Archive for January, 2008

CIC notice to NCW for not responding to women

January 22, 2008 

New Delhi | Friday, Jan 11 2008 IST

The National Commission for Women (NCW) has been served a show cause notice by the Central Information Commission (CIC) for failing to redress grievances of two women.

Complainants Tripta Sayal and Sumati Sayal in a petition to the CIC said their applications seeking information on action taken on a complaint filed before the National Commission for Women on July 7 in 2006 had not been responded to yet.

They said they had submitted the application on January 16 last year.

On not obtaining the information within the prescribed time, the two moved their first appeal before Appellate authority in the National Commission for Women on March 9 last year. When the women still not received a response, they moved an appeal to the CIC on April 18.

The CIC after a hearing on Wednesday directed the Commission to respond to the request for information of the two complainants within 15 working days from the date of receipt of the decision.

”The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), has been further directed to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs 250/- per day from the date when the information fell due ie 16,02,2007 to the date when the information is actually supplied, not exceeding Rs 25,000, be not imposed on them under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act,” the CIC said in a decision delivered on Monday.

— (UNI) — 11DI14.xml


New differing perceptions of dowry

January 22, 2008

Dowry has attained new meanings among different socio-economic groups. While the affluent may avoid using the word ‘dowry,’ the transfer of gifts to the man’s family as an obligation is still deeply entrenched.

There are two faces to the Indian woman today. The public-school educated, well-informed urban young woman and the barely literate, rural woman.

They also have different perceptions about dowry.

Marriages may be made in heaven but the celestial affair is celebrated right here on earth, that too in style.

Fuelled by our growing economy, it’s no longer a luxury for the select few. For the 300-million odd middle class it’s also what their daughters want to ensure comfortable wedded bliss.

Weddings today is an industry in India worth US$ 50 billion and is growing at a rate of 25-30%.

Wedding shopping is the least parents can do for their daughters, it is also the least the daughters themselves demand.

Designer gifts is what shouts parental love today. But these young women never want to discuss this. They justify it as a family affair.

Parul owner of Design Plaza said, ”Today girls come with their parents and give their opinions. Earlier it was considered dowry but today they are vocal of their need, actually its more of a fashion trend. This trend is increasing for the upper class.”

Meenu Dhingra has been in the interior decor business for 13 years and has seen it change dramatically. ”Earlier parents bought some stuff, but today with fashion needs have also gone up. Earlier you could give 2 things now everybody has a longer list of fridge TV, microwave etc to be given,” she said.

Meenu also added, ”Nowadays we are sent to the grooms house to get sizes etc. Earlier a godrej cupboard would be given but today the whole room has to be designed. The grooms side says do up the whole wall, set up a separate dressing room along with bedrooms and the payment mostly comes from the girl’s side.”

Yet the year 2006 witnessed 1000 more dowry deaths than 2005.

The other women

Oblivious to this urban notion of dowry there are other women from different parts of the country for whom dowry tops the list of evil.

The enlightenment is recent and they are still miles from becoming bringing about a transformation.

Razia Khatoom says, ”We tell our parents to to spend the money on our education instead of the dowry.”

According to Akhila Shivdas a sociologist, ”Consumerism generates all kinds of responses, one of them has become this regressive notion of the consumers themselves. No hope should be pinned to the middle class for a change, it will begin from the ground level.”

There are ones with all her education regressing to old traditions, the other is fighting against them.

Woman held for killing husband, children

January 21, 2008 

Tribune News Service

Gidderbaha, January 20
The Gidderbaha police on Sunday arrested a woman, Manpreet Kaur, on charges of murdering her husband Surjeet Singh and his two children, a son aged 23 years and the 19-year-old daughter.

According to deputy superintendent of police (DSP) Jagjit Singh Bhagtana, Manpreet had administered sleeping pills to 
her husband and the two children.

After they became unconscious, Manpreet, along with her paramour Rinku, strangled them to death as was borne out by the postmortem report, the DSP said.

The body of the two children were found near the canal while Surjeet’s body was found at his house in Gidderbaha.

Surjeet was posted as patwari in Bathinda.

It was a second marriage for both Manpreet and Surjeet. While Surjeet’s first wife had passed away, Manpreet was a divorcee. Surjeet’s two children were born from his first wife.

According to the police, the incident took place on the night of January 17 and it was after the preliminary inquiry that Manpreet was arrested today. Her paramour Rinku is still absconding. Further proceedings in the case are on.


January 21, 2008

2 FEBRUARY, 1835
I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one
person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country,
such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would
ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation,
which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we
replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians
think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own,
they will lose their self-esteem, their native culture and they will become what
we want them, a truly dominated nation Read more at >>

Britain plays unhappy families

January 21, 2008

January 20, 2008

Wives feel like chattels, scared to leave in case they find themselves on the breadline

498a-cruelty related judgements

January 21, 2008

1. Any false complaint is cruelty. See Ruma pal’s judgment in SIF
2. Girdhari Lal Vs. Santosh Kumari (1982) 1 DMC 180 Held: filing of
false complains amounts to cruelty

