Positional Power and new Mahabharata War

Positional Power and new Mahabharata War

The early morning attack on Pearl Harbour on early morning of December 7^th, 1941 by Japanese killed 2,402 people and wounded 1,282 people. These attacks were unprovoked and took the American soldiers sleeping in battleships by surprise. The surprise attack made the Americans at Pearl Harbour look completely helpless as their battleships, ground aircrafts and young soldiers were finished off by Japanese. Unprovoked attacks on people can sometimes be very costly as Japanese were to find in 1945.

Now, when one looks at Indian situation in last decade, at least a million innocent Indian citizens have been threatened, abused, insulted, extorted and jailed for no crime committed by them, just due to jealously, incompetency, sadistic, high handed brutal behaviour by some people occupying high positions of power.

So, brutal are these persons holding the “positional power” that, Innocent women were abused and jailed. Children are picked up from school by police and sent to jail. Bails have to be applied from children as small as 2 or 4 years fearing the police. The persons in “positional power” across India often consider themselves as Gods and falsely assume that they have the power over life, limb and liberty of million other people. Somehow, they believe positional power as supreme and assume that the tears of millions of innocent men, women and children will not come back to them as bad Karma. For example, they may have a great party after they extort Rs.50,000/- or Rs.100,000/- from a poor family holding couple of women and elders hostage in a police station. They may even celebrate, when they hear the news of a man committing suicide after being threatened, tortured or abused by these persons having the positional power. It is not unnatural for them to ignore the pleas for mercy by innocent men, women, children and elders crying in despair as they are thrown in jails or are forced to death and misery.

However, every dog has its day.

It is very strange that these brutal sadistic insensitive persons holding “positional powers”, do not realise that the very people, whom they abused, threatened, jailed and tortured for months or years, can one day return in vengeance and turn on them without showing any mercy. All the mistakes, corruption, abuse, extortion and unconstitutional actions performed will certainly come back to the persons holding high positions and chairs. One need not even mention RTI, Media activism or Internet activism etc.

Indian constitution does not advocate the harassment, torture, abuse and jailing of innocent people. Then, the persons with “positional power” are certainly violating constitution of India. Those, who violate the spirit of the constitution of nation or society individually or collectively and brutalise innocent people, will certainly pay a price as the Mahabharata war takes serious turns.

So, here is the opportunity to all people holding “high chairs” or “positional power”.

It is time, the persons in “high chairs” with “positional power” realise that they are badly outnumbered and make a choice to see, if they can work out a truce. “Positional Power” is just no match for personal power or spirit of human soul. It would be extreme foolish, if one believes that “positional power” can hold against human spirit. Those, who are sitting on the fences, also have to make choices and decide sides in this Mahabharata war.

If these persons with positional power feel, they have higher moral strength and ethics on their side, instead of hiding behind walls of forts; they can come out and get ready to engage in a battle in Internet or public debate as being citizens without employing positional power.

2402 people died due to the surprise attack by Japanese on Pearl Harbour. It is certain that much more number of people have died due to the brutal actions by persons holding high positions.

To All Old Men above the age of 50:

You guys had a lot of chances to make a difference to India in 70s and 80s. Instead, you are responsible for promoting corruption, unethical practices and incompetency across India, directly or indirectly. Most men of your generation were also male chauvinist pigs, who surrounded themselves with weak women and oppressed them. Many men of your generation married multiple times, had mistresses and used women as commodity or slaves. Do not run away from your responsibility. Its time, you own up what you did and what you did not do.

So, do not show off your skills, brains or experience to people, who are making real difference to India right now. In any way, all your brains and experience is pretty useless in a world, which is changing so fast. Even if, you have any noble intentions for India, Indian society, culture, family system or marriages, then realise that it is TOO LATE and we have crossed the point of “no return” decisively. Take responsibility for the same.

It is the young, who are transforming India. It is the young Indians, who have put India in the world map and hence you get out of their way. It is the young Indians, who are creating wealth by working hard in India and abroad. So, be grateful to them instead of having an attitude to create misery for young people. Realise that you have got disconnect with younger generations and you have no right to deny basic human and natural rights to human beings.

Today in India, many old people create policies that deny young men and women the right to procreate for years or even decades. How appropriate, legal or constitutional is that?

Do not make the young pay price for the oppression you and your earlier generations did on women.

In India, old people have an inherent conditioning to expect respect from young. Those days are also over. It is the action that one takes and not ones age that counts.

Just Chill out! Retire and make way for the young!!

 sorce- saveindianfamily.org

SC ORDER CBI TO TRACE THE CHILD - INTER PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION

 

 

V. Ravi Chandran vs Union Of India &Amp; Ors on 28 August, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

               CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

                    CRL.M.P.NO. 3401 OF 2009

                              IN

               WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 112/2007

V. Ravi Chandran ...Petitioner

                         Versus

Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

                                  ORDER

R.M.LODHA, J

           Should Central Bureau of Investigation be requested to 

trace the minor child Master Adithya Chandran in the Habeas Corpus 

petition filed by the father is the question presently before us?

2. Dr. Ravi Chandran -petitioner and Vijayashree Voora -

respondent no. 6 got married on December 14, 2000 at Tirupathi,

Andhra Pradesh according to Hindu rites. On July 1, 2002, a son -

Adithya was born out of the wedlock in United States of America.

The matrimonial discord arose between the petitioner and respondent

no. 6 soon thereafter. Respondent no. 6 approached the State of

New York Supreme Court in the month of July, 2003 for divorce and

                                                                       1

 dissolution of marriage. On April 18, 2005, the State of New York

Supreme Court passed a consent order governing the issues of the

custody and guardianship of the minor Adithya. The Court granted

joint custody to the petitioner and respondent no. 6 and it was also

stipulated in the order to keep the other party informed about the

whereabouts of the child. On July 28, 2005, a separation agreement

was entered into between the petitioner and respondent no. 6 relying

on various provisions of Domestic Relations Law for distribution of

marital property, spouse maintenance and child support. As regards

custody of the minor son Adithya and parenting time, the parties

consented to the order dated April 18, 2005. On September 8, 2005,

the marriage between the petitioner and respondent no. 6 was

dissolved by the State of New York Supreme Court. Child Custody

order dated April 18, 2005 was incorporated in the order. Later on a

consent order was passed by the Family Court, State of New York

on June 18, 2007 whereby the petitioner and respondent no. 6 were

to have legal and physical custody of the minor child jointly. The

consent order provided that parties shall have alternative physical

custody of the minor child on a weekly basis.

