Wednesday, 4 September 2013
Woman cries rape,cops see foul play
HAZARIBAG:
A mother of three lodged a complaint on Tuesday at the Pelawal police
station against her neighbour alleging that he had raped her. However,
police said the woman was bringing false accusations against the man and
termed it consensual sex.
The woman in her FIR said the accused, Umesh Kumar Mehta, entered her house forcibly on the pretext of drinking water and raped her. Mehta dared to commit the crime in absence of the woman's husband Dwarka Sao, who was out of town. Mehta even locked up the children in a room.
However, DSP (headquarters) Arvind Kumar Singh after interrogating the woman found Mehta was known to the woman and it was consensual sex.
Singh also said the woman was crying rape because her husband came back home suddenly and saw the two in a compromising position.
Youth held: A youth was arrested in Ranchi's Sukhdeo Nagar locality when he attempted to rape a 5-year-old girl on Tuesday afternoon. The accused, a driver was playing with the girl in the basement of an apartment in Sukhdeo Nagar when he took her to the bathroom where he tried to rape her. The parents of the girl caught the boy when the girl started crying. "The people caught the boy and brought him to the police station," said circle inspector Hari Chandra Singh. An FIR was lodged in this connection, said Singh http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ranchi/Woman-cries-rapecops-see-foul-play/articleshow/22277731.cms
The woman in her FIR said the accused, Umesh Kumar Mehta, entered her house forcibly on the pretext of drinking water and raped her. Mehta dared to commit the crime in absence of the woman's husband Dwarka Sao, who was out of town. Mehta even locked up the children in a room.
However, DSP (headquarters) Arvind Kumar Singh after interrogating the woman found Mehta was known to the woman and it was consensual sex.
Singh also said the woman was crying rape because her husband came back home suddenly and saw the two in a compromising position.
Youth held: A youth was arrested in Ranchi's Sukhdeo Nagar locality when he attempted to rape a 5-year-old girl on Tuesday afternoon. The accused, a driver was playing with the girl in the basement of an apartment in Sukhdeo Nagar when he took her to the bathroom where he tried to rape her. The parents of the girl caught the boy when the girl started crying. "The people caught the boy and brought him to the police station," said circle inspector Hari Chandra Singh. An FIR was lodged in this connection, said Singh http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ranchi/Woman-cries-rapecops-see-foul-play/articleshow/22277731.cms
Plea against 'cruel' father dismissed
MUMBAI:
A court last week dismissed a petition filed by a mother seeking
temporary injunction, restraining the father from seeing their two
daughters on the grounds of cruelty.
Observing that children must spend time with both parents, the court said, "Access of the children is not for the pleasure of the parents, it is for the welfare of the children. It appears the parents are trying to make capital of past incidents that took place between them, to fight on the point of access and custody of the children but that should not happen in the larger interest of the children."
The mother said in her petition that the father had treated both daughters badly. She said that on a trip to Murud-Janjira, the father had told the elder daughter to hold three cans of beer.
She said that in June 2011 the couple quarreled and he threw the daughter's brand new cellphone into the dustbin. The mother said he had verbally abused the child. She said the daughters were staying with her since last November, and the father would harass them at school.
But the father said there was no evidence to establish those incidents.
He said both were tutored and their minds were poisoned by their mother. He said being the non-custodial parent he was concerned about their welfare and must get to meet them.
The court took into consideration a report by a counselor appointed when the father had filed a plea seeking permission to spend time with the younger daughter on her birthday. "On perusal of the counselor's report, it is revealed the children were under great influence of their mother as they are with her since separation of the parties," the court said. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Plea-against-cruel-father-dismissed/articleshow/22273310.cms
Observing that children must spend time with both parents, the court said, "Access of the children is not for the pleasure of the parents, it is for the welfare of the children. It appears the parents are trying to make capital of past incidents that took place between them, to fight on the point of access and custody of the children but that should not happen in the larger interest of the children."
The mother said in her petition that the father had treated both daughters badly. She said that on a trip to Murud-Janjira, the father had told the elder daughter to hold three cans of beer.
She said that in June 2011 the couple quarreled and he threw the daughter's brand new cellphone into the dustbin. The mother said he had verbally abused the child. She said the daughters were staying with her since last November, and the father would harass them at school.
