Court acquits two in dowry death case as complainant-cum-witness turns hostile

A local court on Tuesday acquitted two persons charged with abetment to suicide, as the complainant-cum-witness turned hostile.
Pawan, accused in the case was married to Sunita, who died after jumping from the third floor of her house in Sector 15-C on March 25 this year. Pawan allegedly harassed his wife for dowry. Sunita's brother Rajesh, who is the complainant in the case, had alleged that Pawan and his father Nand Kishore harassed his sister for money, following which a case was registered under Section 306 (abetment to suicide) of Indian Penal Code against them.
According to the complainant, he got a call on March 25 around 4 pm from the accused and was informed that his sister has been injured and has been taken to PGI. Around 7 pm on the same day his brother got a call that Sunita has jumped from the third floor of her house.
Rajesh, in his initial complaint, had alleged that Pawan and Nand Kishore demanded cash and motorbike. He had also told the police that they spent around Rs 12 to 15 lakh in the marriage which took place in 2000.
According to Rajesh, Sunita, a mother of two children, was not given proper food and was not allowed to meet her children. She was also sent to her parents ancestral home after marriage for some time. He said a local panchayat at her parents home tried to resolve the issue on several occasions.
However, Rajesh later turned hostile and refused to accept that he made any statement before the police regarding the amount of money being spent on the marriage. He also denied that he made any statement about any panchayat being held to resolve the dispute.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/court-acquits-two-in-dowry-death-case-as-complainantcumwitness-turns-hostile/1167505/ 

Bail, not jail, the norm, says SC, but the reality is opposite

MUMBAI: Bail, not jail, is a dominant principle of criminal law practised by every mature democracy and in India often in its breach. Be it A Raja or Kanimozhi in the 2G case, Suresh Kalmadi in the CWG case or Asaram, facing an unproven sexual assault charge, once a case becomes high profile courts are diffident to grant bail even if that flies against the express directive of the Supreme Court.
The same neglect of the principle is often seen in the case of thousands of undertrial prisoners — people who fall in a category that's quite the opposite of the high-profile cases; men and women without resources, financial or political — who are left to languish in jail for want of bail orders from trial courts.

A Mumbai lawyer says: "It's not only the underprivileged who fail to secure justice at a pre-trial stage, even highprofile arrests — cases that attract media hype — are often denied bail without adequate reasons for days or months." While releasing a bunch of accused in the 2G scam case, the SC reinforced that bail ought to be a norm, not jail.
Stiff opposition by police to bail applications even when investigations are over and the accused not likely to flee, has become the norm, lawyers said. Senior crime counsel Amit Desai said: "The court must be alive to the fact that liberty, a fundamental right, is taken away in such instances. It must ensure that the investigating officer concentrates on investigation that requires an accused to be in custody so that he can secure his liberty at the earliest.''
Police often treat denial of bail as an "easy route'', say experts. "Trials take time to begin. Often pre-trial incarceration exceeds maximum punishment for the charges invoked or becomes an incentive for police not to create a water-tight case on evidence,'' said advocate Saurabh Kirpal from Delhi. He added: "It becomes an easy route not to work hard at getting a conviction and treat pre-trial custody as substitute punishment."
There are times when despite long pre-trial jail, the case may end with an acquittal, which makes a mockery of justice. The need for an arrest is to secure presence of the accused for investigation, prevent further crimes and escape, make the community safer if the accused is prone to violence, and witness tampering. When these factors are absent, bail should be automatic.
Ashok Desai, former attorney general, said, "The object of denying bail cannot be punitive because punishment starts after conviction. Until then the accused is deemed innocent. Although bail, not jail, is the principle, there are two main factors to deny bail — possibility of the accused absconding and probability that he may interfere with the investigation and witnesses.
"A court has to balance the valuable right of liberty and the interest of society. It's here that often the prosecution suggests that if the offence is serious or the accused is an influential person, there's a danger of his absconding. This is why courts can impose conditional bail. If a condition is transgressed, the bail can be cancelled. Bail cannot be denied to teach a lesson to one whose offence is yet to be proved."
A series of commissions, from the third police commission to the law commission, stressed how police misuse arrest-powers. Ram Jethmalani, ace defence counsel, has for decades stressed that "pretrial arrest is neither meant to be punitive nor a punishment before verdict. It's meant to facilitate investigation." If an accused cooperates with the police and submits himself for investigation there's no justification for arrest, he said.
Senior Supreme Court counsel CA Sundaram said that legally, bail is a right. Advocate Harshad Ponda said liberty is guaranteed as a fundamental right. Under the right to life, liberty cannot be denied without adequate reason. Except when justified in heinous crimes such as rape, murder and dacoity.
Added Shrikant Bhat, a leading crime counsel in Mumbai: "The SC in 1994 laid down guidelines that hold good today. It proscribed police from using their power to arrest, just because it exists, without justification." Advocate Aabad Ponda said: "The amendment to the CrPC is to bring in some checks on indiscriminate and liberal arrests without any warrant by police.'' Every offence classified as non-bailable does not justify an arrest, said advocate Anand Grover.
Even in jurisdictions abroad, as in Florida, the law is firm that bail applications be decided on grounds that don't impinge on a person's liberty more than necessary to aid investigation or secure society's interest.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-09-08/india/41873447_1_denying-bail-conditional-bail-cwg-case