                                                                   2

 3. On June 28, 2007, respondent no. 6 brought minor

Adithya to India informing the petitioner that she will be residing with

her parents in Chennai. The petitioner approached Family Court,

State of New York for violation of the order by respondent no. 6

pertaining to visitation and custody of minor child. He also filed a

petition for modification of the custody order. By an order dated

August 16, 2007, the Family Court, State of New York granted sole

legal and physical custody of the minor Adithya to the petitioner

temporarily and by a further order dated August 8, 2007 ordered

respondent no. 6 to hand over custody of Master Adithya to the

petitioner. It transpires that the Family Court, State of New York has

issued child abuse non-bailable warrants against respondent no. 6.

4. In the month of September, 2007, the petitioner filed a

writ petition before this Court praying for a writ of Hebeas Corpus for

the production of minor son Adithya and for handing over the custody

with his passport to the petitioner. The petitioner has alleged that

the child has been illegally and unlawfully detained beyond his

motherland, USA in blatant violation of orders of US Courts.

5. In the Hebeas Corpus petition, the petitioner has

impleaded Union of India, States of Tamil Nadu and Andhra

                                                                       3

 Pradesh, Director General of Police of these two States, wife -

Vijayashree Voora and her parents as party respondents.

6. On September 17, 2007, notice was issued to the

respondents. Subsequently the petitioner informed the Court that on

March 15, 2008, the respondent no. 6 abandoned her residence in

Dehradun and traveled in a rented car towards New Delhi and on the

way redirected herself to Agra. The next day she was last seen at

the entrance of Agra Cantonment Railway Station. Based on that,

this Court issued directions on April 28, 2008 to Senior

Superintendent of Police, Agra and Senior Superintendent of Police,

Union Territory of Chandigarh to trace the child and produce him in

this Court.

7. In the affidavit filed by the Senior Superintendent of

Police, Agra on September 16, 2008, it is stated that for tracing the

minor child Adithya and respondent no. 6, a massive search

operation was carried through out Agra and all hotels, guest houses

and other similar areas were checked but they could not be found

residing anywhere in Agra. He also stated that through District Crime

Record Bureau and all SHOs and SOs of police stations of District

Agra efforts have been made to trace out minor child and her

                                                                          4

 mother and their photographs have also been published along with

their description in newspapers having wide circulation all over the

country but no clue of their whereabouts could be found.

8. Shri S.S. Srivastava, Senior Superintendent of Police,

Union Territory, Chandigarh has filed his affidavit on August 13,

2008. He has stated:

           "...All Station House Officers of Police Stations in Chandigarh
have been issued instructions vide letter No. 1057-5A/Crime Branch, U.T.
Chandigarh dated 3.8.2008 in which the photographs and description of Smt.
Vijayasree Voora and her son Adithya have been mentioned and they have been
directed to make efforts to trace the whereabouts of the above mentioned persons
and see if they are residing in any residential area, hotel, guest house, sarai.
Though beat system all such places in Chandigarh have been got thoroughly
checked and no such persons has been found to be residing in Chandigarh.

                  A special look out notice alongwith the

           photographs Smt. Vijayasree Voora and her son Aditya has been issued
vide No. 17011-

           17030/MOB/UT/A-III/dated, Chandigarh the 5.8.2008 in which directions
were issued to all SDPO's and Station House Officers to maintain a sharp look
out to trace out the whereabouts of the above mentioned woman and her son and to
send their report on weekly basis about the details of the efforts made to trace
the above mentioned persons. A copy of the lookout notice is annexed and marked
ANNEXURE R-1 . All SHO's of Police Station in Chandigarh have submitted their
reports after having thoroughly checked the area under their jurisdiction and
the whereabouts of the above mentioned woman and her child could not be traced
out in Chandigarh.

                                                                     5

                   On 8.8.2008 the photographs of Smt. Vijaysree Voora and her
son Adithya alongwith their description has been got published in Times of
India, one of the leading newspapers having wide circulation all over India.

                  The photographs and description of Smt.

           Vijaysree Voora and her son Aditya have also been got displayed in
Bharat Sarkar Doordarshan Kendra, Chandigarh and Delhi, TV Channels having
coverage throughout the country.

                  A team of police officers have been especially deputed from
Crime Branch, Chandigarh Police for tracing the whereabouts of Smt. Vijayasree
Voora and her son Aditya, who are regularly checking all the hotels, schools and
other places where there could be possibility of finding the above mentioned
woman and her child."

9. Parents of respondent no. 6 have filed counter affidavit.

They have totally denied any knowledge or idea about whereabouts

of respondent no. 6 and minor child. In the counter affidavit they

stated thus:

                  "11. I submit that in view of the information narrated by
her about the harassment and cruelty (mental torture) caused by the petitioner
she had left my house without disclosing her whereabouts and I sincerely state
that I am not aware of her whereabouts and I am not able to communicate with
her.

                  12. I state from the annexures filed

           particularly annexure P-10 Colly dated 11.8.2007 refers to that in
response to conversation with this respondent mentioned in E-mail in para `I' or
after. I submit that in one of the E-mail at annexure P-10 Colly the petitioner
addressed to Respondent No. 7 that:-

                                                                    6

                   "I have been trying to reach Aditya for the past several
weeks and Viji has completely cut me off from the life of Aditya. Mrs. Voora
(Your wife) informs me that she does not know where Viji and Aditya are"

                  I submit that this respondent from September itself had no
knowledge or awareness of the whereabouts of respondent no. 6 and her minor
child and that from ever since she left, he has no information at all about her
whereabouts nor he had any contacts or connection with this respondent, and we
are not able to trace her out and her minor child. Inspite of knowing all these
facts that these respondents are completely oblivious and in complete darkness
about her whereabouts even on today...."

10. In the affidavit filed by the Director General of

Police, Tamilnadu, it is stated that the respondent no. 6 and the

minor chilld were not found residing at No. 47, B.N. Road (North

Boag Road), T. Nagar, Chennai, and on that address, the parents of

respondent no. 6 are only residing.

11. The petitioner has filed a Misc. Petition (Crl.

M.P.3401 of 2009) on February 23, 2009 stating therein that as per

the Deccan Herald newspaper report dated February 18, 2009,

respondent no. 6 and the child were last seen in Bangalore. They

stayed at KES Lodge in Rajajinagar, Bangalore. On February 23,

2009, accordingly, this Court directed the Director General of Police,

Karnataka and Commissioner of Police, Bangalore to trace the child

                                                                     7

 and produce before him this Court on the next date. By a further

order dated May 8, 2009, this Court directed the State of Karnataka

and particularly, Director General of Police, Karnataka to take

appropriate steps to trace the child. A copy of this order was also

sent to the Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka.

