Author Archives: vinayak

About vinayak

Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist

TWENTY FOUR BAILs in 1 day @ 1 HC alone. Imagine how many / yr, all over India & the money involved !!

* These TWENTY FOUR bail orders (all connected to 498A), were ordered by the Hon. Kolkatta HC, dated 25 Sep 2014 and were found on a casual search by this blogger.
* There may be many more such bail orders in this (Kolkatta) HC and there are bound to be many more all around the country.
* Consider Rs. 50,000 to 100,000 per bail order at HC level and work out the industry size !!!
* Some of these cases also involve 304B !!
* It is pertinent to note that even in cases where 304B is mentioned on the subject line, there is NO major discussion of the case… Just bail issued in a short order

**************** BAIL ORDER # 1 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Sofikul Molla @ Mallick & Ors vs State of west Bengal
25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay

******************************************************************
Sl. No.479 ad C.R.M 9456 of 2014
In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 07.08.2014 in connection with Sonamukhi Police Station Case No. 25 of 2014 dated 26.03.2014 under Sections 498A/304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
******************************************************************

Mr. Achintya Kumar Banerjee, Sk. Faridullah   ………         For the petitioners
Mr. Madhusudan Sur ………          For the State
******************************************************************

The learned Advocate of the petitioners submits that in the present case three other co-accused persons including the husband of the victim have already been granted bail.

Heard the learned Advocate for the State. Having considered the materials in the case diary and also considering the fact that in the present case three other co-accused persons including the husband of the victim have already been granted bail, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioners.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay,J.)

(Sudip Ahluwalia,J.)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 2 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Sunil Mondal & Anr vs State of West Bengal
25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
******************************************************************
Sl. No.453 ad C.R.M 13908 of 2014
In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 22.09.2014 in connection with Gaighata Police Station Case No. 28 of 2014 dated 09.01.2014 under Sections 498A/325/376/511/406/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
******************************************************************

Mr. Surajit Basu   ………         For the petitioners
Ms. Sujata Das     ………         For the State
******************************************************************

Heard the learned Advocate of both the parties. Having considered the materials in the case diary, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioners.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay,J.)

(Sudip Ahluwalia,J.)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 3 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Bikash Bhattacharjee & Others vs State of West Bengal
25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
******************************************************************
C.R.M. 13799 of 2014 BD
Re: An application for bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18th September, 2014 in connection with Kotwali Police Station Case No. 568/2014 dated 02.07.2014 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
******************************************************************

Mrs. Matan Chakraborty…. For Petitioners
Mrs. Kumkum Mitra. … For State
******************************************************************

Heard learned advocate of both the parties. Having considered the materials in the case diary, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioners.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) each with one surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer and subject to conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J)

(Sudip Ahluwalia, J)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 4 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Suman Chakraborty & Another vs State of West Bengal
September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
******************************************************************
C.R.M. 13644 of 2014 BD
Re: An application for bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18th September, 2014 in connection with Kharagpur (T) Police Station Case No. 375/2014 dated 15.07.2014 under Section 498A/313/325/406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
******************************************************************

Mr. Malay Bhattacharya…. For Petitioners
Mrs. Kakali Chatterjee…. For State
******************************************************************

Heard learned advocate of both the parties. Having considered the materials in the case diary, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioners.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) each with one surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer and subject to conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J)

(Sudip Ahluwalia, J)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 5 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Sital Mondal Vs State of West Bengal
25 September, 2014
Author: Nishita Mhatre
******************************************************************
25.9.14 Court No.17 A.B.
CRM No. 13350 of 2014
In the matter of: An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 15.09.2014 in connection with Rampurhat P. S. Case No. 10 of 2014 dated 13.01.2014 under Sections 498A/304B/306 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
******************************************************************

Bitasok Banerjee For the Petitioner
Mr. Manjit Singh, Ld. P.P., Mr. Saryati Dutta For the State
******************************************************************

The Petitioner has applied for bail in respect of the aforesaid case. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary and other material on record. The Petitioner is the husband of the victim. He has been in custody for the last 59 days.

In our opinion, since the charge sheet has already been submitted there is no need to continue the Petitioner in custody.

Hence, we allow the application and direct that the Petitioner, Sital Mondal shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief wed Judicial Magistrate, Rampurhat, upon furnishing a bond of `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be a local surety.

The application for bail is, thus disposed of.

(Nishita Mhatre, J)

(Samapti Chatterjee, J)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 6 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Bulbuli Pal vs State of WEst Bengal
25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
***************************************************************************

Sl. No.457 ad C.R.M 13929 of 2014
In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 22.09.2014 in connection with Katwa Police Station Case No. 190 dated 19.05.2014 under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
***************************************************************************
In the matter of :

Bulbuli Pal     ………                Petitioner
Vs
State of West Bengal

***************************************************************************
Mr. Navanil De, Sk. Samiul Haque……… For the petitioner
Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Mr. Sekhar Barman ……… For the State
***************************************************************************

The learned Advocate of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the married sister-in-law of the victim.

The learned Advocate of the petitioner further submits that in the present case charge sheet has already been submitted. The learned Advocate of the petitioner also submits that the husband of the victim has already been granted bail and other accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail.

Heard the learned Advocate for the State. Having considered the materials in the case diary and considering the fact that the charge sheet has already been submitted and also considering the fact that husband of the victim has already been granted bail and other accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail, we are of the view that detention of the petitioner in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioner.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katwa and subject to conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay,J.)