Bill unfair on men

The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010, which was recently passed by the Rajya Sabha is inegalitarian and regressive. If passed by the Lok Sabha, it would be draconian as it would be oppressive for men.
If it is passed into law, it should be struck down under Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality to both men and women.
The proposed law is certainly gender-biased. There is no rationale whatsoever why the law should benefit women, and not men. It is absurd that in cases of “irretrievable breakdown” of marriage, half the self-acquired property of the husband can be claimed by the woman. It would be sensible to make changes in the proposed law so that only matrimonial property is divided, that is, the property acquired during the course of the marriage.
In most developed countries, the laws concerning divorce say that only the property acquired by the husband during the course of the marriage can be claimed by the wife.
In today’s time, there are marriages that last only a few weeks and at times a few days. In those cases it wouldn’t be fair to give half of the self-acquired property of the man to the wife.
This law would lead to fraud marriages. It will spoil the fabric of marriage. Men will become suspicious of women; a man would think the prospective wife is only after his property and will divorce him soon. This could encourage men to stay away from wedlock and get into live-in relations, which in India are covered under the law on domestic violence, but are not considered equivalent to marriage. This will create further problems for women.
Statistics suggest that more women are defrauded than men. In such cases, maintenance to the distressed woman should be sufficient and the proposed law should be changed accordingly. It doesn’t make sense to give maintenance to the woman if a marriage lasts just a few weeks.
In cases where a woman leaves her husband for another man and the children remain with the father, it would be really illogical to give the man’s property or even maintenance to her. If a woman is a housewife and the husband has been earning, she should rightly be entitled to the property acquired by them/him during the course of the marriage.
It will, however, be unfair if she gets the property acquired by the husband before the marriage or inherited by him. If passed, the new law will spoil the fabric of marriage.
This Bill says that though the courts will keep in mind the husband’s inherited property while deciding compensation amount, especially if children are involved, the share in the husband’s inherited property will not be given to the wife in case of divorce.
Why would the court not treat the wife’s property with the same yardstick? Would an aggrieved husband be entitled to the self-acquired property of his wife? This law is not gender neutral. By bringing these amendments, the government thinks that it is doing service to the pro-woman sentiment. But no one seems to have thought about the law. It needs to have some rationale behind it.
Geeta Luthra is a senior advocate (As told to Ridhima Malhotra)

http://www.asianage.com/ideas/bill-unfair-men-585#comment-47450 

Marriage Amendment Bill - Draconian Law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAzVwu1oBXM

‘There’s a lack of positive space for men’

‘There’s a lack of positive space for men’

A family court has said that if a wife insults her husband in the presence of his friends or in the presence of her friends and relatives, it amounts to cruelty. dna gets one man talking