12. Shri S.N.Bidari, Commissioner of Police, Bangalore

city has filed his affidavit stating therein that all necessary steps

required in order to trace the missing child Master Adithya Chandran

and his mother Mrs. Vijayashree Voora have been taken but without

any success. In the affidavit, the details of the efforts made by

Karnataka Police have been set out thus:

           "2) It is submitted that the Police Inspector and his team of
Rajajinagar Police Station of Banagalore City visited KES Residency, 50th Cross,
3rd Block, Rajajinagar on 5.3.2009 and the said lady and master Adithya were not
found. On enquiry with one Shri Prabhakar, Manager of the said Residency, it was
learnt that Smt. Vijayashree Voora, mother of the child had left the residency
alongwith the child on 17.2.2009 and had not returned. .....

           3) It is submitted that the enquiry revealed that she went to Shiva
Temple, Old Airport Road, Bangalore in a private Qualais Vehicle from KES
Residency on 17.2. 2009. The enquiry revealed that she requested the manager for
help and she was told to come after Shivarathri festival. She left her luggage
in the temple and took shelter in the Manager's residence for the night. The
next day i.e. on 18.2.2009, she left the temple and after two days, she
collected her baggage. Thereafter, there is no information about her whereabouts
and the child. The

                                                                            8

 staff continued search in several places in Banagalore City, but the child
could not be traced.

4) It is submitted that the Police Sub -Inspector, Subramanaya Nagara Police
station went to Chennai on 4.3.2009 alongwith his staff and enquired with Smt.
A. Poornima and her husband Shri A. Ramesh R/o No. 13, North Bhoug Road, G.N.
Shetty Road, Chennai- 600 017. Smt. A. Poornima sister of Vijayashree Voora said
that her sister Vijayashree Voora had married one Sathya Narayana 18 years back.
After 5 years of marriage, she divorced her husband and again married one Dr. V.
Ravichandra (Petitioner) in a love marriage and they have one male child name
Master Aditya Chandran. Five years back, both of them got mutual divorce in USA
(where they were staying together_ and Smt. Vijashree Voora returned from
America. At that time, she came to Poornima's residence and she and her husband
advised herand even her father also advised her, but she refused to heed to
their advice to reconcile with her husband and left the house and till today she
had not returned to their residence. Thereafter, her whereabouts are not known.
The statement of Smt. A. Poornima and her husband were recorded by the Police
Sub-Inspector, Subramanyanagara Police Station. The report of the Police Sub-
Inspector, Subramanyanagara Police Station is produced and marked as
ANNEXURE-R-2 AND R-2a. As per the instructions of Police Inspector, Mahalakshmi
Police Station, the Police Sub-Inspector, Rajajinagar Police Station visited
Tumkur on 5.3.2009 and enquired at 1) VARIN International Residential School,
Doddahosur Gate, Kunigal Road, Gulur Post, Tumkur 0572 118, 2) Prudence
International School, Hirehalli, Next to TVS Electronics, Tumkur, 3) Maruthi
Vidya Kendra, Belagumba Road, Tumkur, 4) Sri. Sri. Ravishankar Vidya Mandir,
Belagumba Road, Near TUD Office, Tumkur, 5) Sri. Siddaganga Mutt, Tumkur and
also enquired with the concerned persons of Samuka Residency, Sai Residency,
Vigneshwara Comforts and showed the photo of the child, but no useful
information was obtained. .....

                                                           9

 5) It is submitted that on 5.3.2009, Police Sub- Inspector, Srirampura Police
Station visited Veda Vignan Maha Vidya Peeta and met Mr. Narendra Lamba, the
Administrator, Art of Living International Centre and showed photo of Adithya
Chandran. However, it was found that no such persons was stayng in the

      Ashram. .....

6) It is submitted that on 6.3.2009, the Poilice Sub-Inspector, Mahalakshmi
Layout Police Station, Bangalore alongwith staff visited Shri Sathya Sai Gokulam
at Kadugodi, Bangalore District, in search of missing boy and enquired with Mr.
Srinivas, Custodian of Ashram. It was reported that no such persons was staying
in the Ashrama. The PSI also visited Sir.

      Sathya Sai Institute of Medical Sciences, Whitefield and met Mr.Mohan Das,
Sr. Personnel Officer and PRO who informed that no such persons, by name Smt.
Vijayashree Voora or Master Aditya was admitted in the Hospital. The report of
the Police Sub- Inspector, Mahalakshmi layout, Police Station, is produced and
marked as Annexure-R5.

      The Asstt. Commissioner of Police, City Crime Record Bureau, Office of the
Comissioner of Police, Infantry Road, Bangalore was instructed on 18.3.2009 to
get the photo of Aditya Chandra published in the Criminal Intelligence Gazette
requesting all the

      concerned to trace the missing child. The Addl. Director General of
Police, State Crime Record Bureau, Bangalore was also requested to publish the
photograph of Master Aditya Chandran in `Talash' and to transmit the said
information to all the Police Stations in the State and to trace the said
missing boy as early as possible.

7) The Respondent further submits that City crime Record Bureau on 31.3.2009
sent letter to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, State Crime Record Bureau
to publish the details of the missing persons in criminal Intelligence Gazette.

                                                           10

 8) The Respondent further submits that on 16.4.2009 the Police Inspector,
Rajajinagar Police Station, wrote a letter to the State Crime Record Bureau,
Bangalore to verify and compare the particulars of the missing child in the
Talash record and on comparison a nil report was sent to Rajajinagar Police
Station on 17.4.2009. On 16.4.2009 the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Malleshwaram, Bangalore wrote letter to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore
requesting for publication of the missing child Master Adithya Chandran in
Kannada and English "daily news papers". Further he also requested the
Commissioner of Police to send the details to all the District superintendents
of Police and Commissioners of Police of Hubli - Dharwad, Mysore and Railway
Superintendent of Police. Further, the Asstt. Commissioner of Police.
Malleshwaram, Bangalore, wrote letter to Commissioner of Police with a request
to address a letter to Doordarshan to Broadcast the particulars of the missing
child in Doordarshan. Deputy Commissioner of Police North Divilsion, Bangalore
City had sent e-mails to all Commissioners of Police, all Range Inspectors
General of Police, all Superintendents of Police including Railways all over
Karnataka State requesting them to look out for the missing child. An e-mail is
also sent to the Director, National Crime Record Bureau, New Delhi requesting
for look out of the missing child. ....

9) The respondent further submits that the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Malleshwaram wrote a letter to All India Radio, with a request to Broadcast the
particulars of the missing child on air. .....

