Archive for the ‘News-Legal’ Category

CJI warns Advocates

April 12, 2009

CJI warns advocates

Tamil News: Dinamalar April 11,2009

CJI Balakrishnan warns advocates in the 50th anniversay of indian bar association meeting that recently there are so many complaints against advocates that in criminal cases advocates are cheating their clients and colluding with
opponents for money. In some cases they demand huge amount of fees from the clients. It is necessary to take severe action against those lawyers.


Woman fined for filing false maintenance case

April 12, 2009

Woman fined for filing false maintenance case
+ Case+Against+ Husband,+ Gets+Fined+ Instead

Kundapur, Feb 17: In a rare case, the Udupi district court has fined Rs 5,000 to a woman who filed a case against her husband claiming payment of alimony, on the ground that she has filed false case against her husband for harassing him.

Estela Rodrigues, a resident of Kallianpur Santekatte, had accused her husband, who lived abroad, of meting our mental torture to her, besides driving her out of his home. She had claimed that her husband did not pay her any money for family maintenance and asked the court to pass orders, requiring him to pay alimony to her.

After the court served notices, her husband who appeared in person at the court, dismissed the charges. He alleged, that his wife had driven his aged mother out of the house and admitted her into a home for the aged located in Sastan, some distance away.

He also brought to the notice of the court, the fact that his wife had booked two dowry harassment cases against him besides a fake murder-attempt case. He pointed out that the courts which had conducted detailed hearing, had acquitted him of all these charges earlier. He also brought to the attention of the court the fact that even after registering the cases, his wife continued to live in his house for a considerable period.

The court was informed, that his wife’s claim that she was unemployed was misleading and that she worked in Goretti Hospital Kallianpur. Documentary proof was submitted in the court in support of this claim.

The court observed that the husband attended much more hearings as compared to the wife who had filed the case. Judge Katyayini who heard the case, dismissed the petition moved by the wife and ordered her to pay fine.

Kundapur advocate Ravikiran Murdeshwar appeared in the court on behalf of the defendant.

Would law on Acid Attacks be Gender Neutral?

August 24, 2008

With daily news of acid attacks on husband or lovers by women it is a need of the society to make the proposed law against acid attacks. Will National commission for Women or Law commission advocate for a gender neutral law aginst acid attack or a man’s life as comapred to a woman’s has no value?

Woman throws acid on husband
22 Aug 2008, 0217 hrs IST,TNN

KOLKATA: A heated argument between a young couple spun out of control on Wednesday night, as the woman allegedly threw acid on her husband’s face.

The incident took place in Sodepur on the northern fringes of the city. Incidentally, both husband and wife are classmates at Guru Nanak Dental College in Agarpara.

Subhobrata Sanyal, the husband, lodged an FIR with Khardah police station. But since both are final-year medical students, police have decided to wait till their final examinations before making any arrests, if necessary. The woman has been asked to proceed to her parents’ house in Bankura.

Sriparna Ghosh Sanyal (26) fell in love with Subhobrata at the medical college. The relationship blossomed and the couple tied the knot in 2005.

But soon, differences emerged and they started bickering. Quarrels are routine, said neighbours. “Initially, we thought these were regular conjugal tiffs. But they fought too frequently. Amazingly, minutes after a fight, they would patch up. But on Wednesday, things got out of hand,” said a neighbour.

Sriparna, in a fit of rage, allegedly threw carbolic acid – generally used to ward off snakes – on her husband’s face. “But within seconds, she had realized what she had done and quickly wiped the acid off his face. Thankfully, the injury was not serious,” said a policeman.

Subhobrata first got himself treated at Panihati State General Hospital. Then, boiling with anger, he walked into Khardah police station and lodged a complaint against his wife. Luckily, police saw the delicacy of the situation and decided to play counsellors.

“We will probe the matter but our intention is not to break the marriage. The incident happened in a moment of anger. Both husband and wife understood that. Sriparna is repentant. So, we have desisted from arresting her. They have their careers ahead of them and if they live separately, they can pay attention to their studies,” an investigator said.

Acid attack to kill husband
27 May 2008, 0553 hrs IST, Subhro Maitra,TNN

MALDA: A Malda woman and her lover allegedly threw acid on her husband exactly a month after she was forcibly married to him. Samsunnehar’s husband Tajibur Rahman was burnt severely and succumbed to his injuries at a Kolkata hospital on Saturday.

Rahman, who is from Maharajnagar in Malda’s Ratua, joined as a lecturer at Guptipara Engineering College in Hooghly last year. His family fixed his marriage with Samsunnehar alias Mira, a resident of the same village. Mira, however, was having an affair with Musharraf Hossain alias Roni, who is also from the same village. But intense family pressure forced her to agree to the wedding, which took place on April 23.

Trouble broke out soon after. Roni started threatening Rahman and ordered him to leave her. Rahman moved into a rented house in Guptipara with his wife on May 21. Around midnight on May 23, their neighbour Biswajit Roy heard Rahman screaming. He rushed to their house to find him writhing with pain on the floor while Mira stood by, watching calmly.