But the father said there was no evidence to establish those incidents.
He said both were tutored and their minds were poisoned by their mother. He said being the non-custodial parent he was concerned about their welfare and must get to meet them.
The court took into consideration a report by a counselor appointed when the father had filed a plea seeking permission to spend time with the younger daughter on her birthday. "On perusal of the counselor's report, it is revealed the children were under great influence of their mother as they are with her since separation of the parties," the court said. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Plea-against-cruel-father-dismissed/articleshow/22273310.cms
Bill without benefits
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
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
सुहागरात में पत्नी ने मारी लात, युवक ने जिद पकड़ ली लड़की बनने की
अहमदाबाद। बीते शुक्रवार को अहमदाबाद के सिविल हॉस्पिटल में
सेक्स चेंज का ऑपरेशन कराने पहुंचा युवक कौन था? आखिर क्यों उसने लड़की
बनने की जिद ठानी? पुरुष से स्त्री बनने के लिए इसने क्या-क्या किया? यह
जानने के लिए दिव्यभास्करडॉटकॉम की टीम इस युवक से मुलाकात की।
बातचीत में पता चला कि इसके पीछे उसका दर्द था। वह विवाहित होने के
बाद भी अब तक सेक्स से वंचित है। इतना ही नहीं, अब वह पत्नी से इतना त्रस्त
हो चुका है कि उसने स्त्री बनकर रहने का दृढ़ निश्चय कर लिया है।
Tuesday, 3 September 2013
Man kills son-in-law, his father
BAHRAICH: A man killed his son-in-law and his father when his daughter married against the wish of her parents on Friday night.
The police said that the assailants opened fire at the two persons in Chaukharia village. The man died on the spot while the son died in the hospital.
A case had been registered against four persons on the complaint of the man's wife. No arrests have been made.
Onkar Sahu (50), a resident of Chaukharia village was sleeping at his shop near Dhannu village. The assailants opened fire on him at night.
The attackers then reached his house and shot at his son Sunil (30). http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/allahabad/Man-kills-son-in-law-his-father/articleshow/22219409.cms
The police said that the assailants opened fire at the two persons in Chaukharia village. The man died on the spot while the son died in the hospital.
A case had been registered against four persons on the complaint of the man's wife. No arrests have been made.
Onkar Sahu (50), a resident of Chaukharia village was sleeping at his shop near Dhannu village. The assailants opened fire on him at night.
The attackers then reached his house and shot at his son Sunil (30). http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/allahabad/Man-kills-son-in-law-his-father/articleshow/22219409.cms
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
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.
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
False rape charge lands woman in prison for 4 years
A woman has been sentenced to four years in jail for levelling false
allegations of rape against a man, who later committed suicide as he
could not bear the stigma of spending 72 days in jail for a crime he did
not commit.
Last December when the country was witnessing unprecedented protests against Delhi gangrape incident, 35-year-old Chanchal Rathore had accused her 53-year-old landlord, Roopkishore Agrawal, of raping her. However, during the trial, Chanchal admitted that she was not raped.
According to her, she had a quarrel with Agrawal when he had come to collect rent and the money her husband had taken as loan from him. Additional Sessions Judge Savita Dubey, who was hearing the rape case, later ordered that Chanchal be tried for giving a false statement.
The judge even appeared as a witness in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Indira Singh, who sentenced Chanchal to four years in jail under Section 211b of the IPC (making false charge of offence with an intent to injure). She has also been slapped a fine of Rs 10,000, non-payment of which will fetch another six months jail term for her.
Chanchal, who claimed to work for an NGO, was also sentenced to six months in jail under Section 182 (giving false information with an intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person). Both sentences will run concurrently.
Chanchal is also being separately tried for abetment to suicide, punishable with a seven-year jail term.
Chanchal's husband Sunil, who took the money from the landlord to buy a Tata Magic vehicle, is also an accused in this case, said Additional Public Prosecutor Hemant Mungi.