10) The respondent further submits that on 18.4.2009 the Public Relation Officer
in the Cadre of Deputy Commissioner of Police in the office of Commissioner of
Police released press note to all the Electronic Media and Print media
requesting for publication of the particulars of the missing child Master
Adithya Chandran on Air. The report regarding the Broadcast of the particulars
of the missing child in Doordarshan is also received. ......

                                                            11

            11) It is also further submitted that on 16.4.2009 itself the
details of the missing child were uploaded on Internet on Karnataka State

                  Police web page. The copy of the Web page is herewith produced
and marked as ANNEXURE-R20. It is also relevant to submit that all relevant
steps are taken to carry out the upload of the particulars of the missing child
Master Adhitya Chandran on National Crime Record Bureau with a request to send

                  information to all the state and Union Territory and forward
the information if any obtained in this regard to the Commission of Police,
Bangalore.

           12) It is further submitted that the Police officials attached to
Rajajinagar Police Station sent look out notices to Bangalore International
Airport Authorities, Railway Station and KSRTC Bus Stand to keep a look out for
the missing child. ......"

13. From the narration of aforesaid facts, it is abundantly

clear that despite efforts made by police officers and officials of

different States such as Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra,

Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T. of Chandigarh, Director

General of Police, Tamilnadu, Director General of Police, Karnataka

and Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, the minor child Adithya

and respondent no. 6 could not be traced and their whereabouts

could not be found. It is almost two years since the notice was issued

by this Court but the child could not be produced. Respondent no. 6

is said to be mentally unstable and running round with the child from

one State to another. In the peculiar and extraordinary circumstances

                                                                       12

 such as the present one, we are of the view that Central Investigating

Agency i.e., Central Bureau of Investigation may be assigned the task

of tracing minor Adithya Chandran and his production before this

Court. This has become all the more necessary for the protection of

health and safety of minor and because the police authorities of

various States are clueless about the whereabouts of respondent

no. 6 who has been moving with the child from one State to another.

14. We, accordingly, direct the registry of this Court to write a

letter to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation requesting him

to trace minor Adithya Chandran. For the said purpose, he and the

officer nominated by him will enjoy all the powers of Police Officer

carrying out search and issue non-bailable warrants, if necessary,

and pick up minor Adithya Chandran wherever he is found without

interference from any one and to produce him before this Court with

his report.

15. Let the matter come up before the Court after six weeks

or earlier if the minor child Adithya Chandran is traced by the Central

Bureau of Investigation and produced before this Court.

                                                      ........................J

                                                      (Tarun Chatterjee)

                                                                            13

                    ........................J

                          (R. M. Lodha)

New Delhi

August 28, 2009.

                                         14 
  

RCR

RCR is very important weapon against a 498A wife that refuses to give divorce unless a large sum is given to her. If the husband succeeds in RCR it means several things:
(1) He is not practicing cruelty as alleaged by wife
(2) Wife will not be paid maintenance
(3) If wife doesn't join him as directed, he may get divorce on his favourable terms

Many times the wife goes for 498A to force a divorce because she is already in love with another man. Sometimes, the wife live separately and her side is desperate to marry their daughter off to someone else. In such cases, RCR success will thwart wife's ill intentions.

What is the downside? In RCR the husband is saying that he wants the wife back. If he wins RCR, is he obligated to take back a badly behaving wife without any further negotiations? In general, No. He can put conditions to the wife about her behaviour. He can make the wife accept her sins at least in front of the elders before they come together. With RCR husband can negotiate with an upper hand, only if he is at no fault.

NO MAINTENANCE TO WIFE IF RCR IN FAVOR OF HUSBAND - MUMBAI HIGH COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.20 OF 2005

Smt.Manju Kamal Mehra

aged about 35 years, occ. Housewife,

Religion Hindu, resident of C/o G.K.

Chawla, G-1/23,Vijay Nagar, Marol-Maroshi

Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059. ....Appellant V/s.

Mr.Kamal Pushkar Mehra,

aged about 40 years, occ.business,

Religion Hindu, residing of 107,

Janak Apartment, Samarth Ramdas Nagar,

Navghar Vasai (East), District.Thane ....Respondent

Mr.P.M. Havnur for the Appellant.

Mrs.B.P. Jakhade for the Respondent.

WITH

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.44 OF 2005

Mr.Kamal Pushkar Mehra,

aged about 40 years, occ.business,

Religion Hindu, residing of 107,

Janak Apartment, Samarth Ramdas Nagar,

Navghar Vasai (East), District.Thane ....Appellant

V/s.

Smt.Manju Kamal Mehra

aged about 35 years, occ. Housewife,

Religion Hindu, resident of C/o G.K.

Chawla, G-1/23,Vijay Nagar, Marol-Maroshi

Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059. ....Respondent 2

Mrs.B.P. Jakhade for the Appellant.

Mr.P.M. Havnur for the Respondent.

CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE &

S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ.

DATE : 18TH JULY, 2009.

ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.) :-

1. Both these appeals filed by the respective spouses arise from a

common judgment and order dated 31.12.2004 passed by the Family Court at

Pune in Petition No.A-978 of 2002 and hence they are being decided by this

common judgment.

2. The parties were married at Mumbai on 12.7.1994 as per Hindu

rites and they co-habitated at Dahisar where a daughter by name Aishwarya

was born to the couple on 21.12.1995. As per the husband, the wife did not

return to the matrimonial home after the daughter was borne. The husband

claims that the wife abandoned the matrimonial home, whereas it is the case

of the wife that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home before the birth

of the child that is some time in September, 1995. In July, 1996, the wife's

younger sister Anju was married and the husband along with his family

member attended the said marriage. The couple stayed together from 22 nd to

26th July, 1996 in the house of the wife's parents but after 26th July, 1996,
the

wife did not return to the matrimonial home. It appears that the wife was

working with M/s.R.G. Stone Hospital and she claimed that she left the said

job from 4.5.1998. The husband issued a legal notice on 30.4.2001 3

(Exhibit-23, which was reply on 10.5.2001, Exhibit-24). Second legal notice

was issued on 8.6.2001 (Exhibit-25, which was replied on 15.6.2001,

Exhibit-26). Third legal notice was issued on 12.6.2001 (Exhibit-27) and

consequently a joint meeting between the two parties on 6.5.2002 to resolve

matrimonial dispute was held. It was decided in the said meeting that both the

parties should forget the past and start staying together. The wife conveyed

that she was ready and willing to co-habit with the Petitioner and her father

also supported the same plea and stated that his daughter must return to the

matrimonial home at Dahisar. Despite the settlement, there was no

cohabitation between the parties and therefore, Petition No.A-978 of 2002

was moved by the husband to seek a decree of restitution of conjugal rights

under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The said Petition was

opposed by the wife. The following issues were framed by the Family Court

and answered accordingly in the impugned judgment :-

ISSUES FINDINGS

1) Does the Petitioner proves that the Respondent has without any reasonable
excuse withdrawn

from his society ? Yes

2) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal
rights ? Yes

3) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for maintenance Yes @ Rs. from the
Petitioner for herself or the child ? 2500/- per month for

4) If yes, what should be the quantum ? herself & @ Rs.3000/- p.m. for the
minor daughter.