Amit Deshpande

There is no help for a man if the wife is abusive. The judgment where the court granted divorce to a man who accused his wife of mental cruelty, citing her abusive behaviour towards him, his friends and his relatives needs to be supported. In a marital set-up, if a wife keeps on humiliating her husband for whatever reasons — financial or sexual incompetence — the man is bound to feel a loss of dignity and it is in no way different than the loss of dignity of a wife for any reason. We should see this in the same view of a man humiliating his wife by attacking her womanhood — when she is unable to bear a child — or even if he taunts her for her looks. As a progressive and just society, we should discourage any form of humiliation based upon gender roles. The Supreme Court has given many judgments in which it has granted divorce when the wife has been abusive towards her husband and insulted him in public. Today, men have no place to go to for help if they have an abusive wife or one who shows signs of compulsive obsessive disorder. Men do not even ask for help and continue to suffer in abusive relationships as it is considered unmanly to seek help. The real problem lies in the fact that society functions by creating competition among men. Unfortunately, in the patriarchal social mindset, a man has to earn his manhood to gain respect and survive. The emotions of a man are not respected in the same way as the emotions of a woman are. With the increasing focus on women’s issues, there is a lack of positive space for men in society. Many a time it is found that men turn violent towards themselves and take the extreme step. Every year, over 63,000 married men commit suicide in India. These men are mostly those who have proven their manhood and have become eligible for marriage, including many professionals. According to the principles of natural justice, this judgment seems a step in the right direction. ‘Humiliating hubby is cruelty’, p5

http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=51372&boxid=30566&ed_date=2013-09-05&ed_code=820009&ed_page=3

22 year old married thrice...

Marriage law amendment bill 2010 and the Murder of Democracy

26th August 2013 is a day that will live in infamy for Indian democracy when the country witnessed the broad daylight murder of democracy and principles of natural justice on the very floors of Indian Parliament. This is the day when the proposed Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill 2010 was cleared by the Rajya Sabha even after the opposition from men’s rights groups and some members of the House. The shocking aspect of the whole debate was the Minister of Law and justice Shri Kapil SIbal made statements in support of this law, which were grossly misleading and downright incorrect. The minister in his desire to get this law passed was generous with misleading statements and very economical with the truth.
The ground reality &repercussions of the law are severe on husbands and their families.
1. Husbands will lose their hard-earned property (self-acquired, inherited or inheritable) if their marriage breaks.
2. Husbands will still face other false cases under Section 498A, Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 CrPC, etc. and get extorted further.
3. Husbands will lose your children to their estranged wife who will poison them against you and the Govt. would aid her in doing so.
4. Husbands will become bankrupt if their wife decides to leave you or you are unhappy in the marriage.
5. Husbands would have no right to appeal as now your extortion is codified in the law and power has been wrested with the insensitive and anti-male Indian judiciary.
The Govt. chose to brush aide the aforementioned concerns of men’s welfare groups giving a clear message that the Govt. in India is not interested to work in men’s favor to even an iota’s extent. It’s up to the men now to realize as to whether they should vote for such political parties or even pay tax to such a Govt.
Some of  the arguments that were used by Honourable Minister of Law and Justice, Shri Kapil Sibal to help build a case for this law were grossly misleading and totally inaccurate . His statements and our counters are as below.
1. India is a patriarchal society; hence laws must be pro-women.

This is a big myth which is conveniently used to pass any anti-male law. If the society was indeed patriarchal, then in that case, the laws would have protected a man’s right. Why would a patriarchal society even bother about women and pass so many anti-male laws just to appease women? Actually Indian society has never been patriarchal. Life has always been tougher for men compared to women. Men have always been expected to take more pains and make more sacrifices compared to women and when men try to speak about their rights, their own fellow men work against them and suppress them. It is just a convenient argument to support anti-male laws so that men can be continuously harassed and tortured in order to make them work for the betterment of the society.
2. World over 2% of assets are owned by women, so since 98% of property is owned by 50% of the population i.e. men, hence women must get free property at the cost of men.

