மனவிகளின் புளுகு நார்வேயில் செல்லுபடியாகாது !!!!

 

==================================================

சில மாசங்களுக்கு முன், பனியும் அருமையான வெளிப்புற அழகும் மிகுந்த நார்வே நாட்டில், இரண்டு இந்தியக் குழந்தைகளை தாயாரிடம் இருந்து அந்த நாட்டு அதிகாரிகள் எடுத்துச் சென்று விட்டனர் …இது சர்வதேச அளவில் பெரும் பிரெச்சனையை கிளப்பி விட்டது… இந்திய அரசும் இதில் தலையிட்டு நார்வே அரசுக்கு கடிதம் எழுதியது

இந்த கதையில் இன்று ஒரு திருப்பம் ஏற்பட்டது .

குழந்தைகளின் தாயாருக்கு மூளைக்கோளாறு என்று அவளது கணவர் (குழந்தைகளின் தகப்பனார்) கூறி இருக்கிறார் !!!!

அதனால் தான் குழந்தைகளை நார்வே நாட்டு அதிகாரிகள் எடுத்து சென்றனரோ என்ற ஐயம் எழுந்துள்ளாது ….

=================================================

 

Norway kids row: Father takes U-turn, says mother has serious psychological problems

AFP | Mar 20, 2012, 05.08PM IST

 

A banner outside the Norwegian embassy in New Delhi on February 27, 2012 demanding the release of the two kids from foster care to their Indian parents.

 

NEW DELHI: The Indian father of two children who were taken into care by Norwegian social services, sparking a diplomatic row with New Delhi, told a newspaper Tuesday his wife had a “psychological problem”.

Anurup Bhattacharya and his wife Sagarika, who live in Norway, previously insisted that their children were taken in May last year because of a cultural bias against Indians and they enlisted the foreign ministry in their battle.

Norwegian officials said that confidentiality prevented them from discussing the case, but they denied reports in the Indian media that the children, aged three and one, had been removed for reasons such as eating with their hands.

“It was not just cultural bias that prompted the CWS (child welfare services) to act. My wife has a serious psychological problem,” Anurup, who is now seeking custody of the children, told Tuesday’s The Hindu newspaper.

Anurup said he was speaking out after a row with his wife in which she allegedly attacked him, and that he had “concealed the seriousness” of problems within his family. His wife’s version of events was not given.

The revelation casts a new light on a case that drew widespread media attention in India, much of it highly critical of the Norwegian authorities, and calls into question the involvement of the Indian foreign ministry.

Foreign minister SM Krishna had demanded that Norway “find an amicable and urgent solution” in returning the children to the family.

Norwegian social workers have since agreed to place the children with an uncle in India.

A court in the town of Stavanger, where Anurup worked for oil firm Total, must still take the final decision in the case. A provisional date for the hearing has been set for March 23.

Source :
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Norway-kids-row-Father-takes-U-turn-says-mother-has-serious-psychological-problems/articleshow/12342552.cms

Husband and wife are both doctors, still husband has to pay !!!

Husband and wife are both doctors, still husband has to pay arrears on maintenance etc !!!

IF Husband has to pay WHY NOT give him custody of his kid at least ????

=========================================================

 

Madras High Court

 

Dr.Prabhu Srinivasan vs Ramaprabha on 29 August, 2011

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 29/08/2011

CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1115 of 2008

and

M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008

Dr.Prabhu Srinivasan  ..Petitioner

Vs

Ramaprabha ..Respondent

 

PRAYER

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 14.03.2008 in I.A.No.8 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

!For Petitioner … Mr.K.Balasundaram

^For Respondent … Mr.D.Rajagopal

:ORDER

The revision petitioner has filed the above revision to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 14.03.2008 in I.A.No.8 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The revision petitioner/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 against his wife for divorce for dissolving the marriage which was solemnized on 06.02.2003 between the petitioner and respondent on the ground of cruelty. The said case has been filed before the Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam. The respondent/wife had filed counter statement and resisted the divorce petition. while so, the respondent/wife has filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.8 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 on 05.06.2007 for interim maintenance of a sum of Rs.70,000/- per month to her child and herself. Besides the respondent/wife has also prayed for payment of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for contesting the case and a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for dress, medical expenses and for festival expenses.

