New Delhi, 28th May, 2008: In an interesting development, Rohini Metroplitan Magistrate issued the Non-Bailable Warrant against the dishonest wife who failed to appear on last couple of dates. Jaspreet Kaur, wife of IIT alumunus Prameet S Narula was being summoned for the proceedings against her u/s 182 IPC initiated by Punjabi Bagh Police.

In this matter, Punjabi Bagh Police had filed a Kalandhra u/s 195 Cr.P.C in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Court in August 2007. Metropolitan Magistrate had taken the cognizance u/s 182 IPC and had been repeatedly summoning the accused Jaspreet Kaur who is presently residing in Melbourne, Australia. On the last date of hearing in Feb, 2008, accused father Jaswinder Singh residing in India was asked by the Hon’ble Court to produce the accused on next Date Of Hearing (28th May); failing which non-bailable warrant were issued by the Metroplitan Magistrate on 28th May. “The warrants to be served by the Ministry of External affairs”, the Magistrate added.
While placing the matter before the court, Punjabi Bagh Police highlighted the complaint dated 5th may, 2004 filed by Ms. Kaur against Mr. Narula alleging that the later had destroyed her passport. This complaint was filed by Ms. Kaur on 5th May, 2004.

However, in an affidavit submitted by her in an Australian Court she submitted the true copy of her passport which was issued in 2000. The same was highlighted by Mr. Narula to the Punjabi Bagh Police in May, 2007, acting upon which police submitted the Kalandera u/s 182 IPC in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate in August, 2007. As an evidence, the copy of her passport was attached on which she had traveled to Australia in July, 2006 which carries the stamp of Australian Visa. 182 IPC deals with giving false information to the public servant in order to cause injury to someone. Maximum punishment for the offence is prescribed as 6 months of RI.

Ms. Jaspreet Kaur has also initiated another criminal proceedings against Mr. Narula, pending the court of ASJ, Rohini Courts. However after filing the case, Ms.Kaur left for Australia without even intimating the court and leaving Mr. Narula with an agony to face criminal proceedings for last four years. Ms. Kaur then in Australia filed the divorce for the fourth time (her earlier applications of divorce were either dismissed or withdrawn by herself). But here Ms. Kaur committed a mistake when she moved a true copy of her passport carrying her Australian Visa in the Australian Court. The same was produced by Mr. Narula in front of Punjabi Bagh Police.

It seems Mr. Narula’s long and patient wait for justice for last four years is finally getting paid off. This should be a lesson to all those who believe that they will manipulate the law to their benefit and still go scot free.

For more details , please contact lawyer, Abhishek Atrey, Supreme Court. Ph : 9868084638 ; 9810047556
Do you Dare ? to Speak TRUTH

New Delhi, May 19: Gifts for a newborn, demanded by a woman’s husband and his family, cannot be regarded as dowry, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The court acquitted Narayanamurthy from Karnataka whose wife committed suicide over alleged demands for such gifts.

The woman, Jagadeshwari, set herself ablaze in her husband’s house on November 11, 1990, after alleged harassment by him and her in-laws for failing to get enough dowry.

After a daughter was born to Jagadeshwari, her in-laws had demanded a gold ring and silverware for the thread-changing ceremony that was to be held in the child’s maternal home.

But Jagadeshwari’s family could not gift the gold ring, following which Narayanamurthy refused to participate in the ceremony and went back to his house.

According to the prosecution, Jagadeshwari was being harassed from day one of her marriage in 1989 for bringing insufficient dowry. She had got Rs 4,000 in cash and five gold ornaments from her family.

Jagadeshwari stayed with her parents for five months during her pregnancy and gave birth to the girl there.

A few days after the thread-changing ceremony, Jagadeshwari’s brother Ravichandra took her and the child back to Narayanamurthy’s house and assured her in-laws that their demands would be met in a short time. They, however, continued to harass Jagadeshwari, the prosecution said.

About a week before killing herself, Jagadeshwari went back to her parents’ house and told them she had been assaulted. But her parents persuaded her to go back to Narayanamurthy.

Jagadeshwari’s in-laws — Kannappa and Shivabhushanamma — and Narayanamurthy were tried under sections 498A (cruelty) and 304B (dowry death within seven years of marriage) of the IPC and sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Father-in-law Kannappa died while trial was on.