(Sudip Ahluwalia,J.)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 7 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Provash Ruidas vs State of West Bengal
25 September, 2014
Author: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
*********************************************************************
C.R.M. 12480 of 2014 ss.
In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on September 05, 2014 in connection with Bauria Police Station Case No. 109 of 2013 dated August 18, 2013 under Sections 498A/304B/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
*********************************************************************

Ms. Minoti Gomes, Ms. Manasi Roy …for the petitioner.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta …for the State.
*********************************************************************

Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties.

The petitioner is seeking bail in connection with a case relating to offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the accused/petitioner is in custody for 401 days and the investigation is complete. Therefore, further detention of the petitioner is not necessary.

Having considered the case diary and the materials on record and, particularly, when the petitioner is in custody for 401 days and the investigation is complete, we are of the opinion that further detention of the accused/petitioner is not necessary and he may be granted bail.

Therefore, the accused/petitioner, namely, Provash Ruidas, be released on bail upon furnishing bond of ` 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only with two sureties of like amount, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Uluberia, District: Howrah, on condition that the petitioner shall attend the court on each and every occasion unless prevented by sufficient cause.

The application for bail is, thus, allowed.

(Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.)

(Asim Kumar Mondal, J.)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 8 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Asutosh Pradhan & Ors vs State of WEst Bengal
25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
*********************************************************************
Sl. No.450 ad C.R.M 13808 of 2014
In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19.09.2014 in connection with Contai Police Station Case No. 26 of 2014 dated 04.07.2014 under Sections 498A/323/325/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
*********************************************************************

Mr. Robiul Islam, Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra ………              For the petitioners
Ms. Sonali Das    ………        For the State
*********************************************************************

Heard the learned Advocate of both the parties. Having considered the materials in the case diary, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioners.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to conditions as laid down in sub- section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay,J.)

(Sudip Ahluwalia,J.)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 9 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Savana Bibi & Others vs State of West Bengal
25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
*********************************************************************
C.R.M. 13024 of 2014 BD
Re: An application for bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 11th September, 2014 in connection with Chapra Police Station Case No. 321/2014 dated 03.05.2014 under Sections 498A/323/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
*********************************************************************

Mr. Raju Mondal…. For Petitioners
Mr. Debabrata Dasgupta…. For State
*********************************************************************

Heard learned advocate of both the parties. Learned advocate of the petitioners submits that in the present case one other co-accused person has already been granted bail by the learned Court below.

Having considered the materials in the case diary and specially considering the fact that one other co-accused person has already been granted bail by the learned Court below, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioners.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) each with one surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer and subject to conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J)

(Sudip Ahluwalia, J)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 10 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Saiful Bapari vs State of West Bengal
25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
*********************************************************************
C.R.M 13971 of 2014
In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 22.09.2014 in connection with Tufanganj Police Station Case No. 192 of 2014 dated 09.07.2014 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
*********************************************************************

Ms. Minati Gomes, Md. Hafiz Ali      ………           For the petitioner
Mr. Asit Nayek      ………         For the State
*********************************************************************

Heard the learned Advocate of both the parties. Having considered the materials in the case diary, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioner.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay,J.)

(Sudip Ahluwalia,J.)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 11 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Adrish Ghosh vs State of West Bengal
25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
*********************************************************************
Sl. No.459 ad C.R.M 13900 of 2014
In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 22.09.2014 in connection with Raghunathganj Police Station Case No. 773 of 2014 dated 12.09.2014 under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
*********************************************************************

Mr. Sandip Chakrabarty          ………            For the petitioner
Mr. Goutam Wilson         ………            For the State
*********************************************************************

Heard the learned Advocate of both the parties. Having considered the materials in the case diary, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioner.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay,J.)

(Sudip Ahluwalia,J.)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 12 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Hazrat Sk vs State of West Bengal
25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
****************************************************
C.R.M. 13049 of 2014 BD
Re: An application for bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 11th September, 2014 in connection with Beldanga Police Station Case No. 238/2014 dated 11.04.2014 under Section 498A/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code.
****************************************************

Ms. Kuntal Roy…. For Petitioner
Mrs. Purnima Ghosh…. For State
****************************************************

Heard learned advocate of both the parties. Learned advocate of the petitioner submits that other co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail.

Having considered the materials in the case diary and specially considering the fact that other co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioner.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer and subject to conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J)

(Sudip Ahluwalia, J)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 13 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Sk. Fariad Hossain @ Raj vs State of West Bank
25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
*********************************************************************

Sl. No.6 ad C.R.M 13739 of 2014
In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19.09.2014 in connection with Contai Police Station Case No. 340 of 2014 dated 06.09.2014 under Sections 498A/324/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
*********************************************************************

Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, Mr. Avinaba Patra ……… For the petitioner
Ms. Sujata Das ……… For the State
*********************************************************************

The petitioner is seeking bail in connection with a case relating to offence punishable Sections 498A/324/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The learned Advocate of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for last 20 days.

Heard the learned Advocate for the State. Having considered the materials in the case diary and considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for last 20 days, we are of the opinion that further detention of the accused/petitioner is not necessary.

Therefore, the accused/petitioner namely, Sk. Fariad Hossain @ Raj be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) only with one local surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai, Purba Medinipur.

The application for bail, thus, stands disposed of.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay,J.)