Harassed’ husbands now take to the streets

January 21, 2008

They want Domestic Violence Act amended to include provisions for men

BANGALORE: The tables have turned. Husbands harassed by their wives have
finally realised the futility of taking things lying down.
Beginning with Bangalore on Saturday, they are taking to the streets under the
banner of Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF).
The largest group in India, SIFF was formed in 2000 and has 8,000 members who
have been accused of harassing their wives and have been slapped with cases
under Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and anti-dowry law (of 498a). According to
the group, the Act is being misused by their wives and in-laws.
The group, comprising mainly software engineers, is urging the central
government to
make the Act neutral by including in its ambit provisions related to domestic
violence against men. The members are holding protests in Delhi, Hyderabad,
Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata for this purpose.
Over 200 members gathered in front of Mahatma Gandhi’s statue near Cubbon Park
in Bangalore on Saturday. Armed with placards espousing their cause, they made
motivating speeches and narrated to passers-by their plight.
“Men are being portrayed negatively by exaggerated statistics on dowry
harassment or domestic violence cases. Women often use the Act to separate from
the husbands in lieu of an attractive alimony,” said Binoe, a SIFF member.
According to Pandurang Katti, one of the 12 SIFF founders and a senior
software professional, men face a host of issues due to lack of protection from
the law.
“The current Domestic Violence Act suffers from gender bias as it is only made
for protection of women,” he said.
Uma Challa, director of the US-based Protect Indian Family Foundation which
has opened a branch in Hyderabad, said:
“Women call me up just to ask if they can use the Act to bring around their
husbands or to separate them from their parents. They do not understand the
seriousness of the law. This is predominantly an urban phenomenon,” she said.
“We have websites and helplines that reach out to only internet-savvy people.
But we want to create awareness among those who do not have access to the net,”
she added.

Why men can’t lie to women

January 21, 2008
Melbourne, January 19, 2008

SC ruling on live-in couples may give women right to inherit

January 21, 2008

21 Jan 2008, 0127 hrs IST,Dhananjay Mahapatra,TNN

Live-in couples, a trend that is yet to be legitimised in the Indian social mileu, was the focus of a recent judgment of the Supreme Court.The apex court’s inclination to consider such relationships, after a long spell of togetherness, as valid marriages could give women a lot to cheer about. For, she could have a right to inherit, claim insurance benefits and family pension in the event of her partner’s death, which she is not entitled to at present.

Was the apex court talking something radical in the Indian context? Was it something new? How long should a couple live together as husband and wife to clutch on to this judgment to claim marriage and enjoy the rights flowing from it? There is nothing radical about the recent judgment. It did not enunciate a new theory.

It was merely reiterating a principle that was first chronicled in 1927 as a ruling of it’s predecessor — the Privy Council.

The case was between A Dinohamy and W L Blahamy. The council laid down the general principle: “Where a man and a woman are proved to have lived together as a man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage.”

As per the 1927 ruling, a live-in relationship was to be considered a valid marriage if the couple lived together and there was no evidence to the contrary.

Two years later, the council revisited the legal issue in the Mohabhat Ali Vs Mohammad Ibrahim Khan case. It made a significant addition to the conditions laid down in the 1927 ruling. It said: “The law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years.”

So, for a live-in couple to be considered validly married, the court wanted evidence of cohabitation, that too for a number of years, between a couple. It did not specify the minimum number of years of cohabitation.

After 23 years in the case between Gokal Chand and Pravin Kumari, the Supreme Court reiterated the 1929 principle, but added a caveat. It said though the presumption for a valid marriage between a live-in couple could be drawn from their long cohabitation, it was no guarantee to earn them legitimacy, if the evidence regarding living together was rebuttable.

“If there were circumstances which weaken and destroy the presumption of long years of cohabitation, the courts could not ignore them” and consider the live-in couple to be legally married, it had said.In this 1952 judgment, the apex court had refused to recognise a live-in relationship, even though the couple lived together for some years before the pregnant woman went away from him and lived alone with her child born out of her live-in relationship with the man.

The rebuttal of a presumption in favour of a valid marriage, in this case, came from the child, who said she did not remember her father ever visiting her or her mother.

The court in the Badri Prasad case (1978) had recognised a live-in relationship as a valid marriage frowning upon the authorities for questioning their relationship 50 years after the couple started living together and were treated as husband and wife by the relatives.

In the January 15, 2008, judgment pronounced by a Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and P Sathasivam, the court leaned in favour of legitimising a live-in couple as they had lived together for 30 years.

It quoted the 1978 ruling, which had said: “There is a strong presumption in favour of wedlock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. The presumption was rebuttable, but a heavy burden lies on the person who seeks to deprive the relationship of the legal origin to prove that no marriage took place. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy.”

So to acquire legitimacy or the ‘legally married’ tag, a live-in couple has to do the following:

Cohabit together for a long period (a minimum of 30 years, as per the instances taken note of by the apex court!)

Be known in society as husband and wife. This means either have children or get their names registered in some document, for example by property jointly as husband and wife.

Leave no evidence to allow anyone to rebutt their relationship.

var RN = new String (Math.random()); var RNS = RN.substring (2,11); var b2 = ‘ ‘; if (doweshowbellyad==1) bellyad.innerHTML = b2; Comments:

Will the law ministry define the same rules in case of Domestic violence act PWDVA?

Or even prostitutes, maids, secreteries will keep enjoying the compensations under this act?

Dowry frame-up is cruelty against husband’

January 21, 2008

New Delhi: A city court, while granting divorce to a husband has held
that his wife’s false allegations of dowry harassment against him
amount to cruelty. In this case the husband had sought a divorce from
his wife to whom he had been married to 33 years as he claimed that his
wife had been cruel to him by lodging several false complaints against

Additional district judge Atul Kumar Garg, said in a recent order:
“It has been proved that the wife has treated the husband with
cruelty as no person expects misbehaviour from his wife and to send him
to jail by lodging several complaints.”

Admitting the divorce plea of the husband, who spent a few days in jail
due to his wife’s false complaints, the court observed that his wife
had in her testimony denied levelling dowry charges against him.
“By claiming this, she belied her own allegations levelled against
her husband in various other judicial and quasi-judicial fora,”
the court said. The couple’s children had also spoken in favour of
their father before the Delhi Police’s Crime Against Women (CAW)
cell. TNN

Times of India