This is another grossly incorrect statement propagated by feminists and is not true because till date no authentic data source has been traced to, which scientifically proves the contention and it’s virtually impossible to do so as no one has access to this level of global data. And any amount of sample study done won’t suffice because no statistical model can simulate data for the entire globe with dynamics so varying and so complex. Secondly, even if we hypothetically assume that the contention is true, even then, men own those assets by sheer virtue of their grit, determination and hard work. No law was ever framed to have men a free run on properties by virtue of their relationship status that would enrich themselves. Then, why do we want to enrich women by robbing things off men? And such a mathematically weak argument coming from an eminent lawyer and a graduate from Harvard Law School is equally shamming for India.
3. This law is gender-neutral as both husband and wife can apply for divorce.
This a grossly misleading and untrue statement When it comes to property division, only husband’s property will be considered and even if wife owns property she can keep it, while claim a share in husband’s property.
4. We are only considering post-marital property but will take into account inherited and inheritable property.
This is a big grossly misleading statement. SIFF has seen the draft of the bill, which clearly mentions that any property owned by the husband at the time of divorce, whether it is inherited, inheritable or self-acquired, shall be considered for division. However, our learned law minster chose to mislead and said we are talking of only post marital property, however, inherited and inheritable property shall be taken into account while deciding the case. Does this mean this was deliberate attempt at misleading the members of the parliament to get this bill passed ?
Money and Property Transactions in Courts will lead to massive corruption and extortion. Lawyers have something to be happy about this IRBM law. But, the common man will suffer very badly. We have to wake up to the new reality that most men are losing faith on Indian Family court system and judiciary.
Leaving the whole issue to Judiciary is not good idea. There may be some good judges, but that does not mean enoromous powers and distrition of wresting someone’s property be vested with lower judiciary. Most poor people will lose their property running around courts for years and paying lawyer fees.
We will see lawyers welcoming laws that give more and more power to law enforcement systems, because they are bound to gain a lot from people’s misery. When Govt planned to amend Criminal Procedure Code to reduce arrests under 498a to stop its misuse, lawyers protested against this move claiming they will not be able to make big money from bail fees from men and their families.
Rajya Sabha member Pyarimohan Mahapatra said during that debate that according to Transparency International 36% of Indian Judiciary is corrupt. Now, the same corrupt Judiciary will decide how to divide the property of husband and his parents to give to  the wife.
Law Minister Kapil Sibal has nothing to say about forcing parents to give a share of their property to daughters, when people are not following this law. Yet, he is interested in giving someone’s property to daughter-in-law, if she decides get divorced for their son. In fact, their son can not even oppose the divorce, that she files.
Kapil Sibal has made the women’s empowerment into a zero sum win lose game. He believes if women have to gain, men have to lose badly. This will not auger well for Indian society on a long run.
We hereby most respectfully demand that the marriage law amendment bill not be introduced in Loksabha in this form and that he Honourable Minister of Law and justice call for an open debate on the pros and cons of this law and clarify the reasons why he chose to be generous with misleading statements and so economical with the truth.

http://www.theindiapost.com/articles/marriage-law-amendment-bill-2010-murder-democracy?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theindiapost%2FwkLb+%28The+India+Post%29 

TV9 News: Wife, Lover Arrested for Murder of Husband in Bangalore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OAGdxIfFLk

Protests against IrBM - Draconian laws

 

Institution of Marriage is on the verge of 'collapse'

http://www.ehitavada.com/news.detail/paper_type/1/news_id/266493/date/2013-09-01

Ensure women's safety = Ignore men's safety?

Recently Maharashtra Home Minister R R Patil assured all women journalists that the Government would provide them special security when they are out on their job.

Sounds like a populist measure dreamt up without considering the root cause of why crime in the society is on the rise.

Go through the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report which states that ‘crimes against men are increasing rapidly' and more than 75% of murders reported in this country are against men.

Take a look at the Murder rate of Men vs Women:

Murder: http://ncrb.nic.in/CII-2009-NEW/cii-2009/Table%203.3.pdf

Male Victims-24,441, Female Victims-8,718 Total Victims-33,159

Culpabale Homicide Not Amounting To Murder (Sec.304 and 308 IPC) During 2009

http://ncrb.nic.in/CII-2009-NEW/cii-2009/Table%203.4.pdf

Male Victims=3,529, Female Victims=753 Total Victims=4282

Now we wonder, can a society provide safety to women, while men themselves are not safe? The NCRB report summarized the data of crimes against women and children, but they did not provide any details of crimes against men.

Since 2005, we have been providing the crime and murder data compiled by the NCRB to the Government, but they fed it to the bins as media never showed any concern over the safety of men, which is a need of society.

If you go through the report of "Committee to protect Journalists " and click on Gender, it clearly mentions that 97% of the journalists killed were men.