(Sudip Ahluwalia,J.)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 14 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Bikash Bhattacharjee & Others vs state of West Bengal
25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
*********************************************************************

C.R.M. 13799 of 2014 BD
Re: An application for bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18th September, 2014 in connection with Kotwali Police Station Case No. 568/2014 dated 02.07.2014 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
*********************************************************************

Mrs. Matan Chakraborty…. For Petitioners
Mrs. Kumkum Mitra…. For State
*********************************************************************

Heard learned advocate of both the parties. Having considered the materials in the case diary, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioners.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) each with one surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer and subject to conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J)

(Sudip Ahluwalia, J)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 15 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Gouri Fulmali vs Unknown on 25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
*********************************************************************

C.R.M. No. 11619 of 2014 MNS.
In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on August 29, 2014 in connection with Mayureswar Police Station Case No. 142 of 2014 dated July 7, 2014 under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibitions Act.
*********************************************************************

Mr. Rajendra Banerjee …for the petitioner.
Ms. Sonali Das …for the State.
*********************************************************************

Allowed

The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in no way connected with the alleged occurrence and the petitioner is not even a part of the family of the husband of the victim. The learned advocate for the petitioner also submits that the husband of the victim has already been granted bail.

Heard the learned advocate for the State.

Having considered the materials in the case diary and considering the fact that the petitioner is in no way connected with the alleged occurrence and the petitioner is not even a part of the family of the husband of the victim and also considering the fact that that the husband of the victim has already been granted bail, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioner.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.)

(Sudip Ahluwalia, J.)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 16 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Sk. Rabiul & Others vs State of West Bengal
25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
*********************************************************************

C.R.M. 13778 of 2014 BD
Re: An application for bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18th September, 2014 in connection with Panskura Police Station Case No. 499/2014 dated 14.09.2014 under Section 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
*********************************************************************

Mr. Ramdulal Manna…. For Petitioners
Mr. Prasun Dutta…. For State
*********************************************************************

Heard learned advocate of both the parties. Having considered the materials in the case diary, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioners.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) each with one surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer and subject to conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J)

(Sudip Ahluwalia, J)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 17 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Jabbar Mallick & Ors vs Unknown on 25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
*********************************************************************

Sl. No.466 ad C.R.M 9439 of 2014
In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 07.08.2014 in connection with Sonamukhi Police Station Case No. 25 of 2014 dated 26.03.2014 under Sections 498A/304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
*********************************************************************

Mr. Achintya Kumar Banerjee, Sk. Faridullah   ………         For the petitioners
Mr. Madhusudan Sur ………         For the State
*********************************************************************

The learned Advocate of the petitioners submits that in the present case three other co-accused persons including the husband of the victim have already been granted bail.

Heard the learned Advocate for the State. Having considered the materials in the case diary and also considering the fact that in the present case three other co-accused persons including the husband of the victim have already been granted bail, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioners.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay,J.)

(Sudip Ahluwalia,J.)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 18 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Sahidul Islam vs State of West Bengal
25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
*********************************************************************

C.R.M. 13798 of 2014 BD
Re: An application for bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18th September, 2014 in connection with Falakata Police Station Case No. 822/2014 dated 05.09.2014 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
*********************************************************************

Ms. Arijit Ghosh…. For Petitioners
Mrs. Sima Biswas…. For State
*********************************************************************

Heard learned advocate of both the parties. Having considered the materials in the case diary, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioners.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) each with one surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer and subject to conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J)

(Sudip Ahluwalia, J)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 19 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Sk. Raju Hossain @ Sk. Sohel vs State of West Bengal
25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
*********************************************************************

(Bail Granted)
C. R. M. No. 11826 of 2014
In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 28.08.2014 in connection with Tamluk Police Station Case No. 267 of 2014 dated 20.04.2014 under Sections 498A/376(2)(1)(h)/363/366 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. (G.R. Case No. 805 of 2014)
*********************************************************************

Mr. Amal Krishna Samanta … … for the Petitioner
Mr. Saryati Dutta … … for the State
*********************************************************************

Leave is granted to the learned Advocate-on-record of the petitioner to correct the section mentioned in the cause title of the Application for Bail.

The petitioner is seeking bail in connection with a case relating to offences punishable under Sections 498A/376(2)(1)(h)/363/366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

The learned Advocate of the petitioner submits that the said petitioner is in custody for 118 days. The learned Advocate of the petitioner further submits that in the present case, investigation is complete and charge- sheet has been submitted.

Heard the learned advocate for the State. Having considered the materials in the case diary and considering the fact that charge-sheet has already been submitted and the petitioner herein is in custody for 118 days, we are of the opinion that further detention of the accused/petitioner is not necessary.

Therefore, the accused/petitioner, namely Sk. Raju Hossain @ Sk. Sohel, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only), with one local surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk.

The application for bail, thus, stands allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.)

(Sudip Ahluwalia, J.)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 20 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Abdus Sobur Gazi @ Abdus Sabur Gazi vs State of West Bengal
25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
*********************************************************************
Sl. No.448 ad C.R.M 13862 of 2014
In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 22.09.2014 in connection with Swarupnagar Police Station Case No. 511 of 2014 dated 22.06.2014 under Sections 498A/323/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
*********************************************************************
Mr. Suman Das Adhikary……… For the petitioner
Mr. Bidyut Kumar Roy ……… For the State
*********************************************************************

Heard the learned Advocate of both the parties. Having considered the materials in the case diary, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioner.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay,J.)