3.The revision petitioner/husband has filed counter statement and opposed the interim maintenance case on various grounds. The learned Judge, after hearing the arguments of the counsels on both the sides and on perusing the averments of both the parties, allowed the interlocutory application in part, stating that the revision petitioner/husband has pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife, and another Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to his son. The learned Judge had also ordered for payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- by the husband as litigation charges to his wife.

4.Aggrieved by the said decree and decretal order, the above revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent is also a qualified doctor and she is economically well of. As such, the interim maintenance order is not sustainable. The learned Judge, erroneously had ordered for payment of a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards maintenance to the respondent and the child. This amount is on the higher side since the revision petitioner does not have sufficient income from his profession to comply with the order. The revision petitioner is not even getting a sum of Rs.5000/- per month through his profession. The respondent is running a clinic and had employed assistant doctors, nurses, and technicians including driver. It clearly proved that the respondent gets sufficient income through her profession. Therefore, the respondent/wife is not entitled to receive any maintenance from the revision petitioner.

5.The learned counsel for the respondent/wife argued that the respondent has joined in a master degree course and as such she is a student, and not an earning doctor. Further, the child is with the respondent and she has to provide good education, dress and rich food to the child. Therefore, the revision petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to the respondent and the child. The learned Judge, after considering the contentions laid down on both sides had passed the interim maintenance, to the respondent. This order is a well considered one. As per order of the learned Judge, the revision petitioner is liable to pay about Rs.10,00,000/- i.e., from the date of filing the interim maintenance application till date, but the revision petitioner has wantonly and deliberately evading payment of maintenance, even though he gets sufficient income.

6.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the learned Judge, this court is of the considered opinion that the learned Judge had ordered for a sum of Rs.10,000/- to be paid as maintenance to the child, which is fair and justifiable.

7.Regarding the maintenance to the respondent/wife, the learned Judge has to conduct a detailed enquiry after recording evidence from the revision petitioner and the respondent as to whether the respondent gets sufficient income to maintain herself and also find out the revision petitioner’s gross income and decide the issue. Therefore, the maintenance granted to the wife, i.e., a sum of Rs.10,000/- per months from the date of maintenance application till date is set aside. Regarding the litigation charges, a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal, which is on the higher side. Hence, this court reduces the amount granted towards litigation charges to Rs.25,000/- as it is found to be fair and justifiable. This court further directs the revision petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance a sum of Rs.10,000/- to his son, as per learned Judge order, from 05.06.2007 till date; along with litigation charge of a sum of Rs.25,000/- out of this total amount, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order by way of demand draft drawn in favour of the respondent/wife. The balance of maintenance payable to the child shall be cleared within a period of seven months from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly ordered.

8.In the result, the above revision petition is allowed in part with the above observations. Consequently, the order and decretal order passed in I.A.No.8 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam is modified. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.

skn

To

The Additional Sub-Judge,

 

source

Indiakanoon.org

கும்பகோணத்தில் மாதம் 30000 ஜீவனாம்சம், 10 லெட்சம் பாக்கி (arrears) தொகை !!!

தமிழகத்தில் என்னா என்னா நடுக்குது நண்பர்களே !!!!

ஒரு Middle Sized Town கும்பகோணத்தில் , மருத்துவராய் (qualified doctor) இருக்கும் ஒரு மனைவி மாதம் ரூ 30,000 ஜீவனாம்சமும், 10 லெட்சம் பாக்கியும் (arrears) கேட்டு கேஸ் போடுகிறார் !!!

நாடு நிச்சயம் முன்னேறிடிச்சு !! இந்தியா ஏழை நாடே இல்லை !!!!

