Daily Archives: October 10, 2014

IF 2014 Nobel is for childrights activist, the 2034 Noble will be for FATHER’s rights activists !

I’m overjoyed by the Nobel peace prizes announced today, Oct 10, 2014

For those of you who didn’t know, two people Ms. Malala Yousufzai and Mr. Kailash Sathyarthi have won the Nobel Peace price

The prizes have gone to them as they are Child rights activists, One from Pakistan and One from India

That makes me think, that the future is bright.

IF 2014 Nobel prizes for child rights activist, 2034 Nobel prize will be for Father’s rights activists !!

Lets wait with Patience !!!

***********

Fewer men are working, and marriage is dying.

Dalrock

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has the following handy chart showing the long decline in men’s employment in the US (shaded areas represent recessions):

During this same time period the strength of marriage as an institution has declined as well.  Out of wedlock births are up (source):

The percentage of the population which is married is going down:

Median age of first marriage is going up (Source):

The closest to good news for marriage is that divorce rates stopped increasing after reaching 22 per 1,000 couples (per year) in 1980.  However, remarriage rates are in a steep decline:

45plusremarriagerates1960to2010_cor

Conventional Wisdom

Conventional wisdom is that the decline in men’s labor force participation and the weakening of marriage as an institution are linked, but only in one direction.  The standard narrative is that as men have (for whatever reason) worked less, marriage has been weakened because men are no longer…

View original post 691 more words

35 Thou / month intrm main as bakra is working in foren bank !! Child with HUBBY !! 498a wife can enhance with salary proof !!

Notes
******************
* 7 year old male child WITH THE HUSBAND !!

* Husband is providing everything including child’s education
* Husband’s income is 1.1. Lakhs
* wife has filed 498a !!
* wife HAS GIVEN and undertaking to supreme court that she will withdraw 498a, husband’s side says NOT YET withdrawn
* wife wants MORE MONEY !!!!
* The hon Court considers the facts and grants her Rs 35 000 per month as pendente lite
* The wife will also be entitled to apply for enhancement of the quantum upon obtaining sufficient material to support husband’s higher income !!!

*****************************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 and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . 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
******************************************************************

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
September 3, 2014.
SG CO 2673 of 2014
**************************************************************
Smt Gunjan Ray
versus-
Sri Arindam Ray
**************************************************************
Mr Devajyoti Barman … for the petitioner.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
**************************************************************

The wife complains of the trial court having awarded alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month despite the wife’s claim that the husband earned in excess of Rs.1.5 lakh per month.

The husband is represented upon notice and it is submitted that the seven-year-old male child is with the husband and the husband has to provide for the child’s education. It is also submitted on behalf of the husband that the income of the husband is around Rs.1.10 lakh per month. The husband also says that despite an order of January 9, 2013 passed on a previous petition of the wife that the wife should withdraw the criminal proceedings instituted under Section 498A of the Penal Code in view of the undertaking given to the Supreme Court, the criminal proceedings have still not been withdrawn. The wife is present in court and asserts that the criminal proceedings have been withdrawn. Such statement is recorded. The wife also alleges that the minor child has been taken away by the father and proceedings for custody of the child are pending.

Even if the husband’s income is accepted to be Rs.1.10 lakh, the trial court has erred in awarding a paltry sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as alimony pendente lite, particularly since the status of the parties ought to have been taken into consideration while passing the order. The husband is a high-ranking official in a foreign bank. It is common knowledge that a high-ranking official in a foreign bank would earn well in excess of Rs.1.10 lakh per month and would obtain perquisites of considerable worth.

Since the prayer of the wife before the trial court was for alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per month, the order impugned is modified by requiring the husband to pay alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per month from the date as indicated in the order of the trial court. All arrears on account of alimony pendente lite should be paid by December 31, 2014.

The wife will also be entitled to apply for enhancement of the quantum upon obtaining sufficient material to support the same and by relying on the fact that the present enhancement or modification has been made by taking the husband’s income to be Rs.1.10 lakh per month.