(Sudip Ahluwalia,J.)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 21 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Subadra Gayen vs Unknown on 25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
*********************************************************************
C.R.M. No. 13486 of 2014 MNS.
In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on September 16, 2014 in connection with Kakdwip Police Station Case No. 454 of 2012 dated September 6, 2012 under Sections 498A/307/326/34 and adding Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
*********************************************************************

Mr. Gurupada Das …for the petitioner.
Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Mr. Sekhar Barman …for the State.
*********************************************************************

Allowed Leave is granted to the learned advocate for the petitioner to correct the cause title of this application by adding Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the mother-in-law of the victim. The learned advocate for the petitioner also submits that in the present case investigation is complete and the chargesheet has already been submitted and the husband of the victim has already been granted bail.

Heard the learned advocate for the State.

Having considered the materials in the case diary and also considering the fact that the petitioner is the mother-in-law of the victim and further considering the fact that the investigation is complete and the chargesheet has already been submitted and also considering the fact that the husband of the victim has already been granted bail, we are of the view that detention of the petitioner in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioner.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kakdwip, District- South 24 Parganas, and subject to conditions as laid down in sub- section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.)

(Sudip Ahluwalia, J.)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 22 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Marjia Bibi & Ors vs Unknown on 25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
*********************************************************************

Sl. No.449 ad C.R.M 13811 of 2014
In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19.09.2014 in connection with Nowda Police Station Case No. 28 of 2014 dated 30.01.2014 under Sections 498A/304B/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
*********************************************************************

Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Mr. Ali Ahsan Alamgir………        For the petitioners
Mr. Madhusudan Sur       ………             For the State
*********************************************************************

The learned Advocate of the petitioners submits that in the present case charge sheet has already been submitted. The learned Advocate of the petitioners further submits that the father-in-law and the husband of the victim have already been granted bail.

Heard the learned Advocate for the State. Having considered the materials in the case diary and considering the fact that the charge sheet has already been submitted and also considering the fact that the father-in-law and the husband of the victim have already been granted bail, we are of the view that detention of the petitioners in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioners.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only each with two sureties of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Murshidabad at Berhampore and subject to conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay,J.)

(Sudip Ahluwalia,J.)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 23 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Krishnapada Joardar vs Unknown on 25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
*********************************************************************

Sl. No.444 ad C.R.M 12520 of 2014
In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 08.09.2014 in connection with Krishnagar Women Police Station Case No. 219 of 2014 dated 16.08.2014 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
*********************************************************************

Mr. Atis Kumar Biswas ……… For the petitioner
Ms. Sima Biswas ……… For the State
*********************************************************************

Heard the learned Advocate of both the parties. Having considered the materials in the case diary, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioner.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay,J.)

(Sudip Ahluwalia,J.)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**************** BAIL ORDER # 24 (no specific sequence ) *************
*********************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Gautam Das & Anr vs State of West Bengal
25 September, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
*********************************************************************
Sl. No.454 ad C.R.M 13107 of 2014
In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 12.09.2014 in connection with Balurghat Police Station Case No. 642 of 2014 dated 25.08.2014 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
*********************************************************************

Mr. Siladitya Sanyal, Mr. Sovon Dasgupta, Mr. Sujan Chatterjee      ………            For the petitioners
Ms. Manasi Roy   ………        For the State
*********************************************************************

Heard the learned Advocate of both the parties. Having considered the materials in the case diary, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioners.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to conditions as laid down in sub- section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay,J.)

(Sudip Ahluwalia,J.)

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF – Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

Does 498a etc protect women ?? Here is a married sister in law running for bail !!

Kolkata High Court (Appellate Side)

Bulbuli Pal vs State of West Bengal

25 September, 2014
***************************************************************************
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay

Sl. No.457 ad C.R.M 13929 of 2014

In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 22.09.2014 in connection with Katwa Police Station Case No. 190 dated 19.05.2014 under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
***************************************************************************
In the matter of :

Bulbuli Pal     ………                Petitioner
Vs
State of West Bengal

***************************************************************************
Mr. Navanil De, Sk. Samiul Haque……… For the petitioner
Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Mr. Sekhar Barman ……… For the State
***************************************************************************

The learned Advocate of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the married sister-in-law of the victim.

The learned Advocate of the petitioner further submits that in the present case charge sheet has already been submitted. The learned Advocate of the petitioner also submits that the husband of the victim has already been granted bail and other accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail.

Heard the learned Advocate for the State. Having considered the materials in the case diary and considering the fact that the charge sheet has already been submitted and also considering the fact that husband of the victim has already been granted bail and other accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail, we are of the view that detention of the petitioner in this case is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioner.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katwa and subject to conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay,J.)

(Sudip Ahluwalia,J.)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF – Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

40 Lakhs &divorce for denying sex 2 husband. Thanks to Hon. SC for helping woman + upholding justice.

Sequence of a REAL LIFE THRILLER !!
*********************************************
* A woman denies sex to her husband for a long time
* Husband is forced to run to courts and seek divorce on grounds of cruelty, denial of sex etc
* Wife says she didn’t want babies so denied sex !!!
* Madras HC gives her a lecture on use of contraceptives and grants divorce as sought by hubby
* Wife appeals to supreme court and honorable Supreme Court says husband has to pay wife Rs. 40 lakhs !!!
* long live woman’s lib…. long live woman’s lib !! Thanks to Hon. supreme court for upholding Justice

* I think this is faster and easier than Daawat E Ishq and is a good lesson to society ??
************************

Not allowing sexual intercourse for a long time is ground for divorce: Supreme Court

Tuesday, 23 September 2014 – 8:43pm IST | Place: New Delhi | Agency: PTI

Not allowing a spouse to have sexual intercourse for a long time by the partner amounts to mental cruelty and can be a ground for divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled. “Undoubtedly, not allowing a spouse for a long time, to have sexual intercourse by his or her partner, without sufficient reason, itself amounts to mental cruelty to such spouse,” a bench headed by Justice S J Mukhopadhaya said. It upheld Madras High Court verdict by which it had granted divorce to a man after he alleged that he was subjected to cruelty by his wife in various ways including refusal to consummate the marriage.

