Tuesday, December 27, 2005

RCR or divorce

The SIF recommendation is that unless there is urgent need to safegaurd rCR or Restituation is best option for the following reasons
1. Our observation it does not decrease the time for finalising your future either divorce or RCR becuase a divorce is grantged only when the women is fully satisfied so when you file divorce does not matter
2. Protect your parents from needless harassment
3. Has nullyfying effect on Section 498a and Dowry
4. Puts to lie the false allegation that it was you were the aggressor.
5. Gives a chance to save the family if the dispute is small whcih is going to be blown out of proportions by Feminist organisations and lawyers.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Courtesy: Rahul Chawla
UNITED WE'LL STAND

We arose from the indignities gifted by our own wives,
We're Hindu husbands living tortuous lives!
Being a “Male” we are not even allowed to shed a tear,
But, we'll show the world that we won't live in fear.
They are trying to destroy us using IPC498A,
We’ll show them we too are not illiterate or Gay!
With flags of SIF full unfurled, we'll fight day and night,
To protect and defend our parents’ ‘and ours right.
So united we'll stand for the whole world to see
We're the home of the brave and we all will agree,
United we'll stand in the land of the free!
They broke our trusts but our self-esteem did not sway,
And we're makin' our come-back a “Real Hindu” way!
We are Loyal, Honest, and that's how we'll stay,
No “Legal Terrorist” can take that away!
So united we'll stand for the whole world to see
We're the home of the brave and
we all will agree,
United we'll stand in the land of the free!
A new brand of heroes emerging from the crowd,
498A worriers, you will sure make India proud!
No fear of Jail can daunt us,
we'll fight to the end,
Unwavering, unfaltering that's the message we send.
We are Loyal, Honest, and that's how we'll stay,
No “Legal Terrorist” can take that away!
So united we'll stand for the whole world to see
We're the home of the brave and we all will agree,
United we'll stand in the land of the free!

*******With Appologies to Patricia Welch *******

Saturday, December 10, 2005

Counter Terrorism by an Expert

Counter Terrorim Expert ( Retd ) Commander Nagesh Ramaih of the Indian Navy who saw action in srilanka has this to say when fighting terrorism .
Step 1 : Recognise that what you ar efacing is terrorism
Step 2 : Publise that terrorim is occuring ASAP
Step 3 : Safe gaurd your assets and loved once first
Step 4: If the terrorist says they want to be normal citizen allow them provided they renounce terrorism publically and apologise fo rht ehurt cause
Step 5 : If the terrorist continues with the terroriwt activities then ensure that the terrorist and their sympathisers face your full wrath and power

Vijay confesses that it was this mantra provided that helped him in this regard. Commander Nagesh told him that he is facing terrorist activity by his wife when she filed dowry and 498a against him and he needs to follow this 5 step processes

Hence the step 1 is interna and he recognised that he is facing terorist activity . Vijay then proceeded to inform the high court of the terrorist activity he was facing through CRLP 4121/2003 . Though the chances of a successfull 482 petition are low his intention was to inform the courts that terrorist activity is happening. then step 3 was folowed by keeping his parent out of action & whenb his wife wanted to be in step 4 he agreed provioded she genuinly has repented on her refusal he is on to step 5 which was that he will ensure that terrorist and terrorsit sympathesors cannot function.

Vijays wife has no choice but to face music becasue to call anyone a "dowry" boy is no joke

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Supreme court and karnataka High Court gives refuse to entertain legal Terrorists

Karnatka High court refused to entertain 498a terrorists and Supreme court agreed to it in 4121/03 deceded in mid 2005 in historic decision signalling that no longer that courts will watchand allow obviously innocent people to be harassed under the 498a law.

Close on heels of its famous Legal Terrorism judgment Supreme court upheld this unique judgement

Lighter moments happened when the plea was made that it is not dowry harassment but a sowry harassment case. Regret that Sowry harassment didn't find mention

Mahesh Tiwari a supreme court lawer says that now such is going to be a feature in near future where in judicially rare cases would now start to be quashed and with the recent recantation in the famous incest rape case the courts will now be cautious on prosecuting cases merely on statements of the complainant and would demand concrete evidence.

Anthony a law student in bangalore says that merely because it is difficult to prove what happens behind 4 walls is not a justification to prosecute cases on mere statements.

Some interesting excerpts from this judgement

But in cases where in the allegations of dowry demand and the dowry harassment are made by an aggrieved wife , if the complaint itself shows that the demand was not for dowry and the alleged dowry harassmet was not dowry harassment but a material dispute , the courts can certainly interfere
13. In light of the principles mentioned above , I have carefully gone through the complaint and have considered teh submissions of both the learned advocates. . The complaint itslef shows that the marriage was performed in XXXXX in 1999. and though the complaint has alleged that form the day of the marraige itslef the harassment by mother in law started , what type of harassment given has not been stated and it also appears to be absurd to say that the mother in law harassed daughter in law when according to the complaint for about 31/2 years from the date of marraige , the mother in law dod not reside with the newly married couple. Therefore the cllegation of the complainant will have to be considered carefully.


Furthur absurdity can be seen

28. As regards to the alleged beating of the respondent number 2 by teh petioner no 2 it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petioners that it is absurd even to think that an old lady of 65 years would beat an independent minded educated young lady who also happens to be a state cricket player. I refrain from expressing any opinion regarding the truthfullness or otherwis eof hte matter

and furthur

Before Considering the matter , the principles required to be considered a prayer for quashing the F.I.R will have to kept in mind . The Supreme Court inthe case of State of Karnataka Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 S.C 604 disapproved the tendency in scuttling investigation and observed as follows. but observed that where in allegations made in the FIR or the complaint are so absurd and improbably on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused , then also intervension by court is also permissable.