Roy and others in the locality took Rahman to a local hospital, where doctors said he had been attacked with acid. Seeing his serious condition, they referred him to Kolkata, where he succumbed to his injuries on May 24. On his deathbed, Rahman reportedly alleged that his wife had planned the acid attack on him with help from others.

Based on his dying statement and the allegations of his relatives, Balagarh police filed a case against Roni and his companions Badruddeja, Imdadul and Jamshed. They also held Mira responsible for the murder. “It is a case of murder and it was the fallout of an illicit affair,” said Balagarh police station OC Partha Sarathi Pal. Nobody has been arrested so far. Hooghly police have contacted their colleagues in Ratua, the couple’s hometown, to investigate Rahman’s death.
Sujit Sarkar, additional superintendent of police, Malda, said, “We still haven’t received a written complaint. But based on the allegations, we took Mira into safe custody on Sunday and released her on bail.”

Woman sets goons on driver she loved
15 May 2008, 0113 hrs IST,TNN

NEW DELHI: A 35-year-old woman became so attached to her driver that she allegedly hired goons to throw acid on him after he had left the job to ply his own cab. The woman, Jaya, has been arrested for plotting the acid attack along with a BAMS doctor she befriended. On April 22, driver Deepak Kumar, 27, was admitted to hospital with burns. He told police that an unidentified man had thrown acid on him near Mahavir Enclave after calling him there for hiring his cab.

Police said Kumar had earlier been beaten up by unidentified assailants soon after he got engaged. The goons had then warned him of dire consequences if he went ahead with his marriage. Jaya’s husband is an NRI engineer working in the US while she lives in Gurgaon. “Her husband visits the family once or twice a year. So Jaya had become quite dependent on her driver Deepak,” said DCP (southwest) Shalini Singh.

In September last year, Deepak left the job, bought a taxi of his own and then got married in December. Jaya tried to stop him from leaving and also from marrying, but he spurned her. So after his marriage, he started receiving threatening calls. The police said that Jaya came in touch with the BAMS doctor, Badruddin Khan, 32, while she was living in Dwarka a year ago.

She consulted Khan for medicines and the two became friendly. The doctor helped her contact Raju, alias Shatru, a known criminal of the Dabri area who has also been arrested for carrying out the attack. Jaya’s daughter studies in Chennai while her son, a class VII student, lives with her.

The police team gathered the details of Raju who confessed that he was paid Rs 10,000 for the job by Khan.

Jilted lover plans acid attack, victim is a boy
Somendra Sharma
Saturday, April 05, 2008  02:56 IST

It was an acid attack allegedly plotted by a jilted lover. Only this time the victim, an FYBMS student of Hinduja College, was a boy. And the girl allegedly incited a boy with a crush on her to carry out the attack.

According to the police, on March 28,  after giving an exam in environmental management in his college, Vivek, who belongs to Valsad in Gujarat, and his friend Jitesh Gorasia went to a nearby hotel for a cup of tea and then went for a stroll on the Kennedy Bridge.

Around 11am, while they were walking on the bridge, a teenaged boy threw acid from a bottle on them. Vivek chased the boy but could not catch him. He was admitted to the intensive care unit of Bhatia Hospital with severe burn injuries on the right sides of his shoulder, elbow, cheek and neck. Jitesh also suffered serious burns on his nose and forehead, the police said.

The unit II of the crime branch investigated the case and arrested Sabby Abraham, 19, and Keyur Parmar, 19, both residents of Valsad, for their alleged involvement in the attack.

During interrogation, the two revealed that the attack was planned by Vivek’s former girlfriend Gwendoline Naronha, an SYBCom student of St Andrews College in Bandra, the police said.

“The two (Vivek and Gwendoline) had known each other from their school days in Valsad,” Rakesh Maria, joint commissioner of police (crime), said. “But Vivek’s parents did not approve of their relationship. So he stopped meeting her,” Maria said.
“Hurt, Gwendoline then conspired with Abraham, who had a crush on her, to carry out acid attack by playing on his emotions,”  the joint commissioner said.

Gwendoline told Abraham that Vivek had raped her during Navratri in 2007 and that she wanted to avenge this. But since Abraham was known to Vivek, he asked his friend Keyur to do the job.

“On March 23, Easter Sunday, Gwendoline gave the duo Rs600 for buying acid and a SIM card in the name Vivek’s cousin,” Maria said. “Their plan was to call Vivek’s home with the SIM card after the attack, and leave the phone at the scene of the crime, so that Vivek’s cousin got implicated for the crime,” he said.

According to Maria, Gwendoline felt that Vivek’s cousin had told his parents about their affair, which then resulted in their splitting.

“But they could not buy a SIM card, since they could not produce proper documents for address and identity verification,” said Maria. They decided to go ahead with their plan without the SIM.

“Gwendoline was in touch with Abraham and Keyur over phone. After the attack, the three met near Government Law College, where Gwendoline gave Abraham and Keyur Rs4,500 for the ‘work’. Gwendoline also visited Vivek at the hospital to ensure that no one doubted her,” said Maria.

Gwendoline has secured interim bail from a local court. The crime branch will challenge the bail on Saturday and seek her custody, he said.

Vivek stays as a paying guest in Gamdevi area, while Jitesh stays in a hostel in the same vicinity.

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?