On August 24th, a Journalist from UP, Mr. Akhilesh, was killed. But there was hardly any protest from the journalists associations or any candlelight vigils by common people of society.

I am really not surprised given the biased approach prevalent in every institution. We have death penalty for murder, but the cases are increasing day by day. It is evident beyond reasonable doubt that increasing the punishment alone won’t help in reducing crime.

When someone commits a crime, what are the chances that he gets caught? Currently the number stands at 10 to 15 per cent on an average.Today the police can trap any innocent law abiding citizen in criminal cases but fails to catch the real criminal for months/years.

Once a criminal is caught the law punishes him for 10 to 12 years and if someone wants to prove his innocence it takes 10 to 12 years. So, the root cause is the failure of our criminal justice system and the police.

More stringent laws mean more power to police/judiciary, which could lead to abuse of power and more corruption. The failure of police to provide safety to Indian men never gets highlighted.

All women activists/media are running behind the women safety issue, like in a desert desperately trying to find a mirage.

History itself states that where men are not safe, dreaming of safety for women is nothing but fooling yourself.

Safety/violence is never a gender issue. Media friends must also understand the pain of a woman when she loses her brother or son or father.

 

https://www.saddahaq.com/politics/mumbairapehorror/does-women-safety--ignore-men-safety 

DIVORCE BILL ANTI MEN LIVE PROGRAM IN HEAD LINES TODAY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPmfb8VGvZM

Marriage law: The 'Inter Continental Ballistic Missile' of a Bill

The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, approved by the Rajya Sabha on Monday, has long been pegged the 'Intercontinental Continental Ballistic Missile' (ICBM) Bill by protesting men's groups, for its inclusion of the 'Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage (IBM)' clause as a valid condition for divorce.

Virag Dhulia, a men's rights activist and head of gender studies at the Bangalore-based Confidare Research says, "The Rajya Sabha has betrayed us. We now hope the Lok Sabha MPs will not let us down." Men's groups like Dhulia's partnered with Men's Rights Association, Pune and have been protesting the Bill for months now. In December 2012 they led a rally to Jantar Mantar and courted detention on May 1, 2013 en route the Prime Minister's residence. Their objections to the Bill are that it will blindly give away property in the name of marriage, that men will stop marrying to prevent this, thus destabilizing the institution of marriage.

"Whichever country has these clauses also has supportive laws like a legalization of pre-nuptial agreements, which India doesn't have. India is cherry picking laws that suit them, which can prove disastrous. In 2011, China rolled back a law like this because men had stopped marrying and stopped buying property" Dhulia warns.

But the Bill is in fact far reaching and thought out over a period of decades. The first proposals for amendments to the Hindu Marriage Act came from the Law Commission in 1978. Two more Law Commission reports, several Supreme Court Judgements and after much debate among invested parties led by women's groups like Majlis, the Bill has been tabled.

Chakshu Roy, head of technology initiatives at PRS Legislative Research, New Delhi says, "The Law Commission and the Supreme Court have on a number of occasions recommended the inclusion of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce. The Law Commission suggested that before a divorce is granted on this ground, the court should ensure adequate financial arrangements have been made for the parties and children. The Bill incorporates these suggestions and introduces this ground for divorce and makes financial provision for the wife and children."

What the Bill essentially says is that there are certain conditions based on which either the husband or wife can apply for divorce. These are cruelty, medical reasons such as communicable diseases, mental illnesses, desertion. The Bill essentially sought to correct the lacuna that arose from the need to dissolve the marriage in the eventuality that none of these stand i.e. the dissolution of marriage due to an organic breakdown.

The Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage clause allows a woman or a man to exit on the premise that she is unfulfilled or unhappy in a marriage after a three year period of separation. The wife also bears the right to block a divorce thrust upon her if she can prove she will be in grave financial hardship. The Bill will also allow the court to consider a waiver of the 6-18 month lock-in period for couples who file by mutual consent.

A huge triumph, points out activist and head of women's group Majlis, Flavia Agnes, is the Bill's determination of the compensation due to the wife. In doing so, the Bill now allows the court to take into account inherited and inheritable properties. This becomes a crucial factor in cases where husbands are able to sell off properties in their name and prove they have no assets, leaving the wife without compensation.