The trial court acquitted Narayanamurthy and his mother in April 2000 for lack of evidence.

On appeal by the state, Karnataka High Court convicted the husband under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.

He was also sentenced to another two years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A of the IPC and fined Rs 5,000.

The high court, however, acquitted him of offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the dowry prohibition act. It also upheld Shivabhushanamma’s acquittal.

The apex court, which acquitted Narayanamurthy, too, said though it had been proven that Jagadeshwari’s father had gifted the silverware to Narayanamurthy at the ceremony, “such gifts are not enveloped within the ambit of dowry”.

“We agree with the high court that the evidence against the mother is insufficient and inconsistent to convict her,” it said.

The court said, even otherwise, “mere evidence of cruelty and harassment” does not make a case under Section 304B of the IPC (dowry death within seven years of marriage).
Do you Dare ? to Speak TRUTH

MUMBAI: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court has ruled that a woman having an extra-marital affair with a married man cannot be booked under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which seeks to punish “cruelty to a married woman“.

The order was passed by Justice V R Kingaonkar on Tuesday while quashing an FIR against a 28-year-old woman from Aurangabad who was hauled to the police station by the aggrieved wife of the man she was having an affair with. The high court held that the wording of the law made it clear that it was applicable only to “the husband and his relatives” who subjected a wife to cruelty, and another woman in a man’s life could not be considered a relative falling under its purview.

The complaint was filed at Gadgenagar police station in Amravati by Vishal Bhawar’s wife, Suhasini, who said that she had “noticed Bhawar having an extra-marital affair with a woman called Rakhi“.

When she tried to dissuade him, he retorted that his “relations with Rakhi could not be snapped and would continue throughout his life”. Suhasini subsequently alleged that she was subjected to cruelty by Vishal and his relatives, and filed a complaint under Section 498-A of the IPC in which Rakhi was also named as an accused.

Suhasini’s advocate argued in court that Rakhi had been named because “she was the main reason why Suhasini was subjected to cruelty”.

Justice Kingaonkar said that even if one assumed that “Rakhi was the cause of bickerings between the spouses (sic)… and Suhasini was being ill-treated or subjected to harassment because of the extra-marital relationship between Vishal and Rakhi”, the police complaint against her was not maintainable under Section 498-A as Rakhi was not related to Vishal.

WHAT IS SECTION 498-A?

Section 498-A was introduced in the IPC in 1983 to deal with the growing number of cases of married women being subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry by husbands and in-laws. The term “cruelty” under the section takes within its sweep both the mental and physical agony and torture of a married woman. To decide on the question of cruelty, a court may look at the economic status of husband and wife, their cultural backgrounds, temperaments and their interaction in daily life. The section carries a jail term of three years and is non-bailable
Source:>>

MUKTSAR: Three years after a criminal case was registered against the family members of a person who filed a PIL in the infamous DSP recruitment scam during the Congress regime in February 2004, vigilance department finally cancelled the FIR.

The PIL had led to cancellation of recruitment of DSPs, and as one of the candidates was Bikramjit Singh, son of BIS Chahal, media advisor to the then CM Amarinder Singh, the person who filed the PIL allegedly faced many problems.

After Jaskaran Singh Brar, a resident of Bhagsar village in Muktsar, filed the PIL in February 2004, his family and friends started facing harassment from police. On October 8, 2004, the vigilance department arrested his father and brother after registering a criminal case against them. They were arrested in connection with an old-age pension case. Though the vigilance produced a challan and the court of special judge, Muktsar, framed the charges, after SAD-BJP government came into power, Jaskaran’s family moved an application for reinvestigation.

After an inquiry by DSP vigilance, Muktsar, the joint director prosecution (vigilance) recommended cancellation of the case in February 2008. The court summoned the DSP who had registered the case in February 2004.