The apex court refused to give credence to the wife’s testimony that she refused to consummate marriage as she did not want a child. The court, however, directed the husband, who is based in London, to pay Rs 40 lakh as one-time alimony to the wife. “We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in mind the economic status of the parties, a direction to the respondent to pay Rs.40 lakhs as one time alimony to the appellant(wife), would meet the ends of justice,” it said.

The High Court had also refused to accept the explanation of the wife for not consummating marriage saying, “Admittedly, both of them (husband and wife) are well educated and there are so many contraceptives available and they could have used such contraceptives and avoided pregnancy if they had wanted”.

source
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-not-allowing-sexual-intercourse-for-a-long-time-is-ground-for-divorce-supreme-court-2021049

*****************
FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
regards
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

Katju ji says a ‘keep’ or ‘live-in’ only for sex is NOT wife / marriage. Anyone used this judgment ??

Excerpts :
“…………34. In our opinion not all live in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. If a man has a `keep’ whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage’ ….”

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
*******************************

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

      CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2028-2029__OF 2010
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.2273-2274/2010]

D. Velusamy                                         ..        Appellant

-versus-

D. Patchaiammal                                    ..      Respondent

JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared for the respondent although she has been served notice. We had earlier requested Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior counsel to assist us as Amicus Curiae in the case, and we record our appreciation of Mr. Bhushan who was of considerable assistance to us.

3. These appeals have been filed against the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 12.10.2009.

4. The appellant herein has alleged that he was married according to the Hindu Customary Rites with one Lakshmi on 25.6.1980. Out of the wedlock with Lakshmi a male child was born, who is now studying in an Engineering college at Ooty. The petitioner is working as a Secondary Teacher in Thevanga Higher Secondary School, Coimbatore.

5. It appears that the respondent-D. Patchaiammal filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2001 before the Family Court at Coimbatore in which she alleged that she was married to the appellant herein on 14.9.1986 and since then the appellant herein and she lived together in her father’s house for two or three years. It is alleged in the petition that after two or three years the appellant herein left the house of the respondent’s father and started living in his native place, but would visit the respondent occasionally.

6. It is alleged that the appellant herein (respondent in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.) deserted the respondent herein (petitioner in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.) two or three years after marrying her in 1986. In her petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she alleged that she did not have any kind of livelihood and she is unable to maintain herself whereas the respondent (appellant herein) is a Secondary Grade Teacher drawing a salary of Rs.10000/- per month. Hence it was prayed that the respondent (appellant herein) be directed to pay Rs.500/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner.

7. In both her petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as in her deposition in the case the respondent has alleged that she was married to the appellant herein on 14.9.1986, and that he left her after two or three years of living together with her in her father’s house.

8. Thus it is the own case of the respondent herein that the appellant left her in 1988 or 1989 (i.e. two or three years after the alleged marriage in 1986). Why then was the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed in the year 2001, i.e. after a delay of about twelve years, shall have to be satisfactorily explained by the respondent. This fact also creates some doubt about the case of the respondent herein.

9. In his counter affidavit filed by the appellant herein before the Family Court, Coimbatore, it was alleged that the respondent (appellant herein) was married to one Lakshmi on 25.6.1980 as per the Hindu Marriage rites and customs and he had a male child, who is studying in C.S.I. Engineering college at Ooty. To prove his marriage with Lakshmi the appellant produced the ration card, voter’s identity card of his wife, transfer certificate of his son, discharge certificate of his wife Lakshmi from hospital, photographs of the wedding, etc.

10. The learned Family Court Judge has held by his judgment dated 5.3.2004 that the appellant was married to the respondent and not to Lakshmi. These findings have been upheld by the High Court in the impugned judgment.

11. In our opinion, since Lakshmi was not made a party to the proceedings before the Family Court Judge or before the High Court and no notice was issued to her hence any declaration about her marital status vis-`- vis the appellant is wholly null and void as it will be violative of the rules of natural justice. Without giving a hearing to Lakshmi no such declaration could have validly be given by the Courts below that she had not married the appellant herein since such as a finding would seriously affect her rights. And if no such declaration could have been given obviously no declaration could validly have been given that the appellant was validly married to the respondent, because if Lakshmi was the wife of the appellant then without divorcing her the appellant could not have validly married the respondent.

12. It may be noted that Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides for giving maintenance to the wife and some other relatives. The word `wife’ has been defined in Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) of the Cr.P.C. as follows :

    “Wife includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.”

13. In Vimala (K) vs. Veeraswamy (K) [(1991) 2 SCC 375], a three- Judge Bench of this Court held that Section 125 of the Code of 1973 is meant to achieve a social purpose and the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. Explaining the meaning of the word `wife’ the Court held:

        “..the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. When an attempt is made by the husband to negative the claim of the neglected wife depicting her as a kept-mistress on the specious plea that he was already married, the court would insist on strict proof of the earlier marriage. The term `wife’ in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, includes a woman who has been divorced by a husband or who has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. The woman not having the legal status of a wife is thus brought within the inclusive definition of the term `wife’ consistent with the objective. However, under the law a second wife whose marriage is void on account of the survival of the first marriage is not a legally wedded wife, and is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance under this provision.”