Agrawal was found dead in his home on March 17, nine days after he was released on bail. In his suicide note, he had blamed Chanchal for his ordeal and his decision to take kill himself.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/false-rape-charge-lands-woman-in-prison-for-4-years/1163643/
Last December when the country was witnessing unprecedented protests against Delhi gangrape incident, 35-year-old Chanchal Rathore had accused her 53-year-old landlord, Roopkishore Agrawal, of raping her. However, during the trial, Chanchal admitted that she was not raped.
According to her, she had a quarrel with Agrawal when he had come to collect rent and the money her husband had taken as loan from him. Additional Sessions Judge Savita Dubey, who was hearing the rape case, later ordered that Chanchal be tried for giving a false statement.
The judge even appeared as a witness in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Indira Singh, who sentenced Chanchal to four years in jail under Section 211b of the IPC (making false charge of offence with an intent to injure). She has also been slapped a fine of Rs 10,000, non-payment of which will fetch another six months jail term for her.
Chanchal, who claimed to work for an NGO, was also sentenced to six months in jail under Section 182 (giving false information with an intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person). Both sentences will run concurrently.
Chanchal is also being separately tried for abetment to suicide, punishable with a seven-year jail term.
Chanchal's husband Sunil, who took the money from the landlord to buy a Tata Magic vehicle, is also an accused in this case, said Additional Public Prosecutor Hemant Mungi.
Agrawal was found dead in his home on March 17, nine days after he was released on bail. In his suicide note, he had blamed Chanchal for his ordeal and his decision to take kill himself.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/false-rape-charge-lands-woman-in-prison-for-4-years/1163643/
Monday, 2 September 2013
A house divided
On compensation, the new Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill must be fine tuned
On August 26, the Rajya Sabha passed the Marriages Law (Amendment) Bill to facilitate divorce among Hindus. It will now go to the Lok Sabha. The bill promises easier divorce, but on compensation for the wife, it fails to take account of important complexities.
The bill allows divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown, provided the spouses have lived separately for at least three years and their differences are irreconcilable. Divorce can be granted not only on a joint petition by both spouses but also on a single party petition. The bill thus allows people trapped in unhappy marriages to part without years of litigation. There have been cases that have dragged on for over 15 years because one party refuses to cooperate.
For many years, easy divorce was opposed by both conservatives and liberals. The former argued that it would erode a key social institution, and the latter argued that it would harm women, since men would walk out of marriages and wives would have nowhere to go. The latter argument is given weight in the bill — it includes compensation in the form of a share in some types of the man's property. The court can also deny divorce to the man if the woman proves she will face dire financial hardship. While easier divorce is better for both parties, compared with an unhappy or violent marriage, on compensation, the bill has several anomalies.
It allows the court, on the wife's petition, to order the husband to make compensation "which shall include a share in his share of the immovable property (other than inherited or inheritable immovable property) and such amount by way of share in movable property, if any, towards the settlement of her claim, as the court may deem just and equitable, and while determining such compensation the court shall take into account the value of inherited or inheritable property of the husband." (Section 28D)
This means that in immovable property (say land or house), the wife has no claims in the part that is inherited or "inheritable", but she can get a share of that which is self-acquired or received as a gift. Moreover, the court, while fixing compensation, will take into account the value of all of the man's property, including that which is inherited or inheritable.
Globally, laws relating to property division on divorce are diverse and context specific. This bill ignores many complexities of the Indian context and fails to protect various categories of women. First, in protecting the interests of the divorced wife, the bill can undercut those of the man's female relatives. For instance, in his self-acquired land, the mother and daughter, as Class I heirs, have claims intestate (that is, if he leaves no will). A compensatory share for the divorced wife will diminish the shares of these female heirs. Moreover their property rights are established by Hindu inheritance law and not subject to
a judge's discretion. The bill takes no cognisance of this.
The dilemma — that a law which gives a divorced wife a share in a man's immovable property can disadvantage his female heirs — has no easy solution. An important principle in giving a divorced wife
a share of a man's property lies in recognising that she contributes substantial labour (usually unpaid) to family upkeep. Hence, she helps build the home's assets even when not contributing financially. But a mother and adult daughter living in the household may also provide unpaid labour for family upkeep, so their claims to the man's assets on these grounds are similar. One possible way forward is to make only property acquired after marriage subject to consideration on divorce, as many countries do.
