Daily Archives: June 3, 2007

Manoj Prabhakar’s wife arrested for assaulting neighbour

Manoj Prabhakar’s wife arrested for

assaulting neighbour

New Delhi, June 2: Sandhya Prabhakar, wife of former test cricketer Manoj Prabhakar, has been arrested by the police following a ‘violent spat’ with her neighbour in Kalkaji area of South Delhi.

Fight between Sandhya and her neighbour Colonel S S Chibber began late last evening at her Nehru Enclave apartment in Kalkaji, when she tried to ‘replug’ the wire in the retired Army officer’s meter, said a senior police official.

Chibber, who accused Sandhya of tampering his meter by ‘plugging’ her wire into his connection, and his wife were attacked by the cricketer’s wife and her friend Madhuri (26, resident of Jangpura) late last night after she once again tried to ‘steal’ power.

After being reprimanded for her ‘act’, she assaulted the colonel and his wife with a sharp object, probably a blade.

”Both Sandhya and Madhuri were arrested after the Colonel complained of being attacked by the two which resulted in cut injuries,” the official added.

They were produced in a court today which granted them bail.

Cricketer Manoj Prabhakar and his wife Sandhya are living separately. Divorce proceedings are on between the two.



=========== end of news ==========

comments : It is important to note that the same woman had filed DOWRY COMPLAINT against Manoj Prabhakar after more than a DECADE of marriage !!!!

Now the woman is arrested in a criminal case

why should the law provide special protection for such people ?

Just because she is born a woman ?

regards, vinayak

Comments Subject to
1. My idea of *self help* which is very essential : http://tinyurl.com/pxcfz
2. Standard disclaimers as in http://tinyurl.com/947u9
3. A short preamble : http://tinyurl.com/hatew

SC finds fault with Domestic Violence Act

Hindustan Times

SC finds fault with Domestic Violence Act

New Delhi, December 19, 2006
First Published: 00:00 IST(23/2/2007)

In its first ever judgment under the recently notified Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Supreme Court has ruled that a wife’s claim for alternative accommodation lie only against her husband and not against in-laws and that her right to ‘shared household’ would not extend to the self-acquired property of her in-laws.

“In our opinion, the claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband…,” a Bench of Justice SB Sinha and Justice Markandey Katju said dismissing the claim of a Delhi woman who had claimed her right for alternative accommodation under Section 19(1)(f) of the Act.

The Bench also interpreted the concept of ‘shared household’ under Section 17(1) of the Act. It clarified “the wife is only entitled to claim a right of residence in a shared household, and a ‘shared household’ would mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member.”

The court also commented on poor drafting of Section 2(s) of the Act, which defines ‘shared household’. Terming the definition of ‘shared household’ in Section 2(s) of the Act as “not very happily worded”, the Bench said it “appears to be the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and does not lead to chaos in society,” it observed.

The court allowed an appeal filed by the father-in-law and mother-in-law of a woman, living in the property owned by the mother-in-law, who had claimed right to residence in a shared household and also that of an alternative accommodation under the new law notified on October 26, 2006.

Under Section 17(1) of the Act, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.

Further, Section 19(1)(f) of the Act provides that a woman can seek a direction to her husband to secure same level of alternate accommodation for herself as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require.

The apex court’s ruling makes it amply clear that shared household would mean only the house belonging to the husband or taken on rent by him or the house belonging to the joint family of which he is a member. It further clarified that the wife’s claim for alternative accommodation can be made only against the husband.

Sandhya Batra was married to one Anand Batra (both names changed) on April 14, 2000 and the couple was residing at a house owned by the husband’s mother at Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi.

After Anand filed a divorce petition, Sandhya lodged dowry demand cases against her husband and in-laws including married sister-in-law and they had to visit Tihar Jail.

Initially she shifted to her parents’ residence due to the dispute but when she returned to her in-laws’ place, the house was locked. She filed a suit for getting entry to the house.

However, it was alleged that even before the suit could be decided, she, along with her parents, forcibly broke open the locks of the house at Ashok Vihar belonging to her mother-in-law. It was further alleged by her in-laws that they had to stay in their office as she terrorised them and that they finally shifted to Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad.

The trial judge granted her temporary injunction on March four 2003 and restrained her in-laws from interfering with her possession. However, the order was reversed on September 17, 2004 by the Senior Civil Judge, who held that she had no right to the properties other than those of her husband.

The Delhi High Court restored the order of the trial judge holding that “mere change of the residence by the husband would not shift the matrimonial hone from Ashok Vihar, particularly when the husband had filed a divorce petition against the wife.”

Her in-laws challenged the HC order before the SC where her counsel contended that in view of the coming into effect of the Act, she could not be dispossessed from the property in question.

Her counsel further contended that the definition of ‘shared household’ “includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship”.

But the apex court rejected the argument, saying if it was accepted then “it will mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past that property becomes a hared household.

“It is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with the husband’s father, husband’s paternal grand parents, his maternal parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces etc.

“If the interpretation canvassed by the respondent is accepted, all these houses of the husband’s relatives will be shared households and the wife can well insist on living in all these houses of her husband’s relatives merely because she had stayed with her husband for some time in those houses in the past. Such a view would lead to chaos and would be absurd,” it said.