14. In a subsequent decision of this Court in Savitaben Somabhat Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2005 SC 1809, this Court held that however desirable it may be to take note of the plight of an unfortunate woman, who unwittingly enters into wedlock with a married man, there is no scope to include a woman not lawfully married within the expression of `wife’. The Bench held that this inadequacy in law can be amended only by the Legislature.

15. Since we have held that the Courts below erred in law in holding that Lakshmi was not married to the appellant (since notice was not issued to her and she was not heard), it cannot be said at this stage that the respondent herein is the wife of the appellant. A divorced wife is treated as a wife for the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. but if a person has not even been married obviously that person could not be divorced. Hence the respondent herein cannot claim to be the wife of the appellant herein, unless it is established that the appellant was not married to Lakshmi.

16. However, the question has also be to be examined from the point of view of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Section 2(a) of the Act states :

        “2(a) “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent”;

        Section 2(f) states :

        “2(f) “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family”;

        Section 2(s) states :

        “2(s) “shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.”

        Section 3(a) states that an act will constitute domestic violence in case it-

        “3(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse;” or (emphasis supplied)

17. The expression “economic abuse” has been defined to include :

        “(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance”.

    (emphasis supplied)

18. An aggrieved person under the Act can approach the Magistrate under Section 12 for the relief mentioned in Section 12(2). Under Section 20(1)(d) the Magistrate can grant maintenance while disposing of the application under Section 12(1).

19. Section 26(1) provides that the relief mentioned in Section 20 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil court, family court or a criminal court.

20. Having noted the relevant provisions in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, we may point out that the expression `domestic relationship’ includes not only the relationship of marriage but also a relationship `in the nature of marriage’. The question, therefore, arises as to what is the meaning of the expression `a relationship in the nature of marriage’. Unfortunately this expression has not been defined in the Act. Since there is no direct decision of this Court on the interpretation of this expression we think it necessary to interpret it because a large number of cases will be coming up before the Courts in our country on this point, and hence an authoritative decision is required.

21. In our opinion Parliament by the aforesaid Act has drawn a distinction between the relationship of marriage and a relationship in the nature of marriage, and has provided that in either case the person who enters into either relationship is entitled to the benefit of the Act.

22. It seems to us that in the aforesaid Act of 2005 Parliament has taken notice of a new social phenomenon which has emerged in our country known as live-in relationship. This new relationship is still rare in our country, and is sometimes found in big urban cities in India, but it is very common in North America and Europe. It has been commented upon by this Court in S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal & Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 600 (vide para 31).

23. When a wife is deserted, in most countries the law provides for maintenance to her by her husband, which is called alimony. However, earlier there was no law providing for maintenance to a woman who was having a live-in relationship with a man without being married to him and was then deserted by him.

24. In USA the expression `palimony’ was coined which means grant of maintenance to a woman who has lived for a substantial period of time with a man without marrying him, and is then deserted by him (see `palimony’ on Google). The first decision on palimony was the well known decision of the California Superior Court in Marvin vs. Marvin (1976) 18 C3d660. This case related to the famous film actor Lee Marvin, with whom a lady Michelle lived for many years without marrying him, and was then deserted by him and she claimed palimony. Subsequently in many decisions of the Courts in USA, the concept of palimony has been considered and developed. The US Supreme Court has not given any decision on whether there is a legal right to palimony, but there are several decisions of the Courts in various States in USA. These Courts in USA have taken divergent views, some granting palimony, some denying it altogether, and some granting it on certain conditions. Hence in USA the law is still in a state of evolution on the right to palimony.

25. Although there is no statutory basis for grant of palimony in USA, the Courts there which have granted it have granted it on a contractual basis. Some Courts in USA have held that there must be a written or oral agreement between the man and woman that if they separate the man will give palimony to the woman, while other Courts have held that if a man and woman have lived together for a substantially long period without getting married there would be deemed to be an implied or constructive contract that palimony will be given on their separation.

26. In Taylor vs. Fields (1986) 224 Cal. Rpr. 186 the facts were that the plaintiff Taylor had a relationship with a married man Leo. After Leo died Taylor sued his widow alleging breach of an implied agreement to take care of Taylor financially and she claimed maintenance from the estate of Leo. The Court of Appeals in California held that the relationship alleged by Taylor was nothing more than that of a married man and his mistress. It was held that the alleged contract rested on meretricious consideration and hence was invalid and unenforceable. The Court of Appeals relied on the fact that Taylor did not live together with Leo but only occasionally spent weekends with him. There was no sign of a stable and significant cohabitation between the two.

27. However, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Devaney vs. L’ Esperance 195 N.J., 247 (2008) held that cohabitation is not necessary to claim palimony, rather “it is the promise to support, expressed or implied, coupled with a marital type relationship, that are indispensable elements to support a valid claim for palimony”. A law has now been passed in 2010 by the State legislature of New Jersey that there must be a written agreement between the parties to claim palimony.

28. Thus, there are widely divergent views of the Courts in U.S.A. regarding the right to palimony. Some States like Georgia and Tennessee expressly refuse to recognize palimony agreements.

29. Written palimony contracts are rare, but some US Courts have found implied contracts when a woman has given up her career, has managed the household, and assisted a man in his business for a lengthy period of time. Even when there is no explicit written or oral contract some US Courts have held that the action of the parties make it appear that a constructive or implied contract for grant of palimony existed.

30. However, a meretricious contract exclusively for sexual service is held in all US Courts as invalid and unenforceable.