ஏன்யா மனைவி டாக்டராயிற்றே, அவங்க கிளினிக் நடுத்துவாங்களே, இன்னிக்கி மருந்தும் மாத்திரையும் மருத்துவம் விக்கிற விலையில மனைவியால வேலை செய்து தன்னை தானே காத்துக்கொள்ள முடியாதா என்றால், இல்லை இல்லை அவங்க மேல் படிப்புக்கு சேந்துட்டாங்கன்னு பதில் வருது !!!!

மற்ற விபரங்கள் கீழே !!!!

 

=========================================================

 

Madras High Court

 

Dr.Prabhu Srinivasan vs Ramaprabha on 29 August, 2011

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 29/08/2011

CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1115 of 2008

and

M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008

Dr.Prabhu Srinivasan  ..Petitioner

Vs

Ramaprabha ..Respondent

 

PRAYER

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 14.03.2008 in I.A.No.8 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

!For Petitioner … Mr.K.Balasundaram

^For Respondent … Mr.D.Rajagopal

:ORDER

The revision petitioner has filed the above revision to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 14.03.2008 in I.A.No.8 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The revision petitioner/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 against his wife for divorce for dissolving the marriage which was solemnized on 06.02.2003 between the petitioner and respondent on the ground of cruelty. The said case has been filed before the Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam. The respondent/wife had filed counter statement and resisted the divorce petition. while so, the respondent/wife has filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.8 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 on 05.06.2007 for interim maintenance of a sum of Rs.70,000/- per month to her child and herself. Besides the respondent/wife has also prayed for payment of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for contesting the case and a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for dress, medical expenses and for festival expenses.

3.The revision petitioner/husband has filed counter statement and opposed the interim maintenance case on various grounds. The learned Judge, after hearing the arguments of the counsels on both the sides and on perusing the averments of both the parties, allowed the interlocutory application in part, stating that the revision petitioner/husband has pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife, and another Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to his son. The learned Judge had also ordered for payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- by the husband as litigation charges to his wife.

4.Aggrieved by the said decree and decretal order, the above revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent is also a qualified doctor and she is economically well of. As such, the interim maintenance order is not sustainable. The learned Judge, erroneously had ordered for payment of a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards maintenance to the respondent and the child. This amount is on the higher side since the revision petitioner does not have sufficient income from his profession to comply with the order. The revision petitioner is not even getting a sum of Rs.5000/- per month through his profession. The respondent is running a clinic and had employed assistant doctors, nurses, and technicians including driver. It clearly proved that the respondent gets sufficient income through her profession. Therefore, the respondent/wife is not entitled to receive any maintenance from the revision petitioner.

5.The learned counsel for the respondent/wife argued that the respondent has joined in a master degree course and as such she is a student, and not an earning doctor. Further, the child is with the respondent and she has to provide good education, dress and rich food to the child. Therefore, the revision petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to the respondent and the child. The learned Judge, after considering the contentions laid down on both sides had passed the interim maintenance, to the respondent. This order is a well considered one. As per order of the learned Judge, the revision petitioner is liable to pay about Rs.10,00,000/- i.e., from the date of filing the interim maintenance application till date, but the revision petitioner has wantonly and deliberately evading payment of maintenance, even though he gets sufficient income.

6.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the learned Judge, this court is of the considered opinion that the learned Judge had ordered for a sum of Rs.10,000/- to be paid as maintenance to the child, which is fair and justifiable.

7.Regarding the maintenance to the respondent/wife, the learned Judge has to conduct a detailed enquiry after recording evidence from the revision petitioner and the respondent as to whether the respondent gets sufficient income to maintain herself and also find out the revision petitioner’s gross income and decide the issue. Therefore, the maintenance granted to the wife, i.e., a sum of Rs.10,000/- per months from the date of maintenance application till date is set aside. Regarding the litigation charges, a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal, which is on the higher side. Hence, this court reduces the amount granted towards litigation charges to Rs.25,000/- as it is found to be fair and justifiable. This court further directs the revision petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance a sum of Rs.10,000/- to his son, as per learned Judge order, from 05.06.2007 till date; along with litigation charge of a sum of Rs.25,000/- out of this total amount, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order by way of demand draft drawn in favour of the respondent/wife. The balance of maintenance payable to the child shall be cleared within a period of seven months from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly ordered.