Allowing her in-laws’ appeal, the apex court said “the property in question in the present case neither belongs to Amit Batra nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the husband…is a member. It is the exclusive property of the appellant No 2, mother of Anand Batra. Hence it cannot be called a ‘shared household’.”

Email: Satya Prakash: satya.prakash@hindustantimes.com


We choose when we work … but you shall protect us always !!!

We choose when we work….  but you shall protect us round the clock !!

Women want protection anywhere and everywhere. Interestingly they want equal rights as well

Some few women, may 3 … 4 out of millions of women in Bangalore were attacked at night when returning from work……

Immediately a huge hue and cry was raised -> thanks to the networking women do

Exasperated, the state said, they can protect women only to some extent…. and if they women want further safety, let us regulate when women would work for e.g. let NOT women do night shifts etc in every small shop and petty establishment. The state tried to ban night shifts for women, that too outside the IT industry !!

Lo and Behold !! All the feminists of the world woke up and claimed !!  We choose when we work

Now the state has withdrawn the night shift ban !!. Withdrawal of night shift ban welcomed

So what next ???

armies of men to protect them thru the night ??

Well….well….well….. what to say ?

regards, vinayak

My post above is Subject to
1. My idea of *self help* which is very essential : http://tinyurl.com/pxcfz
2. Standard disclaimers as in http://tinyurl.com/947u9
3. A short preamble : http://tinyurl.com/hatew

Convicted Husband serves even in a Jail !! …Bangalore’s jailhouse doc … was this another FALSE case ??

Bangalore’s jailhouse doc
31 May, 2007 l 0256 hrs ISTlPushpa Narayan/TIMES NEWS NETWORK

BANGALORE: When Dr M Basavaraj finishes surgery, he walks back to his cell in the central prison, Parapana Agrahara. The 100-bed prison hospital had been without a surgeon for many years. Their search ended when the doctor came in to serve his seven-year sentence for dowry harassment.

Now, clad in the inmate’s white-kurta-pyjama, Basavaraj looks like any other prisoner. But, every morning or whenever there’s a medical emergency, his cell doors are thrown open and he rushes to the hospital. In the past two years, he’s performed 200 surgeries. He is also the “unappointed” prison surgeon and doubles as the ‘night doctor on call’ as four physicians employed in the hospital leave at dusk. In 2005, 13 years after his wife committed suicide, the doctor, who’s worked at several government hospitals in Karnataka, as well as in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in Delhi and Nanavati Hospital in Mumbai, was jailed in this prison, near Bangalore.

“After 6 pm, the doors of my barracks open whenever there is a medical emergency. I do my best to help people around with the little facilities here,” says the surgeon who has expertise in minimal access (keyhole) surgery. He has kept the minor operation theatre busy with removal of tumours, sutures and some infectious swellings as well. “Many times I have asked the authorities to rush them to another hospital as there aren’t enough facilities here to handle emergencies such as heart or brain attacks,” he said. “With little more equipment and back-up systems, a good theatre can handle more minor surgeries like appendicitis and hernia. The jail authorities have promised them,” says Basavaraj.

DIG (Prison) B S Abbai is not sure if permission would come for better facilities but he knows when Basavaraj completes his term he would have offers from leading hospitals. “I help him get the latest updates in surgery through medical journals and books. The rules don’t permit us to let him browse the internet. He learns about the books from his friends and places orders,” he said.

Jail psychiatrist Dr P Rajani says: “Two years ago, Dr Basavaraj was shattered. He thought his career was ruined and his future was bleak. Today, he seems more confident.” Basavaraj agrees. “When I walk out I’ll get back to the hospitals that I worked for. But, even then I would continue my service to this place. For me, this place is something special.”


News from Chennai Online. ..Anticipatory bail for Prashanth..

News from Chennai Online

Anticipatory bail for Prashanth

Chennai,May 30:

A Sessions Court today granted interim anticipatory bail to Tamil actor T Prashanth and three members of his family who apprehended arrest in connection with a complaint lodged by his wife Grihalakshmi with the city police alleging dowry harassment.

Granting the anticipatory bail for three months to the actor, his father, mother and sister, the Principal Sessions Judge V Periyakaruppiah directed them to furnish personal bonds for rs 5,000 each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the sixth metropolitan magistrate.

Prashanth and his wife were present in court at the request of their respective advocates and the city public prosecutor.The case was heard in the judge’s chamber and the possibilities of a rapprochement between the couple were explored.

Both of them agreed for settling the dispute through mediation and the judge posted the matter before the mediation centre of the family court on June 18.

The judge observed that they had genuinely expressed their intention to resolve their differences and come together that day.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that the dispute between them was likely to be settled before the mediation centre, the judge said he was inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

Originally, Prashanth had filed a petition before the family court seeking restoration of conjugal rights, though, initially, his wife had filed a petition seeking rs one lakh as maintenance per month. She had subsequently filed another petition expressing her intention to join with her husband along with her one-year-old child.

While two conciliation proceedings were held in the family court and the matter posted to June 18 for mediation, she had lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police on May 7, alleging dowry harassment, following which Prashanth and members of his family applied for anticipatory bail. (Our Correspondent)
Published: Wednesday, May 30, 2007