31. In the case before us we are not called upon to decide whether in our country there can be a valid claim for palimony on the basis of a contract, express or implied, written or oral, since no such case was set up by the respondent in her petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

32. Some countries in the world recognize common law marriages. A common law marriage, sometimes called de facto marriage, or informal marriage is recognized in some countries as a marriage though no legally recognized marriage ceremony is performed or civil marriage contract is entered into or the marriage registered in a civil registry (see details on Google).

33. In our opinion a `relationship in the nature of marriage’ is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not being formally married :-

(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.

(b) They must be of legal age to marry.

(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.

(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.

(see `Common Law Marriage’ in Wikipedia on Google) In our opinion a `relationship in the nature of marriage’ under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the above requirements, and in addition the parties must have lived together in a `shared household’ as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a `domestic relationship’.

34. In our opinion not all live in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. If a man has a `keep’ whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage’

35. No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who have had a live in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act, but then it is not for this Court to legislate or amend the law. Parliament has used the expression `relationship in the nature of marriage’ and not `live in relationship’. The Court in the grab of interpretation cannot change the language of the statute.

36. In feudal society sexual relationship between man and woman outside marriage was totally taboo and regarded with disgust and horror, as depicted in Leo Tolstoy’s novel `Anna Karenina’, Gustave Flaubert’s novel `Madame Bovary’ and the novels of the great Bengali writer Sharat Chandra Chattopadhyaya.

37. However, Indian society is changing, and this change has been reflected and recognized by Parliament by enacting The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

38. Coming back to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the High Court and the learned Family Court Judge erred in law in holding that the appellant was not married to Lakshmi without even issuing notice to Lakshmi. Hence this finding has to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Family Court which may issue notice to Lakshmi and after hearing her give a fresh finding in accordance with law. The question whether the appellant was married to the respondent or not can, of course, be decided only after the aforesaid finding.

39. There is also no finding in the judgment of the learned Family Court Judge on the question whether the appellant and respondent had lived together for a reasonably long period of time in a relationship which was in the nature of marriage. In our opinion such findings were essential to decide this case. Hence we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and Family Court Judge, Coimbatore and remand the matter to the Family Court Judge to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Appeals allowed.

(MARKANDEY KATJU)  ………………………………J.

(T. S. THAKUR) NEW DELHI; ……………………………….J.

21st OCTOBER, 2010

Wife can’t return frm abroad & file DV 1yr aftr separation! Such wife not n dom rel.ship: Bom HC

excerpts from the Hon. HC Judgement : “…. A wife who has returned from the USA and consequently from the domestic relationship and lived in India for one year cannot file an application with regard to that relationship after such time. Such wife cannot be taken to be in any domestic relationship….”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
**********************************************************
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 160 OF 2011

Sejal Dharmesh Ved .. Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

Mr. Amit S. Dhutia i/b Niranjan Mundargi for the Applicant.
Mrs. A. A. Mane, APP for Respondent No.1­State.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

**********************************************************

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.

DATE : 7th MARCH, 2013.

P.C.

1. The applicant­wife has challenged the order of the Court of Sessions at Greater Bombay dated 27.10.2010 holding that her application under the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V Act) is not maintainable because she was not in any domestic relationship.

2. The applicant married on 04.05.1999. She lived with her husband in the US. There are two issues from the marriage. She returned to India on 11.02.2009.

3. She filed her application under the D.V Act on 18.01.2010.

4. The learned Judge has considered that under these circumstances, she having come to India in February, 2009 and having filed this application in January, 2010, there was no domestic relationship between the parties. The learned Judge has considered the definition of domestic relationship. Of course, that relationship is defined to be one of which the party then lived and had earlier lived. That would be during the subsistence of the union between them. The application under the D. V. Act could be filed, when the marriage union subsisted. That having came to an an end and long after the physical relationship came to be an end, she having returned to India, she cannot be taken to be living in any domestic relationship in India.

5. A wife who lived in a domestic relationship earlier, but which ceases only because of any domestic violence can certainly file an application for such domestic violence that took place whilst she lived in that relationship. Such application is required to be filed within a reasonable time to show that relationship would give her the cause of action to sue under the D.V. Act for the reliefs under the Act.

6. A wife who has returned from the USA and consequently from the domestic relationship and lived in India for one year cannot file an application with regard to that relationship after such time. Such wife cannot be taken to be in any domestic relationship. The order of the learned Judge is, therefore, correct. The writ petition is completely devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed.

(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF – Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

HIGH ALERT for Indian men ! SC to examine IF father-in-law’s self-acquired property is ‘shared household’

All long men were breathing a little bit easy when it came to ancestral self acquired property, because that could NOT be claimed as shared household !!

Now all those Indian men are placed on HIGH ALERT as SC is to examine IF father-in-law’s self-acquired property is ‘shared household’

************************************************
Bahu wants claim on in-laws’ house

Abhinav Garg,TNN | Sep 20, 2014, 05.22 AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine the extent of a daughter-in-law’s right of residence in the father-in-law’s property.

A bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and C Naggappan posted an appeal filed by a woman challenging a decision of the Delhi high court that a daughter-in-law has no right of residence in the father-in-law’s self-acquired property as it can’t be termed a “shared household”.

It also stayed the execution of the trial court and HC’s orders asking the woman to hand over the property.

With thousands of cases filed under anti-dowry laws and Domestic Violence Prevention Act on this specific issue pending across the country, the fate of the case will be keenly awaited. In its decision, SC is likely to interpret the meaning of a shared household under the domestic violence Act.