4-A) Whether the Respondent is entitled to Does not return of her streedhan from
the Petitioner ? survive. 4

5. What order and decree ? As per final order.

3. However, it appears that when Petition No.A-978 of 2002 was

decided by the earlier judgment dated 30.4.2004, the Family Court had not

recorded its findings on issue Nos.1 and 4-A. The said judgment was the

subject matter of challenge in Family Court Appeal Nos. 94 of 2004 and 95 of

2004 and by a common judgment dated 18.8.2004, the Appeals were

disposed off and the Petition filed by the husband was remanded to the

Family Court to record its findings on issue Nos.1 and 4-A.

4. The husband examined himself and Kiran R.Vishvira, who is the

partner of a firm by name M/s.Manav Mandir Builders. The wife examined

herself and her father Gopal Kishan Chawla. She also examined Ajay

Gulabchand Malpani, Treasurer of the Housing Society at Vasai and

Dr.Manish Bansal, the Managing Director of R.G. Stone Hospital. Written

arguments were submitted before the Family Court and the Petition filed by

the husband came to be allowed in terms of the following order :-

"The Respondent is directed to restore conjugal rights with the

Petitioner forthwith.

The Petitioner is directed to pay Rs.2500/- per month towards

maintenance of the respondent and Rs.3000/- per month towards

maintenance of the minor daughter Aishwarya, in aggregate Rs.5500/- per

month from the date of order till the Respondent restitutes his conjugal rights.

5. The husband has challenged the directions to pay the

maintenance to the wife despite the fact that the decree under Section 9 of

the said Act has been passed in his favour. Whereas the wife has challenged 5

the decree passed under Section 9 of the said Act and claimed that the

Family Court did not consider the harassment and ill-treatment given to her in

the matrimonial home and consequently she was justified in staying away

from the husband.

6. Mrs.Jakhade, the learned counsel for the husband submitted that

in Petition No.A-978 of 2002, the wife did not file any application for any

maintenance either under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and

Maintenance Act, 1956 or under Section 24 of the Act for maintenance

pendant-lite. She also pointed out that the decree of restitution of conjugal

rights was passed against the wife and surprisingly and equally shocking the

Family Court directed the husband to pay maintenance to the wife and as per

Mrs.Jakhade, this order itself is self-contradictory and the decree for

restitution of conjugal rights became a nullity as the wife continued to stay

away from the husband and the husband was required to deposit the

maintenance amount every month. Mr.Havnur, the learned counsel for the

wife on the other hand submitted that the decree for restitution of conjugal

rights was grossly erroneous and the Family Court was not justified, in the

facts of this case, to record its findings in the affirmative on issue No.1
framed

by it. He also submitted that as the wife was thrown out of her matrimonial

home along with her daughter much before the daughter was born and she

had to maintain herself and the daughter, the Family Court was justified in

granting maintenance by the impugned order. We are, therefore, required to

examine :-

i) Whether the decree of conjugal rights passed under Section 9 of the

Act in favour of the husband is sustainable and ; 6

ii) Whether the Family Court was right in law to direct the husband to pay

maintenance to the wife after it had passed a decree under Section 9

of the Act in favour of the husband and directed the wife to join the

husband in the matrimonial home.

7. So far as the first issue is concerned, the Family Court has

referred to the oral depositions of the husband, wife and her father. As is

required in law, both the parties were referred to the Marriage Counsellor who

submitted her first report on 17.10.2002 (at Exhibit-3). The said report

indicated that both the parties had expressed their wish for reconciliation and

for resumption of co-habitation, but the second report of the Marriage

Counsellor dated 17.3.2003 (at Exhibit-14) was negative and it stated that

reconciliation between the parties was not possible and they were agreeable

for divorce but there was a dispute regarding the quantum of alimony. A joint

meeting between them on 6.5.2002 with the intervention of a common family

friend by name Mr.Jain and the reconciliation therein was not disputed

between the parties and the wife had shown her willingness to live and co-

habit with the husband. The father of the wife in his depositions before the

Family Court also stated that he wished that his daughter could return to her

matrimonial home at Dahisar. The deposition of the wife also went to show

that despite various allegations made by her against the husband and his

family members about cruelty and ill-treatment, she wanted to go and stay at

Dahisar and she was keen to save her marriage. She had categorically stated

in the pleadings as well as in her depositions that she was ready and willing

to co-habit with the Petitioner and she also reiterated about the compromise

and to bury the past. The husband had also assured the parents of the wife 7

that he take her care. The Family Court therefore, held that the wife had

condoned the acts of the alleged cruelty and ill-treatment. In paragraph 31 of

the impugned judgment, the Family Court recorded its surprise about the wife

in the following words :-

"31. It is very peculiar that the petitioner has filed this petition
for restitution of conjugal rights and the respondent in her pleadings as well
as in her evidence has deposed that she is also ready and willing to co-habit
with the petitioner. The father of the respondent in his evidence has also
deposed that he desires that the respondent co-habits with the petitioner. It is
also an admitted fact that meeting of the family members was held with the
common friend Mr.Jain house and it was agreed that they would live together. The
father of the respondent has admitted in his cross- examination that a
compromise was arrived at for the petitioner and the respondent to stay
together. He also admitted that the petitioner does not own any property at
Dahisar. During the pendency of the proceedings various attempts were made for
the parties to resume their co- habitation in view of the desires of both the
parties, but failed because the petitioner wants that the respondent should
resume his conjugal rights at Vasai where he owns his ownership flat, and the
respondent wants to return and stay at Dahisar, where she was living from the
day after her marriage till she left the house."

8. The Family Court recorded the finding that the wife was not

justified and she had no good reason to stay away from her husband and she

had withdrawn from the society of the husband without any reasonable

excuse. Having referred to the evidence placed before the Family Court by

the respective parties, we are satisfied that these findings recorded by the

Family Court cannot be faulted with and the decree of restitution of conjugal

rights under Section 9 of the said Act was rightly passed in favour of the

husband. We are informed that till this date, the wife has not submitted to the

said decree and she continues to stay with her parents. In fact the husband

could have been justified in asking for dissolution of the marriage under 8

Section 13(1-A) of the said Act on the ground that there was no resumption

of co-habitation between the parties for one year or thereafter, after the

decree under Section 9 of the said Act was passed, but he has not done so

and the leaned counsel for the husband stated before us that the husband is

keen to continue with the marriage and desires that his wife along with

daughter Aishwarya to join the matrimonial home. We are also informed and

it was the same case before the Family Court as well that the husband is

willing to stay away from other family members in his ownership flat at Vasai.

