehar rejected the husband's plea and wondered whether a similar request by a woman would have been entertained by the apex court for grant of divorce from a husband who developed some mental disorder.

"In the context of doing justice, it was suggested that the appellant (husband) would be ready and willing to pay the respondent (wife) whatever was considered appropriate by the Supreme Court. We are informed that the appellant is financially well to do," the bench said.

"We would, in our endeavour to determine the issue in hand, examine the matter by reversing the roles of the parties. We will examine the matter as if the wife had approached the family court seeking divorce, on the ground that her husband had suffered brain damage leading to cognitive deficiencies. Yet, despite the said deficiencies, his working memory had returned to 'near normal' after treatment. And his mental condition was such that it would not have any effect on his matrimonial obligations," the bench added.

"And the wife's family is agreeable to pay an amount to be determined by this court (just as the husband Darshan Gupta has offered), so as to enable their daughter to break away and find a more suitable match. Should she have been granted freedom from her matrimonial ties, in the given facts, in order to do complete justice to the parties? We would ask ourselves whether the husband would have accepted such a plea, in the facts denoted above," it further said.

"In such a situation, if this court had, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, granted compensation to the husband, and had dissolved his marriage on the pretext of doing complete justice between the parties, would the same be acceptable to the husband? We have no doubt in our mind that on a reversal of roles, the husband, without any fault of his own, would have never accepted as just the dissolution of his matrimonial ties, even if the couple had been separated for a duration, as is the case in hand," Justice Khehar, while authoring the judgment for the bench, said. 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-strikes-gender-equality-note-in-grant-of-divorce/articleshow/20868692.cms