Source:>>

New Delhi, pti: Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan on Saturday said the Right to Information Act does not apply to his office.
The Chief Justice said the Act does not apply to him as “he was a Constitutional authority and not a government official”. His remarks on the applicability of RTI Act on his office were made during his interaction with the media at the end of a conference of chief ministers and chief justices.
Source:>>

Anonymous letters sent to courts in matters related tocases should not be treated as public interest litigations, a conference of chief justices of High Courts resolved on Saturday.
The resolution was part of the agenda on steps required to curb PILs. “The conference emphasised the need to strictly follow the judgement of the Supreme Court dated March 11, 2008 in the case of Divine Retreat Centre Vs Kerala,” it said.
The impugned verdict had made it clear that an anonymous letter cannot be treated as a Writ Petition in public interest, the resolution said. The conference also resolved that elevation of judges in High Courts as permanent judges will be based on their performance, particularly in disposal of cases.
“The strength of judges in the High Courts be delinked from disposal, and fixed on the basis of pendency of cases. Disposal rate of additional judges of the High Courts be taken into consideration while appointing them against permanent posts,” the resolution said.
On the issue of salary and allowances of the Supreme Court and High Court judges, the resolution said it was “discussed” in the conference but no details were given.

Source:>>

Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.1816/IC(A)/2008
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2007/00583
Dated, the 10th January, 2008

Name of the Appellant: Sh. Ashish Kumar Tiwari
Name of the Public Authority: Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation

Facts:
1. The appellant was heard on 9/1/2008.
2. The appellant has asked for the details of PF account in respect of his ex-wife. The CPIO has, however, refused to furnish the information u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Act.
3. During the hearing, the appellant stated that his ex-wife is already employed by a school and, therefore, there is no justification for payment of maintenance allowance as awarded by the Court. He, therefore, pleaded that the information asked for is required to seek exemption from payment of maintenance allowance.
Decision:
4. The appellant’s financial interest is affected in the matter, as he is seeking legal relief from the Court. The disclosure of financial details, mainly PF contributions by his ex-wife would surely help the affected parties in arriving at the reasonable amount of maintenance to be paid to his divorced wife. The disclosure of information sought is, therefore, in larger public interest. The information should therefore be provided.

5. The CPIO is, therefore, directed to furnish the details of PF of his ex-wife, after determining his identity as ex-husband of the person whose details have been asked for. This information should be furnished within 15 working days from the date of issue of this decision.
6. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari) Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy:
(L.C. Singhi)
Additional Registrar

Name & address of Parties:
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Tiwari, Qtr. No.H-3, Sadar Bazar, PWD Colony, Hoshangabad – 461 001.
2. Sh. M. Ramakrishnan, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II(FA)/CPIO, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, 7, Race Course Road, Indore (M.P.)

Source :>>

MUMBAI: Justice V R Kingaonkar of the Bombay High Court ruled this week that a husband did not have to pay maintenance to a wife who left her matrimonial house alleging cruelty and harassment but could not prove the same before a magistrate.

The order came after the court heard the plea of Sanjay Bhosale (35), a ward boy at Pune’s Yerawada Mental Hospital whose wife, Khristina, left him within five months of their wedding in May 1998, alleging that Bhosale was a drunkard who often beat her up and demanded gifts. Khristina had even said that she “apprehended danger to her life” at his house and therefore could not live with him any longer.

Khristina had filed for a separate monthly maintenance allowance of Rs 1,500 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Her plea was first turned down by a magistrate, but a sessions court awarded her a monthly allowance of Rs 700.

Bhosale took the matter to the high court, saying that he had not treated Khristina cruelly and that she had left him of her own will.

Justice Kingaonkar, who heard Bhosale’s plea, observed that Khristina had not produced any documents or examined any witnesses in court to support her claims that she had lodged a police complaint against Bhosale and written to her father about the cruel treatment she was suffering at his hands.

On the other hand Bhosale brought the two neighbours — Shubhangi and Bashid — to court as defence witnesses. The neighbours testified that he was “not addicted to any vice” and that they had never him quarrel with Khristina.

Bhosale also told the high court that he had been granted restitution of conjugal rights by a family court in 2003 which noted that Khristina had “withdrawn from the society without any reasonable excuse”.

Justice Kingaonkar, after going through all the evidence, considered that Khristina could have left Bhosale “under the burden of domestic chores” and the family court had also said she was “guilty of deserting Bhosale without any reasonable excuse”.

Source >.

In what could be a breather for the accused booked for non-bailable offences, the Central Law Commission has suggested that the accused shall not be compelled to remain present in the court at the time of the hearing of their anticipatory bail application.