The high court had relied on SC rulings to conclude that a wife has a right of residence only in that property which is owned or tenanted by the husband or in a joint family property where the husband has a share.

Appearing for the woman, senior advocate Anand Grover urged SC to re-examine the issue as there is “inconsistency” in judgments of the apex court itself leading to wrong interpretation of provisions of DV Act by the high court.

However, advocate Prabhjit Jauhar defended the HC ruling and pointed out that the estranged wife, a practising advocate, had filed cases of dowry harassment outside Delhi and even registered an FIR accusing her in-laws of molestation under IPC 354.

Taking a dim view of the woman’s action, the court said it would be better if she lives apart and lets the in-laws live in peace. Her counsel then assured the court that in future no untoward incident will occur and prayed that SC should settle the issue once and for all so that courts across the country can follow its ruling.

Stay updated on the go with The Times of India’s mobile apps. Click here to download it for your device.

SOURCE : Times Of India

************************************************

India’s anti-dowry law misused in UAE : Gulf News report on Rampant 498a abuse

India’s anti-dowry law misused in UAE

Some husbands paying dearly as wives abuse regulation meant to stop harassment

  • By Anjana Kumar, Staff Reporter
  • Published: 15:30 September 17, 2014

  • Image Credit: Photo for illustrative purpose
  • Misuse: Many wives use law to settle scores with their spouses

Abu Dhabi: India’s anti-dowry law meant to protect women from harassment by their husbands and in-laws is rampantly misused against Indian men in the UAE.

A Dubai-based lawyer said more Indian men are falling victim to the law, with wives using it to settle scores with their spouses.

“It all comes down to money. Women today feel more liberated and are aware of their rights,” said Devanand Mahadeva, a Dubai-based lawyer specialising in family and inheritance law. “Some even go as far as misusing the law to harass their husbands and extort money from them.”

In India, dowry or a financial gift to a prospective groom and his family was outlawed in 1961. In 1983, sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were enacted to make it easier for an Indian wife to seek redressal for harassment by the husband’s family.

In 2012, 106,527 Indian husbands and their families were charged under 498A, up 7.5 per cent over 2011.

Dubai officials said at least 15 divorce cases involving Indian expats are processed in UAE courts daily. “Section 498A under IPC is a non-bailable offence, non-compoundable and cognisable offence,” said Mahadeva.

“A person charged under a non-bailable offence can get bail only at the discretion of the judge. A non-compoundable offence means the complainant cannot withdraw the case until it is dismissed or disposed of.

“A cognisable offence means when a case is registered, a due investigation must be conducted before arresting the accused.

“But authorities often arrest people before investigations.”

He added that a person charged with 498A has to prove his innocence. “Those convicted face a jail term of three to seven years and have to pay a penalty to the wife and her family.”

Arrest before probe

Mahadeva said that while authorities in India are supposed to register a case, investigate it and only then make an arrest, it does not always happen this way. “In most cases, people don’t follow due process and the arrest happens before the investigation. The way it works is the wife registers the case, and a summons is issued to the husband and his family. Their failure to appear in court results in arrest.

“NRIs are arrested at Indian airports as soon as they land,” he said.

Dubai resident Rakesh Sinha is the latest victim of the misuse of 498A. Sooraj Mehra, Rakesh’s brother-in-law, told XPRESS: “It has destroyed our lives. Financially and mentally we have been drained out.”

In November 2009, Dubai-based banker Rakesh married Sneha, also an MBA graduate. “But the marriage didn’t work out and they started to have fights. In March 2011, Sneha packed her bags and flew back to India,” recalled Sooraj.

But worse was to come. A month later Rakesh received a summons from an Indian court in Rajasthan charging him and his family under Section 498A of the IPC. “We hired lawyers to look into the matter and when we knew we were not getting anywhere, Rakesh decided to go to India to put an end to the ordeal.

“But he was detained at the airport and later arrested. His passport was impounded. Although we got him out on bail, he was stuck in India for three months.”

In July, Rakesh paid Rs3.5 million (around Dh213,000) to his wife in an out-of-court settlement as this was the only way he could get his passport and return to Dubai.

“The court would set a date for hearing and Sneha and her family would never show up. They knew they could not prove Rakesh guilty and hence kept avoiding court hearings. Eventually, we had to pay off the girl, so Rakesh could move on with his life,” said Sooraj.

“We spent Rs1.5 million (around Dh91,460) towards lawyers fees, besides other expenses for staying in hotels and travelling back and forth from the UAE. We had to beg and borrow from family and friends to pay for the court settlement. We feared Rakesh would lose his job. Luckily that didn’t happen and his company retained his services. The case was finally settled in July.”

Alauddin, an Indian messenger boy working in Dubai, is another victim. Hailing from Andhra Pradesh, he married his childhood sweetheart in May 2008, against the wishes of her parents. But the marriage soon fell apart. “Her family filed a case against me under section 498A. I was summoned by a court in India. But my company refused to grant leave. So I quit my job and went to India to fight the case.

“For three months my wife’s family failed to show up in the court as they had little evidence against me. Finally, the court dismissed my case. Although I did not pay her money, I lost my job. I have now found another job in Dubai, but nobody can take away those months of mental torture.”

Citing another case, Mahadeva said a husband charged under Section 498A did his own investigation. “What they found was shocking. The woman was twice divorced and had remarried to extort money from the husband. Their case was also quashed in the Indian court,” he said.

source

http:// gulfnews.com/ news/gulf/ uae/courts/india-s-anti-dowry-law-misused-in-uae-1.1386238