Men's groups protest this clause saying it allows women to divorce a man after five days and "clean him out". Agnes dismisses concerns stating that women have gotten the short end of the stick for far too long.

A lot of the debate has been ill-informed. Advocates state that the court will consider many factors while making such a decision. As any nuclear armed country knows, setting off a missile isn't so simple, there are many check points.

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/rajya-sabha-passes-marriage-laws-amendment-bill-2010/1/304271.html

 

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/case-against-ngo-for-forcing-woman-to-file-false-rape-case/1078735/ 

Bill weathers‘anti-men’ cry

SOBHANA K.

New Delhi, Aug. 26: The Rajya Sabha today passed amendments to the divorce law but not before several male members dubbed them anti-men and an assault on “human rights”.

The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, passed by the Lok Sabha in the last session, promises women a larger share of their husband’s property during divorce. (See chart)

Trinamul Congress member Derek O’Brien led the charge, asking: “Why empower women at the expense of men?”

He argued the bill should be made gender-neutral, giving men the same rights as women. Replace the words “wife” and “husband” in the bill with “spouse”, O’Brien said.

Samajwadi Party member Arvind Kumar Singh claimed the bill could be misused like the anti-dowry law.

“If you read this bill, it seems that husbands alone are responsible for divorce. This law is being made to enslave men. One party should not get disproportionately high benefits while the other stands to lose all,” Singh said.

While many women MPs protested against this logic, Vandana Chavan of the Nationalist Congress Party stood on the men’s side.

“There are many women who may be earning the same as their husbands or sometimes even more. We have to fight not just for women’s rights but for human rights. Why make the current generation of men suffer?” Chavan said.

Many members wanted know how unemployed husbands fared in the bill.

“If the husband has no property, does he have a right over the (wife’s) property in case of a divorce?” asked Bahujan Samaj Party member Narender Kumar Kashyap.

Bharat Kumar Raut of the Shiv Sena said the bill would bring family pressure on women not to get a divorce. “Families will think that despite couples having differences, it would be better to stay together to avoid a division of the property,” Raut said.

DMK member Kanimozhi defended the bill stoutly.

“That women will misuse the bill and use it (to seek) revenge against their husbands and mothers-in-law seems to be the dominant thought here. When we have 50 per cent women in this House, we will talk about making such bills gender-neutral,” she said.

BJP members, however, ignored the issue as they pressed their long-standing demand for a uniform civil code. Party member Najma Heputallah accused the government of ignoring the plight of the country’s Muslim women.

Law minister Kapil Sibal said the bill was obviously pro-women and would send a clear message that Parliament was on the women’s side.

“Women’s rights have to be protected. We are in a patriarchal society. Around the world, while women constitute 50 per cent of the population, they own only 2 per cent of global assets,” Sibal said.

Addressing members’ concern about unemployed husbands, Sibal said men were entitled to alimony “under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act”. The bill was cleared as presented by the government.

The Rajya Sabha later discussed the Mumbai gang rape, with junior home minister R.P.N. Singh making a statement.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130827/jsp/nation/story_17277726.jsp#.Uh4seD8vfQ0 

Suicide note not enough proof of abetment: Bombay HC

This is really shame on India & Indian's, when one lady dies without her suicide note it is confirmed that 498a case & legal process starts but when one Man dies with Suicide note making his in-law & wife responsible still it is not accepted by law & media, Shame! Shame!! Shame!!!

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday observed that a suicide note alone was not enough proof in a case of abetment of suicide and dismissed an appeal against acquittal in one case. In the absence of independent evidence to prove a case of abetment, Justice A H Joshi dismissed the appeal filed by the victim's family.

The judge was hearing an appeal filed by the family of a suicide victim against the acquittal. The appeal, filed last year by one Sunil Bhavsar, challenged a sessions court verdict of acquittal. His lawyer argued that it was a case in which a woman was pushed into committing suicide and that a suicide note she left behind "proved the abetment charge". She was harassed and threatened, the lawyer argued.

The case was from Nashik and the lawyer said a complaint was filed in 2010 with the Nashik police about the harassment and threats she faced that led to her eventual suicide. Hence, the abetment to suicide charge is proved, he argued and the acquittal ought to be overturned.