Second, it is unclear what the bill means by a man's "inheritable" property. Is it property he can inherit or property his heirs can inherit from him? Under Hindu inheritance law, all property is subject to the right to will, including a man's notional share in joint family property. And it cannot be predicted whom a will may favour. If by "inheritable" property, the bill means the husband's share in joint family property it needs to state this.
Third, the bill ignores the duration of marriage. Some regions consider marriages of three years (New Zealand) or five years (Ontario) as short-duration and restrict property shares in such cases.
Fourth, the bill is silent on the woman's economic situation unless she faces financial hardship. This is inadequate. On the one hand, where women are well off, the financial means of both spouses should be considered in determining compensation. On the other hand, the bill must also recognise that many households own little property. This is where real economic hardship lies. My work on domestic violence shows that its incidence is much higher in households with no property, or where the woman herself owns none. She thus has no exit option from a violent marriage. Here, the state needs to provide not only effective legal aid to cover divorce proceedings, but also compensation (including subsidised housing) for women with few means, if the husband is financially unable to compensate.
The writer is professor of development economics and environment, University of Manchester,and author of
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/a-house-divided/1163180/0
On August 26, the Rajya Sabha passed the Marriages Law (Amendment) Bill to facilitate divorce among Hindus. It will now go to the Lok Sabha. The bill promises easier divorce, but on compensation for the wife, it fails to take account of important complexities.
The bill allows divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown, provided the spouses have lived separately for at least three years and their differences are irreconcilable. Divorce can be granted not only on a joint petition by both spouses but also on a single party petition. The bill thus allows people trapped in unhappy marriages to part without years of litigation. There have been cases that have dragged on for over 15 years because one party refuses to cooperate.
For many years, easy divorce was opposed by both conservatives and liberals. The former argued that it would erode a key social institution, and the latter argued that it would harm women, since men would walk out of marriages and wives would have nowhere to go. The latter argument is given weight in the bill — it includes compensation in the form of a share in some types of the man's property. The court can also deny divorce to the man if the woman proves she will face dire financial hardship. While easier divorce is better for both parties, compared with an unhappy or violent marriage, on compensation, the bill has several anomalies.
It allows the court, on the wife's petition, to order the husband to make compensation "which shall include a share in his share of the immovable property (other than inherited or inheritable immovable property) and such amount by way of share in movable property, if any, towards the settlement of her claim, as the court may deem just and equitable, and while determining such compensation the court shall take into account the value of inherited or inheritable property of the husband." (Section 28D)
This means that in immovable property (say land or house), the wife has no claims in the part that is inherited or "inheritable", but she can get a share of that which is self-acquired or received as a gift. Moreover, the court, while fixing compensation, will take into account the value of all of the man's property, including that which is inherited or inheritable.
Globally, laws relating to property division on divorce are diverse and context specific. This bill ignores many complexities of the Indian context and fails to protect various categories of women. First, in protecting the interests of the divorced wife, the bill can undercut those of the man's female relatives. For instance, in his self-acquired land, the mother and daughter, as Class I heirs, have claims intestate (that is, if he leaves no will). A compensatory share for the divorced wife will diminish the shares of these female heirs. Moreover their property rights are established by Hindu inheritance law and not subject to
a judge's discretion. The bill takes no cognisance of this.
The dilemma — that a law which gives a divorced wife a share in a man's immovable property can disadvantage his female heirs — has no easy solution. An important principle in giving a divorced wife
a share of a man's property lies in recognising that she contributes substantial labour (usually unpaid) to family upkeep. Hence, she helps build the home's assets even when not contributing financially. But a mother and adult daughter living in the household may also provide unpaid labour for family upkeep, so their claims to the man's assets on these grounds are similar. One possible way forward is to make only property acquired after marriage subject to consideration on divorce, as many countries do.
Second, it is unclear what the bill means by a man's "inheritable" property. Is it property he can inherit or property his heirs can inherit from him? Under Hindu inheritance law, all property is subject to the right to will, including a man's notional share in joint family property. And it cannot be predicted whom a will may favour. If by "inheritable" property, the bill means the husband's share in joint family property it needs to state this.