8.In the result, the above revision petition is allowed in part with the above observations. Consequently, the order and decretal order passed in I.A.No.8 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam is modified. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.

skn

To

The Additional Sub-Judge,

 

source

Indiakanoon.org

 

 

குழந்தைகளை பிரிந்து வாடும் தந்தைகள் !!!

 

விவாகரத்து வழக்கில் சிக்கிக்கொண்ட பல தந்தைகள் தத்தம் குழந்தைகளை பார்க்கவே முடிவதில்லை. குழந்தைகள் வளர்ந்து வரும் நாட்களை அவர்களால் பகிர்ந்துகொள்ள முடிவதில்லை .

இன்னம் கொடுமை என்னவென்றால் 98% கஸ்டடி தாய்மார்களுக்கே கிடைக்கிறது. குழந்தை தந்தையை காணவேண்டும் என கோர்ட்டு மூலம் ஆர்டர் கிடைத்தாலும் ஏதாவது சால்ஜாப்பு சொல்லி மனைவிகள் குழந்தைகளை தந்தையிடம் காட்டுவதில்ல ….ஆகவே 98% தந்தைகள் வாரத்துக்கு ஒரு மணி நேரமோ, மாதத்துக்கு ஒரு மணி நேரமோ கூட குழந்தைகளை பார்க்க முடிவதில்ல. ……

தந்தை முகமே மறந்து போன அந்த குழந்தைகளின் நிலை என்ன ??? சமூகத்துக்கு அவர்கள் நல்ல குடிமகன்களாய் வருவார்களா ? தன் தந்தையை பற்றி தவறான எண்ணத்துடன் வளரும் சிருவன், சிறுமி நாளை என்ன செய்வான் ?

சமூகம் சிந்திக்க வேண்டிய விஷயம் …..

 

Plight of non-custodial parents

BAPU DEEDWANIA, Mumbai Mirror Mar 18, 2012, 12.12PM IST

 

• 

(Parent trapped)

Non-custodial parents are left craving for time with their own children, in the trail of a bitter divorce

Suresh, 42, travels every other Saturday from Boisar to Bandra, hoping to see his 10-year-old daughter. He is a noncustodial parent engaged in a matrimonial dispute and his child’s custody is with his wife. For the last two years, he has not seen his daughter.

Recent information procured by another parent Vipul under the Right to Information Act reveals that there are over 176 non-custodial parents (NCP) in the city who are allowed access to their children only in the Children Complex room situated on the third floor of the Bandra Family Court. The information was sought by the Tardeo parent, who is fighting a case of restitution of conjugal rights and wants his wife to return. He has a five-year-old son he has not seen in two years.

He says, “My wife works and stays in Vasai. I want to meet my son and don’t want him to be deprived of the love he deserves. I have no say in his matters. The NCP gets limited access – we can’t take our children for outings or to our place. An NCP can meet the child only in that room and only for two hours, every alternate Saturday. That’s 48 hours in a year.”

For Suresh, the ordeal has been twice as nightmarish. While he has been regularly marking his presence in the attendance register kept outside this Children’s room, another column stares at him with a string of absent marks. “Every alternate Saturday, I wait here for two hours, hoping that my wife will bring my daughter. I have a court order to see her, but my wife chooses to ignore it. I haven’t seen my daughter for two years. I feel helpless,” he says.

Statistics revealed by an RTI filed at the Thane Family Court are shocking. The RTI response (a copy is with Mumbai Mirror), shows that of the 83 child custody matters, only in two cases custody was awarded to the father; 50 per cent overnight vacation is given to only one parent. Many NCPs say that their children have not visited their father’s home in four-five years and many ailing grandparents are waiting to see their grandchildren. Hardly any action is taken against the noncomplying parent for depriving access despite court orders. The custodial parent always looks for excuses to be present at the time of the access. The custodial parent further poisons the child’s mind against the NCP.