The state did not file an appeal. The appeal itself was dismissed, by default, by the HC earlier in March 2013 as the lawyer for the appellant had not turned up on a date when it was scheduled for a hearing.

On Tuesday, when the lawyer for the victim's family stressed on the suicide note and threats she allegedly received before the suicide, Justice Joshi said, "This is no mathematical equation, that a suicide note plus threat equals abetment...If harassment is proved, show the proof," the HC said. The judge said, "A threat to kill is not abetment. (Giving) An advice to kill is also not abetment."

In case of a suicide, higher courts have held that in each case the circumstances and evidence is crucial to decide whether there was abetment, which would involve acts by another person to actually instigate the person into committing suicide, the SC has held.

WHAT THE SC HAS HELD

"If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Suicide-note-not-enough-proof-of-abetment-Bombay-HC/articleshow/22108153.cms?intenttarget=no 

INSAAF (Indian Social Awareness and Activism Forum

Press release marriage Amendment bill

http://www.scribd.com/doc/163488811/INSAAF-Press-Release-on-Marriage-Law-Amendment-Bill-2010

Men's rights activists hope Lok Sabha won't okay 'husband killer law'

The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, dubbed as a husband killer law by men’s rights activists, was approved by the Rajya Sabha on Monday. Men’s rights groups who have been staging nationwide protests and holding debates on the issue say they will continue to meet with lawmakers to persuade them not to pass the bill in the Lok Sabha.

Virag Dhulia, a leading men’s rights activist, told rediff.com that they were trying to establish communication with members of Parliament on the subject. “We are telling them about the problems this bill would cause as the male in general is the stakeholder in this draconian law. We are trying to tell them what changes ought to be made to this bill and how, if it gets presidential assent, it would become a disaster. We hope our lawmakers would take into consideration all this and not to pass bills merley keeping in mind vote bank politics.”
Among other things the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill empowers the courts to decide the compensation amount for the wife and children from the husband’s inherited and inheritable properties once the marriage ends legally. The Bill allows parties to file for divorce on the ground of “irretrievable breakdown” of marriage. Both parties have to live apart for at least three years before filing such a petition.
Dhulia points out, “Basically the hard-earned money and property of the man will not belong to him” once this Bill becomes law.
The Bill also provides for restricting the grant of a decree of divorce if the court is satisfied that adequate provision for maintenance of the children has not been made consistent with the financial capacity of the parties to the marriage.
Also, the wife has the right to oppose the grant of divorce on the ground that the dissolution of marriage could result in grave financial hardship, but no such provision has been made for the husband. “Law Minister Kapil Sibal has totally ignored the National Crime Records Bureau data which states that every year more than 65,000 married men end their lives,” the activists point out.
As per the Bill’s statement of objectives, the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriages Act have proved to be inadequate in dealing with cases where there has been an irretrievable breakdown of marriage and hence it was decided to amend the law. Even the Supreme Court had pointed out the need to introduce ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ and ‘mutual consent’ as grounds for granting divorce in order to reduce litigation and to enable both parties move on in their life.
What Sibal failed to take into consideration was how such a law would reduce litigation when cases filed by women under the dowry and harassment laws and child custody are not decided at the time of issuing a divorce decree, the activists point out.

http://www.rediff.com/news/report/mens-rights-activists-hope-lok-sabha-wont-okay-husband-killer-law/20130827.htm?sc_cid=fbshare

Men's right group protests against 'discriminatory' proposed marriage law

A men's rights group on Sunday took out a rally protesting against the proposed Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2002, alleging it would breakdown the traditional family system by introducing no-fault divorce and was heavily loaded against the husband.
"Similar laws in the west have led to breakdown of the traditional family system. In the US, while only 20 per cent of couples who married in 1950 ended up divorced, about 50 per cent of couples who married in 1970 did so after the no-fault divorce came into being," said Hriday spokesperson Anil Gupta.
He said as per the proposed legislation, which has received the nod from the cabinet, a wife can walk out of the marriage on her sweet will.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/mens-right-group-protests-against-discriminatory-proposed-marriage-law/417184-3.html

Amend Marriage laws

'Society and laws need to be men-friendly too'

While all of us were celebrating Independence Day, a few men from all over the country assembled in the city to discuss some pressing issues. They were members of various men's rights organizations who had come to attend a national conference under the aegis of Men's Rights Association (MRA), a first-of-its-kind event. Two of the pioneers of the movement in India, IT professional and one of the founders of Save Indian Family Foundation, Pandurang Katti and, businessman and president of Children's Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP), Kumar Jahgirdar spoke to TOI about the emergence of men's rights movement, the need for more gender-neutral marital laws and masculinity among other things.