However, the wife insists that he should shift to a place in Andheri which is

close to her parent's house and also to the daughter's school. Consequently

the decree passed under Section 9 of the said Act has remained on paper.

9. So far as, issue No.1 maintenance is concerned, pending the

proceedings before the Family Court at the behest of either of the parties,

wife was entitled to apply for interim maintenance either under Section 18 of

the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 or under Section 24 of the

Act. She did not submit any such application nor did she file a counter claim

in the Petition filed by the husband. The Family Court in its second round of

the judgment, held that the wife was not justified in staying away from her

husband and directed her to submit to the decree under Section 9 of the Act.

However while doing so, it proceeded to consider the expenditure incurred by

the wife while she was staying away from her husband. The Court noted that

the wife had no employment since May, 1998 on the basis of the evidence of

Dr.Bansal, the Managing Director of R.G. Stone, Urological Research

Institute, corroborated by the evidence of her father and thus she was without

any source of income. The Court further observed as under :- 9

"........ It can therefore be held that the Respondent has no source
of income and hence the Respondent is entitled to claim maintenance for herself.
As regards the daughter, it is moral, social and legal obligation of the
Petitioner father to maintain her. The Petitioner has no where in his pleadings
stated as to what he is doing and what is his income. But in reply to the
interim application it is observed that it is an admitted fact that the
Petitioner is dealing in shares. He has stated that his average income is
Rs.7000/- per month............ Hence considering the status of the parties and
needs of the Petitioner for herself and the minor daughter, and that the
Petitioner has no other dependents upon him, the cost of living, it can be held
that he is capable and able to pay Rs. 2500/- per month towards the maintenance
for the wife and Rs.3000/- per month towards the maintenance for minor daughter,
in aggregate Rs.5500/- per month from the date of order till the Respondent
restitutes to his conjugal rights."

10. In the case of Chand Bhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan, (1993) 3

SCC 406, on the rights of the wife to receive any maintenance either under

Section 18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act or under Section 24 of

the said Act, the Supreme Court stated as under :-

"23. The preamble to the Hindu Marriage Act suggests that it is an
Act to amend and codify the law relating to marriage among Hindus. Though it
speaks only of the law relating to marriage, yet the Act itself lays down rules
relating to the solemnization and requirements of a valid Hindu marriage as well
as restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, nullity of marriage,
divorce, legitimacy of children and other allied matters. Where the statute
expressly codifies the law, the court as a general rule, is not at liberty to go
outside the law so created, just on the basis that before its enactment another
law prevailed. Now the other law in the context which prevailed prior to that
was the uncodified Hindu law on the subject. Prior to the year 1955 or 1956
maintenance could be claimed by a Hindu wife through court intervention and with
the aid of the case-law 10

developed. Now with effect from December 21, 1956, the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act is in force and that too in a codified form. Its preamble too
suggests that it is an Act to amend and codify the law relating to adoptions and
maintenance among Hindus. Section 18(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act, 1956 entitles a Hindu wife to claim maintenance from her husband during her
lifetime. Sub-section (2) of Section 18 grants her the right to live separately,
without forfeiting her claim to maintenance, if he is guilty of any of the
misbehaviours enumerated therein or on account of his being in one of
objectionable conditions as mentioned therein. So while sustaining her marriage
and preserving her marital status, the wife is entitled to claim maintenance
from her husband. On the other hand, under the Hindu Marriage Act, in contrast,
her claim for maintenance pendente lite is durated (sic) on the pendency of a
litigation of the kind envisaged under Sections 9 to 14 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, and her claim to permanent maintenance or alimony is based on the
supposition that either her marital status has been strained or affected by
passing a decree for restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation in
favour or against her, or her marriage stands dissolved by a decree of nullity
or divorce, with or without her consent. Thus when her marital status is to be
affected or disrupted the court does so by passing a decree for or against her.
On or at the time of the happening of that event, the court being seisin of the
matter, invokes its ancillary or incidental power to grant permanent alimony.
Not only that, the court retains the jurisdiction at subsequent stages to fulfil
this incidental or ancillary obligation when moved by an application on that
behalf by a party entitled to relief. The court further retains the power to
change or alter the order in view of the changed circumstances. Thus the whole
exercise is within the gammit (sic gamut) of a diseased or a broken marriage.
And in order to avoid conflict of perceptions the legislature while codifying
the Hindu Marriage Act preserved the right of permanent maintenance in favour of
the husband or the wife, as the case may be, dependent on the court passing a
decree of the kind as envisaged under Sections 9 to 14 of the Act. In other
words without the marital status being affected or disrupted by the matrimonial
court under the Hindu Marriage Act the claim of permanent alimony was not to be
valid as ancillary or incidental to such affectation or disruption. The wife's
claim to maintenance necessarily has then to be agitated under the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 which is a legislative measure later in
point of time than the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, though part of the same socio-
legal scheme revolutionizing the law applicable to Hindus."

11

11. In the case B.P. Achala Anand v. S. Appi Reddy and another, AIR

2005, SC 986, a three Judge Bench held that Section 18 of the Hindu

Adoptions and Maintenance Act confers a right on a wife to be maintained by

her husband during her lifetime and such a right for maintenance is an

incident of the status or estate of matrimony and a Hindu is under a legal

obligation to maintain his wife. Section 25 of the Act enables the Court to

pass an order for providing alimony and maintenance in favour of the

divorced wife. The Court further observed that on the status of the wife being

terminated by a decree for divorce under the Act, rights of divorced wife seem

to be cribbed, confined and cabined by the provisions of and to the rights

available Sections 25 and 27 of the said Act.