Third, the bill ignores the duration of marriage. Some regions consider marriages of three years (New Zealand) or five years (Ontario) as short-duration and restrict property shares in such cases.
Fourth, the bill is silent on the woman's economic situation unless she faces financial hardship. This is inadequate. On the one hand, where women are well off, the financial means of both spouses should be considered in determining compensation. On the other hand, the bill must also recognise that many households own little property. This is where real economic hardship lies. My work on domestic violence shows that its incidence is much higher in households with no property, or where the woman herself owns none. She thus has no exit option from a violent marriage. Here, the state needs to provide not only effective legal aid to cover divorce proceedings, but also compensation (including subsidised housing) for women with few means, if the husband is financially unable to compensate.
The writer is professor of development economics and environment, University of Manchester,and author of
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/a-house-divided/1163180/0
For equal laws
THE need for progressive reform in laws in general and in laws relating
to women in particular has been on the agenda of women’s groups and
organisations for long. In the past three decades, major amendments have
been pushed through in existing laws and new laws for women, such as
the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have also
emerged. At the same time, in the area of family and personal laws, it
is an acknowledged fact that none of them gives women the right to
marital property.
While women’s groups underpin their understanding of reform and change in the framework of more equality, others view reform from the narrow prism of imposing a uniform approach that apparently stems from sectarian and conservative motives. The central and overriding concern of women’s organisations such as the All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) was the question of equality, said Kirti Singh, senior advocate in the Supreme Court, and this included equality within their communities. In her experience, women’s groups, including AIDWA, have had to encounter resistance from multiple levels of patriarchy across communities.
The demand for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) by certain political parties was rooted in the need for equality as seen from a certain standpoint. The approach to the UCC, said Kirti Singh, began getting defined in very difficult, unequal and political terms by parties like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which seemed to suggest that Hindu laws were the ideal laws and that all other laws in some sense should be like Hindu laws. Both the BJP and the Congress had opportunistic views, one in support of the UCC and the other in opposition to it, with an eye on votes.
“We distanced ourselves from these groups, the BJP’s position on the UCC as well as from sections within the Muslim communities who were against any reform from within and wrongly argued that it was against the tenets of their religion. We emphasised that we wanted equality within different communities and the ending of discrimination against women within the family too,” she said.
The experience of women’s groups during the Shah Bano agitation showed that women within the Muslim community were also keen for reform of the law, which patriarchal elements within the community opposed in the name of religion. In the 1990s, several Muslim reform groups began advocating reform within Muslim Personal Law, and Kirti Singh said women’s groups, including AIDWA, pushed for a two-pronged strategy to bring about common, equal laws in areas such as matrimonial property and registration of marriages. It became apparent that the sections opposing reform within religions also articulated from time to time a narrow and biased interpretation of religion as well.
http://www.frontline.in/cover-story/for-equal-laws/article5037793.ece
While women’s groups underpin their understanding of reform and change in the framework of more equality, others view reform from the narrow prism of imposing a uniform approach that apparently stems from sectarian and conservative motives. The central and overriding concern of women’s organisations such as the All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) was the question of equality, said Kirti Singh, senior advocate in the Supreme Court, and this included equality within their communities. In her experience, women’s groups, including AIDWA, have had to encounter resistance from multiple levels of patriarchy across communities.
The demand for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) by certain political parties was rooted in the need for equality as seen from a certain standpoint. The approach to the UCC, said Kirti Singh, began getting defined in very difficult, unequal and political terms by parties like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which seemed to suggest that Hindu laws were the ideal laws and that all other laws in some sense should be like Hindu laws. Both the BJP and the Congress had opportunistic views, one in support of the UCC and the other in opposition to it, with an eye on votes.
“We distanced ourselves from these groups, the BJP’s position on the UCC as well as from sections within the Muslim communities who were against any reform from within and wrongly argued that it was against the tenets of their religion. We emphasised that we wanted equality within different communities and the ending of discrimination against women within the family too,” she said.