CO 2673 of 2014 is disposed of without any order as to costs.

Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Sanjib Banerjee, J.)

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

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

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://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

25 lakhs for quashing 498a case !! 27 year old ablaa free 2 marry again !! Does money grow on trees ?

Notes
*****************

* every other failed marriage, every other divorce petition is now becomming a dowry case

* see how in this case the order says marriage broken dowry but wife has filed a 498a

* husband and co are brow beaten to pay

* and that too 25 Lakhs just to the wife

* add the pain, suffering, misery, legal fee, travels, bail costs etc etc

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA

CRL.P.No.1236/2014

BETWEEN

1. SMT .KRISHNA KUMARI YARLAGADDA,
W/O RAM MANOHAR LOHIA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

2. GAUTHAM PALLADUGU,
S/O RAM MANOHAR LOHIA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

PETITIONER Nos.1 AND 2 ARE
R/AT HOUSE NO.8-3-224/3/A/F-8
YOUSUF GUDA, MADHURA NAGAR
KHAIRATABAD,
HYDERABAD-500018.

3. YARLAGADA KUTUMBA RAO,
S/O GOVARDHAN,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

4. SMT. RAJINI,
W/O YARLAGADA KUTUMBA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

PETITIONERS 3 AND 4 ARE
R/AT PEDAVUTAPALLI,
UNGUTURU MANDAL,
KRISHNA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH-521286. … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI SHARATH GOWDA G.B, ADV.,)

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY RAMAMURTHYNAGAR
POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE-560001,
REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.

2. BHANUPRIYA TUMMALA,
W/O GAUTHAM PALLADUGU,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 668,
BHUVANESHWARI LAYOUT,
7TH CROSS,
RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD,
MUNEKOLALA,
BANGALORE-560037. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI L.M.PANDURANGASWAMY, ADV., FOR R2
SRI B.J.ESWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)

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

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE IN CR. No.328/2012 ON THE FILE OF 10TH A.C.M.M., BANGALORE AGAINST THE PETR. HEREIN.

THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.328/2012 registered by Ramamurthynagar Police Station, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 420 read with Section 34 IPC., as also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, coming within the jurisdiction of X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bangalore, have come up in this petition seeking to quash the FIR filed in the said Crime. in Crime No.328/2012 and the complainant – 2nd respondent herein are present before the Court. It is stated that subsequent to filing of complaint, dispute between the parties is amicably resolved and a joint petition is filed by 2nd petitioner herein – husband and 2nd respondent herein – wife in O.P. No.507/2013, which is filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, seeking for decree of divorce and while doing so, it was assured by 2nd respondent herein that she would withdraw all the allegations in the complaint filed by her before Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station in Crime No.328/2012, even before petition pending for decree for divorce is finalized.

3. In that behalf, an affidavit is filed by 2nd respondent herein dated 18.03.2014 and sworn to before a Notary at Bangalore, wherein she has unconditionally withdrawn all the allegations made against accused Nos.1 to 4 in the aforesaid Crime No.38/2012 registered by 1st respondent herein. She has also stated that the marriage between herself and 2nd petitioner herein, Sri Gautham Palladugu, is irretrievably broken and as such, joint petition is filed by them for decree of divorce by mutual consent and in the said proceeding, 2nd petitioner has agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.25,00,000/- i.e., `.8,00,000/- towards her permanent alimony and `.17,00,000/- towards maintenance of minor child, Chi. Sathvik, who is born in the wedlock between herself and 2nd petitioner herein. It is further stated that 2nd petitioner has paid her `.5,00,000/- towards portion of permanent alimony payable to her at the time of filing of O.P. No.507/2013 and the balance amount of `.3,00,000/- is agreed to be paid to her on the date of pronouncement of judgment in O.P. No.507/2013. It is further stated that so far as the maintenance amount of `.17,00,000/- payable to minor child is concerned, 2nd petitioner has agreed to pay `.8,50,000/- on the date of withdrawal of allegations made by 2nd respondent herein in Crime No.328/2012 and the remaining amount of `.8,50,000/- is agreed to be paid on the date of pronouncement of judgment in O.P. No.507/2013. The affidavit filed by 2nd respondent herein is taken on record. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