Excerpts from an interview ---

What prompted you to consider being part of the men's rights movement?

PK. Small things like different tax slabs for same salary levels and reserved seats in public transport seemed unfair to me. Then came article 498A which I read was being misused in many cases. Then it hit closer home when I was acquitted under the same law in 2004. It was my wife's word against my evidence and our genders dictated the assumption of who was wrong.

What do you think of society's definitions of roles of men and women?

KJ. Sadly, the age-old mindset of men being providers and women being homemakers still prevails. Despite all talks about equality, society does not treat men and women equally. This extends to marriages as well, without realizing that marriages are not for competing but for complementing each other.

PK. Men are looked upon as monsters until they prove otherwise. There are several wrongful expectations from men which are seen in many aspects of life a" work, marriage and even in relations before marriage. The blame for any woman's committing suicide is invariably pegged on a man close to her, like it happened in the Suraj Panscholi case. There are cases like that Kausar Begum of Bangalore who married 12 times, earning lots of money by getting all the husbands arrested under domestic violence act.

How do you perceive women's rights movement?

KJ. It has become fashionable to talk about women empowerment and women's liberation in the name of chivalry. While doing so, human rights are sometimes kept on stake. Women have suffered a lot, for centuries. But thatas no excuse to make the current generation of men suffer, too. We must have a more human approach to things rather than feministic or chauvinistic.

Which Indian laws do you think are unfair?

PK. Several laws are misused by women, and used as a way of blackmailing men. Article 498A, that deals with dowry-related cases is the first that comes to mind. We believe it should be made a civil law, and a bailable offence. Under the Domestic Violence Act, the very definition of violence is questionable. Even domestic tiffs can land an entire family in jail. Rape laws are applicable to a man promising marriage to a woman if they have been intimate. This happens only in India.

KJ. The very reason we have shunned the celebrations of Independence is Marriage Law Amendment Bill 2010. Under this bill, it is proposed that a man can't challenge a divorce petition filed by his wife. It also allows the woman a claim over ancestral property of her former husband after divorce. This bill is unfair in so many ways. In cases of separation of parents, the judiciary in India assumes that the child needs a mother more than a father. A bad husband is not necessarily a bad father. All children need both parents equally.

Are there any suggestions for improving the current laws?

PK. In several divorce cases, the women ask for big amounts of alimony that are many times unjustifiable, like when a doctor wife asked her husband for a big sum monthly, of which Rs 35,000 was to be spent on entertainment. While deciding these amounts, especially in cases where the woman is gainfully employed, the financial and other situations of both parties must be duly considered.

KJ. To reduce the stress of a breaking marriage on children, shared parenting must be allowed as a norm. These cases must be disposed at the earliest possible. People found guilty of misusing laws like 498A, domestic violence act and such must be punished. Also, many times when women violate court orders judges go soft on them, which should not be done. Children's rights are constantly ignored in cases of separating and divorcing parents, where they are even used as weapons to fight personal battles.

You call the movement you have started "masculinism". How does it differ from chauvinism or chivalry?

PK. There is what we call cultural chauvinism in our society. This calls for more realistic expectations from men instead of putting excessive responsibility on them. The modern society gives women equal opportunities, so it is only fair to provide men with certain choices and freedom, too. Laws and society need not only be women-friendly but also men-friendly.

The changes in the way of living have affected marriages, too. Does that strike as a positive change to you?

KJ. In modern marriages, both men and women share all responsibilities, whether they are domestic or financial. This culture is spreading very fast, too. However, the cases of divorces and legal hassles that people have to live with for their whole lives are also increasing.   http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Society-and-laws-need-to-be-men-friendly-too/articleshow/21930311.cms