The Supreme Court has observed that court exercises parens patriae jurisdiction – the problem has to be solved with a human touch where the paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor child. If the child is old enough to form an intelligent preference, it must be considered, though the final decision rests with court.

“By such access, you get to see your child for 48 hours in a year and this often goes on for years. Because of such limited opportunity, the child and the NCP hardly get to bond,” said a father of a four-year-old daughter, who was accused of cruelty under section 498-A of the IPC. The 38-year-old financial says he has the means to provide for his child. “I am surprised when she tells me, ‘Papa, I know you left mummy with no money.’ No court has held me guilty. Often children are brainwashed against the NCP. Why are there no guidelines for the custodial parent?” he asks.

Many NCPs miss being a part of their child’s growing days. Andheri’s Gautam says, “We cannot attend the parents-teachers meetings. If we go to school, just to see our child, we are accused of attempting to kidnap him/her. The concept of shared parenting is not encouraged. The custodial parent does not bring the child to meet the NCP, citing excuses. For each access, one has to file an application. Hardly any lawyers encourage a couple to reconcile.” Gautam was married for six years before his wife filed for divorce five years ago. She procured an injunction order restraining him from coming to her house to meet his son and the two are embroiled in a custody battle, of which not a single hearing has happened yet.

Solicitor Nityoah Suneel Mehta feels that when the parents forget that the child is the worst-affected party. She says, “Acrimony and rancour at home deprive the child of normal growth. The child usually develops anxiety, fear and insecurity. Normal growth and academic performance are affected. The parties need to resolve their differences as parents and not only as husband and wife. The counsellors, mediators and the courts try to resolve these differences in the interest of the child.” Mehta added that in many cases, because of the criminal complaint, the husband loses his job and that becomes ammunition to deny him access to the child.

 

Source

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-03-18/parenting/31207258_1_child-custody-matters-bandra-family-court-minor-child

 

Marriage of students in school triggers row

TNN Feb 25, 2012, 03.09AM IST

KORAPUT: The Rayagada district administration on Friday initiated an inquiry into the reported marriage between two minor tribals at a state-run residential school. The marriage was allegedly conducted by the school authorities at Kailashpur sevashram, which is about 25 km from Rayagada town, in Rayagad’s Kolnara block on February 14.

“I have received a complain regarding the marriage of two students. The project administrator of ITDA Rayagada has been sent to the sevashram to inquire into the matter and to submit an inquiry report within 24 hours,” said Rayagada collector Nitin Bhanudas Jawle. “If the allegations are found to be true, then stringiest legal action will be taken against the offenders,” he added.

Sources said a 16-year-old Class X student was in love with a 13-year-old girl studying in Class VIII in the same sevashram, which is run by the state government’s SC and ST development department.

The two had run away from the sevashram on February 9. They were traced by the school authorities two days later near Jamadeipentha, about 45 km from the sevashram. The school authorities kept the girl at the home of the hostel warden and informed their respective parents about the incident, sources added.

The girl’s parents refused to accept the girl after the incident, prompting the school authorities to draft a marriage contract for the two lovers. They then got it signed by around 40 students and some officials of the sevashram as witnesses on Valentine’s Day on February 14. “The two are in love and don’t want to live separately. Hence forth they will be identified as husband and wife and are free to live anywhere of their choice,” the agreement read.

According to sources, the two are at present staying at the boy’s home at Besiapada village in Bissamkatak block. Condemning the incident, social activist said that sevashrams had landed in controversy several times over alleged sexual harassment of girls by school authorities. This “shocking incident”, however, had come to fore for the first time in the district, they added.

source

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-02-25/bhubaneswar/31100102_1_sevashram-nitin-bhanudas-jawle-hostel-warden