4. Though the said settlement is arrived at between the parties, in ordinary circumstances, the offences alleged by 2nd petitioner herein against petitioners herein, cannot be compounded since the said offences are non-compoundable in nature. However, the Apex Court in the matter of GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ((2012) 10 SCC 303), while discussing the fact situation in the said proceedings, has held that in the circumstances, where the dispute between the parties is not with reference to committing of heinous offences like rape, murder, dacoity etc., and if it involves offences relating to financial matters and matrimonial disputes, though the same are not compoundable, it is well within the discretion of the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the said proceedings taking into consideration the settlement arrived at between the parties to enable them to live peacefully. In the light of the ratio rendered by the Apex Court, the settlement arrived at between the parties is taken note of in the present case and this Court feel that this is a fit case for quashing of the proceedings in question.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. Taking into consideration the affidavit of the complainant – 2nd respondent herein, proceedings initiated by her in Crime No.328/2012 on 07.09.2012 against petitioners 1 to 4 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 420 read with Section 34 IPC., and also Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before 1st respondent – Ramamurthynagar Police Station, Bangalore, pending consideration before X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, are hereby quashed.

Sd/- JUDGE

sma

*****************************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 and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . 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
******************************************************************

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

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://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

doctr wife to hubby,,.. pay me 50 lakhs or else i’ll get case transferred 300 Km, 9 hours away !! result, she gets ccase transferred !!

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR TRANSFER) NO. 2128 of 2014

****************************************************************
DR.SWIM PARITOSH PARMAR….Applicant(s)
Versus
DR. PARITOSH D PARMAR….Opponent(s)
****************************************************************
Appearance:
MR MEHUL M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DIPAL R RAVAIYA, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
****************************************************************

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI

Date : 16/09/2014

ORAL ORDER

1.This Miscellaneous Civil Application is filed with the following prayer :-

"Be pleased to allow this application and further be pleased transfer Family Suit No.11/2014 filed before the Ld. Family Judge Court, Junagadh to the any competent civil court having jurisdiction at Gandhidham-Kutch.

2.On 07.08.2014 after hearing the learned Advocate for the applicant, the Court issued rule making it returnable on 03.09.2014.

3.On service of Rule, learned Advocate Mr. Dipal R. Ravaiya appears for the respondent. On the last date of hearing, i.e. 10.09.2014, the Court passed the following order :-

"Learned Advocate for the parties are to explore the possible of amicable settlement including that of divorce on husband paying permanent alimony to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- to the wife.

Learned advocate Mr. Mehul Mehta to take instructions in the matter. "

4.Learned Advocate Mr. Dipal R. Ravaiya states that he has ascertained from his client and his client is ready to pay Rs.12,00,000/= (Rupees Twelve Lacs Only).

5.Without going into the merits of the matter, on the sufficiency of the amount, this Court examines the matter only for the prayer sought for in this Miscellaneous Civil Application.

6.Learned Advocate invited the attention of the Court to Paragraph 2 which reads as under :-

"2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under.

2.1 That the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the present respondent and the marriage took place between them at Junagadh as per Hindu rites and customs in presence of all relatives and friends.

2.2. That before the marriage, the respondent and applicant were doing study together in medical education field at Ahmedabad and they got married to each other on DT : 20/05/2009.

2.3 That after the marriage, the applicant got pregnant and she delivered baby girl child on 24/11/2011, and stayed sometime in Junagadh and due to post delivery physical complications applicant alongwith newly born baby was compelled to return to her parental home at Gandhidham and undergone the medical treatment including surgery. Since then applicant alongwith baby are staying at her parental home at Gandhidham and it is submitted that respondent had not bother to take care of applicant as well as the baby child so far.