If the report is accepted, the accused will not have to rush to court to seek protection from arrest.

The commission, which submitted the report to Union Law Minister Dr H L Bharadwaj last month, has sought deletion of Section 438(1)(b) of the criminal procedure code (CrPC), which empowers police to arrest the accused in a court without a warrant.

“The relatively new provision under the CrPC is wrong in empowering police to arrest in the court without a warrant,” the 89-page report says.

The report further adds that “rejection of the anticipatory bail cannot be a ground to give direction for the immediate arrest of the accused”.

The three-member commission, headed by retired justice A R Lakshmanan, has opined that there may be cases where a bail application may be rejected and yet the applicant may not be put to trial if there are chances that he may be given a clean chit after the completion of investigation.

But the law commission’s suggestion will have little meaning for Maharashtra, which has already amended the CrPC.  “If the prosecutor insists on the presence of the accused,” says Satish Borulkar, a public prosecutor at the Bombay High Court, “it can urge the court for the same. The provision in CrPC has given this power to the prosecution.”

“Immediate arrest of the accused is necessary in the serious cases such as murder,” Borulkar added, “The police would not wait to obtain a warrant from the court as such delay may help the accused abscond.”

Noted defence lawyer Shirish Gupte agrees.

“The amendment to the CrPC gives power to the prosecution to demand the presence of accused at the time of the hearing of his ABA,” Gupte said. In 2006, the state government amended Section 438 of the CrPC, making it necessary for an applicant seeking anticipatory bail to remain present in the court at the time of the final hearing of the application.

Source :>>

New Delhi: For a society often seen to reflect a deeply ingrained bias for “fairness”, a Supreme Court ruling sentencing a man to two years in jail for driving his wife to suicide over repeated taunts over her “dark” complexion will serve as both a warning and a mirror to its uglier traits.

The apex court was firm that ridiculing a wife by calling her “black” amounted to severe mental torture. It rejected the husband’s plea that mere remarks about his spouse’s complexion could not be taken into consideration as they did not amount to mental torture and so the conclusion that this drove her to commit suicide was erroneous.The court said derogatory and contempuous remarks about a woman’s dark complexion, which could be worse than physical torture for a sensitive person, caused enough mental trauma to drive the accused’s wife to take the extreme step.

This order on Friday from a Bench comprising Justices Altamas Kabir and J M Panchal for the first time marks a new sensitivity towards a discrimination that has often been so common that it is not even considered as out of the ordinary. While the court and legislature have acted against caste-based and, lately against gender-based prejudices, the colour handicap had not engaged its attention so far.

The SC intervention on Friday may be a salutary lesson in a country which despite its claim to be at the vanguard of the global fight against racial apartheid, remains acutely colour conscious. This colour preference has been embossed onto the popular consciousness through Bollywood with its songs often in praise of the “chand sa mukhda” and “gore gaal”.

So high are societal pressures that creams and therapies promising colour correction sell briskly. The fairness creams market is as big as Rs 800 crore in India. In the facts of the case, Syed Fathima, within two months of her marriage to Farook Batcha in August 1999, got so distressed with the constant bickering and quarrels in her matrimonial home because of her dark complexion that she finally decided to end her life by pouring kerosene and setting herself alight.

In her dying declaration, she stated that since her complexion was dark, her husband did not like her and there were frequent quarrels. A day after giving the statement, she died in hospital. A Madurai sessions court as well as the Madras High Court found that the husband was guilty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (cruelty to women in matrimonial home) and sentenced him to two years imprisonment. Batcha appealed against the HC judgment in the Supreme Court.

//If Calling BLACK as black is crime in india; then, why not saying white as White i s not wrong ?

They also charged with Imprisonment ? or Indian judiciary force men to lie, how thier wife look like or its mockery of constitution ? –eDitor

Truth About Dowry Law and Its Misuse
Violence at Home A Truth for The Indian Husband
Narcissists Modern Indian Woman?
Indias Legal Tools of Extortion
Reconciliation
TRUE Colour of Media and Women
My Vision My Dream
The Indian GenderBiased Domestic Violence Act
Indian Mens Legal Torture
PRE NUPITAL CONTRACT
Think before get marry Indian Women