12. When the husband has succeeded in obtaining a decree of


restitution of conjugal rights against the wife, it is implied that the wife was


required to join the company of the husband at her matrimonial home and


therefore, there is no question of maintenance at least from the date of the


said order. If the wife is directed to be paid maintenance despite the said


decree, reluctance of the wife to join the husband would be further


strengthened and she would be encouraged to stay away from the husband


despite the decree passed by the Court. The decree for restitution of conjugal


rights would be rendered inoperative and for such an act of the wife, the


husband would be penalized to pay the maintenance to the wife, who does


not subject to the decree passed by the Court. Such a direction would be


incentive to frustrate the decree passed under Section 9 of the Act. It is well


settled that if such a decree is passed at the instance of the wife and against


the husband, the Court would be justified in directing the husband to pay 12


maintenance to the wife till he resumes cohabitation with her or calls upon her


to join him at the matrimonial home pursuant to the decree passed by the


Court in her favour. Such is not a case before us. We are, therefore, satisfied


that the Family Court acted without jurisdiction in directing the husband to


pay maintenance at least from the date when the impugned order was


passed and therefore, the impugned order to that extent is required to be set


aside. However, we are not inclined to interfere in the maintenance granted to


the daughter.

13. In the premises, Family Court Appeal No.20 of 2005 fails and the

same is hereby dismissed. Family Court Appeal No.44 of 2005 succeeds

partly and the directions to pay an amount of Rs.2500/- per month by way of

the maintenance to the wife are hereby quashed and set-aside. Undoubtedly

till the wife resumes cohabitation with the husband, the order for access

passed by this Court dated 20.10.2006 shall continue to operate.

14. The parties to bear their own costs.

(S.J.VAZIFDAR, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)

Systematic discrimination turns Indian Husbands into 'Second Class Citizens'

Indian Husbands are second class citizens

Married men in India have been reduced to second class citizens who are systematically discriminated against by the Indian Police , Indian government and the Indian Judicial system. Instead of being protected by the law , in Indian laws are used to harass Indian husbands .

Indian men contribute more than 80% of the country's taxes and have little or nothing spent on their welfare. The state systematically denies then any rights in a married life and creates laws to purposely harass then in all ways possible. Thousands of crores are spent every year through various different channels on women's programmes , little or nothing is being spent on welfare for men . The Government of Indian has a ministry for welfare of animals but has still not heeded to the requests for creation of a mens welfare ministry .

Laws in India are so biased against men that women who have never married in India or do not have children who are Indian citizens also come all the way to India to misuse Indian laws . Most marital laws are unconstitutional are go against articles 14 , 15 , 20 and 21 of the Indian constitution which guarantees fundamental rights like right to equality before the law , special provision for weaker sections of the society, multiple trials for the same crimes, and right to liberty . On one side the government promotes that they are committed to eradicating dowry completely from India on the other hand they allow the exchange of dowry to go unabated. But once the exchange has happened the government arrests millions of husbands and their families without the slightest iota of evidence or investigation under the draconian and senseless section 498A of the Anti Dowry act. This partial implementation of the done purposely to trap men and their families while keeping the dowry system intact .

In terms of Alimony , Indian laws are no better . In the western world there exists hard and fast ruled for alimony for women . In most states in the US alimony applies only when the marriage has completed 10 or more years . However in India the biased judiciary and police force men into a `compromise' against their will and make then pay huge settlement amounts to women who have broken marriages which have not even reached their first anniversary . Child custody remains with the mother all the time and the father gets visitation to the tune of 1 hour a month .

The less written about the newly created domestic violence act of 2005 the better . Better known as the property grabbing act of 2005 , this act has been misused by the empowered women of India to grab the properties of husbands and their families . The law was so badly drafted and worded then while the creation of the law the normally biased Indian judiciary too commented on the viability of a biased law this . Misuse of the law also has reached epic proportion and now misuse of this law competes with misuse of section 498A which according to government is misused in 98% of cases .

The resulting consequence of the systematic torture of men in India has been catastrophic . More than 56000 married men commit suicide every year due to spousal as compared to only half that number of women . Even after the suicide of the husband every attempt is made to make this death as a death due to unknown reasons and no punishment is ever meted out to the wife who was the responsible for the death . In fact the two main categories that men's deaths are classified in the national crime records bureau are `Unknown reasons' and `Other reasons' .

The government cruel and deliberate attempts to subjugate the rights of husbands in India is deplorable and shows a very fascist attitude . The government must immediately amend the marital laws to make them gender neutral and then proceed to create a men's welfare ministry and study and arrest the rising mens suicides in India before the situation goes out of hand .

credit to arnab221

dp3 filed on FIL - delhi karkardooma court order

IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMA ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE ­ III (EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS :
DELHI Crl. Revision No. 29/2009
Shri Bhola Nath Khanna S/o Late Shri Baij Nath R/o House No. 40B MIG Flats, RMII, Sector2, Rajinder Nagar, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP ...... Revisionist
VERSUS
1. The State of NCT of Delhi
2. Shri Yash Pal Kumar S/o Late Shri Bisheshar Nath R/o 107/45 East Azad Nagar Gali No. 5 Delhi...Respondents

(In CC No. 260/2007 U/S 3, The Dowry Prohibition Act PS Krishna Nagar)

O R D E R :

The present revision has been preferred against the impugned order of Ld. MM dt. 28.3.2009 vide which the criminal complaint filed by revisionist was dismissed under Section 203 Cr. PC.

2.The brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the son of the petitioner namely Sanjay Khanna was married to the daughter of respondent No. 2 namely Ruchi Khanna on 17.12.2006. Within an year of the marriage, because of some matrimonial discord, both the parties separated and subsequently Ruchi Khanna filed a complaint before the CAW Cell on 21.4.2007 on which FIR No. 393/2007 was registered U/S 498A/406/34 IPC at PS Krishna Nagar against the revisionist and his familymembers including his son . Apart from that she also filed a petition under Section 125 Cr. PC. In the said FIR as well as the petition U/S 125 Cr. PC, it was alleged by the complainant that there was a huge demand of dowry on the part of revisionist and the other accused of that case which was fulfilled by her father and that a sum of Rs. 8 Lacs were spent in the marriage. The revisionist filed a criminal complaint case under Section 3 of The Dowry Prohibition Act alleging therein that as per the allegations made in the complaint by Ruchi Khanna as also in her petition under Section 125 Cr. PC, her father gave dowry on the alleged demand of the revisionist and as per Section 3 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, giving of dowry is also an offence. It was, thus, prayed that respondent No. 2 be summoned for the said offence.

3.The revisionist led his presummoning evidence before the Ld.Trial Court and examined three witnesses. CW1 was the revisionist himself who deposed the facts, as alleged above and that a false FIR was got registered against him and his other family members as also a false petition U/S 125 Cr. PC against his son in which it was falsely alleged that on the demand being made by him, dowry was given in the marriage. CW2 Sanjay Khanna was his son and he also deposed similar facts. CW3 Brahm Singh ­ Naib Nazir in the Court of Ms. Neerja Bhatia ­ Ld. MM brought the judicial file of case FIR No. 393/2007 got lodged by the daughter of respondent No. 2 and proved the original complaint, original list of dowry articles, copy of FIR and petition U/S 125 Cr. PC.