2.4 That the applicant respectfully submits that since the respondent failed to take care and neglected the applicant as well as the baby child during the period of her sickness even thereafter inspite of many efforts by the applicant, as such the applicant is compelled to take employment in Tolani Eye Hospital and Research Center, Adipur w.e.f. 27/07/2012 situated within the vicinity of the residence so as to take care of the day to day need of the baby child as well as the applicant old age parents.

2.5 That the applicant respectfully submits that to the utter surprise of the present applicant, respondent husband had filed Family Suit No.11/2014 before the learned Family Court at Junagadh u/s. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for obtaining divorce from applicant. Annexed herewith and marked collectively as Annexure – A are the copies of the notice of trial court and the Memo Family Suit No.11/2014.

2.6 That as the applicant is presently working as an Eye Surgeon with the above said Trust Hospital at Adipur. It is submitted that the hospital is managed by single Doctor the applicant and the duty of the applicant is from 9 to 7 with a break of around 2 hours and all the indoor, outdoor and emergency patients are required to the attended and treated by the applicant round the clock. It is submitted that the applicant is able to manage her daily schedule as the distance between the residence and the hospital is around 1 km.

2.7 That the applicant respectfully submits that applicant’s daughter is of tenderage of around 2 & ½ years and applicant is required to look after her and take care of all her needs and simultaneously the applicant has to discharge her duty as stated above. The applicant further submits that her father and mother are old age and his father is living retired life and therefore it is very difficult for applicant to leave her parental home for even one day to attend the legal proceedings filed by the Respondent at Junagadh, which is situated at around 400 k.m. faraway from Gandhidham.

2.8 That the applicant respectfully submits that the Junagadh is not connected with the rail head directly. It is submitted that even no connected trains are easily available to reach to Junagadh and one has to wait for long time to get connected train to reach to Junagadh from Gandhidham. It is submitted that the only road transportation is available which takes around 7 to 10 hours to reach to Junagadh from Gandhidham. It is further submitted that the applicant alongwith her baby child of 2 & ½ years has to travel in day time to reach to Junagadh for attaining the divorce legal proceeding instituted by the respondent. The applicant required minimum 3 days time to attend one legal proceeding at Junagadh, which will create tremendous strain, difficulty and health hazards to the applicant as well as to the baby child and it will not be possible for the applicant to take leave for 3 days for each attendance at the family court.
Besides, travelling by public transport will expose the baby child in regard to her health. Secondly the applicant has to travel all alone with her baby child as her parents due to their old age are unable to travel along with the applicant.

2.9 That the applicant submits that during the hearing of the application, conciliation or by parted negotiations shall take place between the parties and the applicant has apparition that she may lose the opportunity of settlement without the presence, guidance and support of her parents.

2.10 That the applicant respectfully submit that if the legal proceedings for divorce filed by respondent husband is transferred to Gandhidham-Kutch Court then, respondent will not face any kind of hardship or inconvenience viz-a-viz the applicant, as he is not having any kind of onerous responsibility and in addition to that, respondent being male, it should not be difficult for him to attend the legal proceedings at Gandhidham-Kutch, which is actually initiated by him.

2.11 That the applicant respectfully submits that applicant is residing with her old aged parents at Gandhidham- Kutch, and her old aged parents are ailing with various kinds of diseases and therefore they are dependent on the applicant for daily routine activity as well as medication. Therefore also, considering this aspect, applicant’s presence is required at Gandhidham-Kutch all the time."

7.Heard learned Advocates for the parties.

8.This Miscellaneous Civil Application is allowed and prayer sought for is granted.

9.Family Suit No.11/2014 filed before the learned Family Judge, Junagadh is ordered to be transferred to the Civil Court having jurisdiction at Gandhidham – Kutch. Rule made absolute.

Sd/-

(RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.)

CAROLINE

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

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://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