The experience of women’s groups during the Shah Bano agitation showed that women within the Muslim community were also keen for reform of the law, which patriarchal elements within the community opposed in the name of religion. In the 1990s, several Muslim reform groups began advocating reform within Muslim Personal Law, and Kirti Singh said women’s groups, including AIDWA, pushed for a two-pronged strategy to bring about common, equal laws in areas such as matrimonial property and registration of marriages. It became apparent that the sections opposing reform within religions also articulated from time to time a narrow and biased interpretation of religion as well.
http://www.frontline.in/cover-story/for-equal-laws/article5037793.ece
No anticipatory bail to Prince Tuli, Parents relieved
Nagpur News: A sessions court on Saturday rejected the anticipatory
bail application of Prince Tuli but granted him protection from arrest
for two weeks for approaching the Bombay High Court.
Mookhey had accused Tulli, a resident of Nagpur, of cruelty, criminal breach of trust, and unnatural sex in a complaint filed with Amboli Police on July 3. Tuli’s parents and sister were also booked.
The court, however, granted anticipatory bail to Tuli’s parents and sister, after their lawyer managed to prove that they had cooperated with the investigation.
The court transferred the investigation to the Bandra Police, after Mookhey approached the police commissioner alleging the investigating officer from Amboli Police Station was favouring the accused, as his family home was in Nagpur.
Mookhey had told the court that some videos of the couple was in Tuli’s possession, and expressed apprehension that he might make those public.
Mookhey’s counsel also referred to a second FIR that Mookhey filed against Tuli on August 18, citing a newspaper interview in which he allegedly ‘defamed’ her.
http://www.nagpurtoday.in/no-anticipatory-bail-to-prince-tuli-parents-relieved/
Mookhey had accused Tulli, a resident of Nagpur, of cruelty, criminal breach of trust, and unnatural sex in a complaint filed with Amboli Police on July 3. Tuli’s parents and sister were also booked.
The court, however, granted anticipatory bail to Tuli’s parents and sister, after their lawyer managed to prove that they had cooperated with the investigation.
The court transferred the investigation to the Bandra Police, after Mookhey approached the police commissioner alleging the investigating officer from Amboli Police Station was favouring the accused, as his family home was in Nagpur.
Mookhey had told the court that some videos of the couple was in Tuli’s possession, and expressed apprehension that he might make those public.
Mookhey’s counsel also referred to a second FIR that Mookhey filed against Tuli on August 18, citing a newspaper interview in which he allegedly ‘defamed’ her.
http://www.nagpurtoday.in/no-anticipatory-bail-to-prince-tuli-parents-relieved/
'Amended Marriage Laws Bill 2010 will harm interest of husbands'
NAGPUR: Not happy with Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill 2010 tabled in Parliament on August 26, men's rights activist Rajesh Vakharia
of 'Save Indian Family Foundation', Nagpur chapter, says that the law
is against the principles of natural justice. "Statements in support of
this law were grossly misleading and downright incorrect," says
Vakharia.
He feels that only lawyers will welcome such a law which gives power to law enforcement systems. "When the government planned to amend Criminal Procedure Code to reduce arrests under Section 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," says Vakharia.
Vakharia's view is that if the bill is passed by Parliament, then husbands will lose their hard-earned property if their marriage breaks. They will face false cases under Section 498A, Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 CrPC, etc. and get extorted further.
They may also lose custody of their children to their estranged wife and will become bankrupt if their wife decides to leave or if they are unhappy in the marriage.
"All I want is that the law minister should call for an open debate on the pros and cons of this law," he says. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Amended-Marriage-Laws-Bill-2010-will-harm-interest-of-husbands/articleshow/22228527.cms
He feels that only lawyers will welcome such a law which gives power to law enforcement systems. "When the government planned to amend Criminal Procedure Code to reduce arrests under Section 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," says Vakharia.
Vakharia's view is that if the bill is passed by Parliament, then husbands will lose their hard-earned property if their marriage breaks. They will face false cases under Section 498A, Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 CrPC, etc. and get extorted further.
They may also lose custody of their children to their estranged wife and will become bankrupt if their wife decides to leave or if they are unhappy in the marriage.
"All I want is that the law minister should call for an open debate on the pros and cons of this law," he says. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Amended-Marriage-Laws-Bill-2010-will-harm-interest-of-husbands/articleshow/22228527.cms
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)