4.By the impugned order Ld. MM dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr. PC holding that the complainant (revisionist herein) had taken contradictory stand, since on one hand, he claimed that the allegations regarding the demand of dowry are false and on the other hand, he pleaded that the allegations of demand of dowry by the complainant, as made by the complainant in the said State case, be accepted as true. Aggrieved by the said order the present revision has been filed.

5. I have heard Shri Sanjay Gupta ­ Adv. for the revisionist and Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent No. 1. Since respondent No. 2 was never summoned, hence, notice to him was dispensed with . The Trial Court Record was also summoned and perused.

6. There is a basic difference between the accusation/allegations and the defence. Both cannot be taken together. Ld. MM while passing the impugned order, in my considered opinion , was confused between the two. The complaint filed by the revisionist was on the basis of the FIR which was lodged by Ruchi Khanna and what was required by the Ld. MM was to see whether the said FIR contained any such allegations that on the demand made by the revisionist, dowry was given by her father/respondent No. 2 in the marriage or after the marriage or whether the list of dowry articles as given in the said FIR , was in conformity with the rules made under the Dowry Prohibition Act. After taking into consideration the contents of the FIR, Ld. MM took note of the defence of the revisionist in the said case which was denial about the said allegations. In case the revisionist would not have denied the fact, as asserted by the wife of his son in the FIR, it could well have been taken as admission in the said State case and could have resulted in his conviction in that case. It was incumbent upon the Ld. MM to see and to restrict the findings, whether from the contents of the FIR and the petition under Section 125 Cr. PC, any offence under Section 3 of The Dowry Prohibition Act is made out or not. At the time of summoning under Section 204 Cr. PC, the Court of Ld. MM has very limited scope and it has to only see whether any prima facie case is disclosed or not, without considering the defence of either of the parties. The intention of the complainant was to bring to the notice of Ld. Trial Court, the statement of daughterinlaw of the revisionist wherein she had alleged that the dowry was given on the demand of the revisionist. Section 3 of The Dowry Prohibition Act provides that giving or taking dowry both are an offence.

7. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist had relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Neera Singh Vs. State 2008 (3) RCR (Crl.) 287. In that case too in similar situation , in the FIR the complainant had alleged that the dowry was given as per the demand of her inlaws. Taking note of those allegations, the Hon'ble High Court observed that the Ld. MM should have taken cognizance of the offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act which prohibits giving and taking of dowry. It was also observed that the list of dowry articles, which generally in the such cases, is not in conformity with the Rule 2 of the Rules made under The Dowry Prohibition Act.

8. The defence of the accused in the State case under Section 498 A/406 IPC is not to be considered while deciding whether summoning of the accused is made out or not. In the instant case, in my opinion , Ld. Trial Court erred in taking note of the defence of the accused which was the defence in the said State case lodged by the daughter of respondent No. 2 under Section 406/498A IPC. Ld. MM was supposed to confine himself with the contents of the FIR and the petition under Section 125 Cr. PC which were duly proved on record during the inquiry under Section 202 Cr. PC as to whether any offence under Section 3 of The Dowry Prohibition Act was disclosed or not.

9. On considering the entire trial court record including the statement of CW1, CW2 and CW3, I am of the opinion that the contents of the FIR No. 393/2007 of PS Krishna Nagar under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and the petition under Section 125 Cr. PC filed by Ruchi Khanna clearly discloses the allegation that respondent No. 2 gave dowry on the alleged demand made by the revisionist. Since under Section 3 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, giving of dowry is also an offence, therefore, he is prima facie guilty under Section 3 of the said Act.

10. Thus, in light of the above, I am of the view that the impugned order of the Ld. MM dt. 28.3.2009 is not in conformity with the law as also the judgment delivered in Neera Singh's case (supra). Accordingly, the impugned order of Ld. MM dt. 28.3.2009 is set aside and the revision stands allowed. Accordingly the complaint case bearing No. 260/2007 is restored to its original position and number with directions to the Ld. Trial Court to issue process against respondent No. 2 for the offence punishable U/S 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The present revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Revision file be consigned to Record Room. TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court along with a copy of the order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Court of Ld. MM on 29.7.2009.

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18th day of July 2009 (SANJAY SHARMA)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE(EAST) III
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI

JAI HIND

"Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we will redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance .... We end today a period of ill fortune, andIndia discovers herself again.”

Jawaharlal Nehru, "Tryst with destiny" speech

Happy Independence Day to all my friends!!!

August 15…the day when India woke up to freedom back in 1947 was a day of great celebration. A country got rid of her foreign oppression and became a sovereign nation – the triumph of numerous martyred souls. It was a day of fulfillment…it was the day of a new beginning…a birth of a nation. On the stroke of midnight, our country was freed…brought back to life again as the British Raj handed over the rule to India and left for their own shores. The long and strenuous struggle had borne fruit at last, though the happiness was marred by the fact that the country was divided into India and Pakistan and the violent communal riots had left the countries permanently scarred. On the 15th of August, 1947, India became completely independent. Millions of hearts rejoiced when Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, unfurled the Indian tricolor on the ramparts the magnificent Red Fort, symbolically marking the end of the British colonial rule.

Today, our nation is in turmoil due to drought, epidemic swine flu, interstate arguments, naxalism, terrorism, and so on. Late and scanty monsoon has lead to severe droughts in various parts of the country. Last year in November, we faced one the worst terrorist attacks in the history, in Mumbai, a nightmare which gripped the whole nation for almost three days. The drama behind that nightmare still remains unrevealed. A lot of thinking need to be done on this single incident, which is a reminder of the clear and present danger to our country. Farmers are losing their crops and are on the verge of a mass suicide. The ruthless killings of the CPM people in Lalgarh…India is considered to be an emerging super power. The whole world is watching all the nasty political dramas staged here. Putting blames on each others at the time of a national crisis…ENOUGH!!! Today, when India is celebrating her 62nd Independence Day, numerous questions arise in my mind. Are we really independent???? Are we still safeguarding the freedom which our devoted forefathers…the brave and courageous martyrs gained for us?? Is the same spirit still burning brightly in the hearts of all the Indians??? And worst of all these questions which always comes back to me like a boomerang is “Am I doing my part of duty as a citizen of this country? I am not able to find answers for these questions. In his address to the nation at the Red Fort, Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh called for a new era of cooperation and harmony. It is not only the duty of the government to ensure the peace and harmony here, but it is also our duty as the citizens of India to come forward and lend your support to the government devoid of any political party, devoid of state boundaries…to stand united and pledge for the development of our country!!!