Monthly Archives: December 2014

Woman + lover BEAT Husband 2 death, throw body on h/way. DOG finds culprits. No candlelights !!

The New Indian Express

  • Tuesday, December 30, 2014 06:27 PM

Woman Kills Husband for Lover

By Express News Service

Published: 29th December 2014 06:02 AM

Last Updated: 29th December 2014 06:02 AM


  • Sniffer dog Misty running towards the scene of crime after picking up scent;
    Sniffer dog Misty running towards the scene of crime after picking up scent;
  • (right) Srividhya, the accused, being taken away by police | exPress
    (right) Srividhya, the accused, being taken away by police | exPress

VILLUPURAM: A 28-year-old woman and her paramour allegedly beat her husband to death and abandoned the body on NH 45 to make it look like an accident. But police cracked the case with the help of a sniffer dog within 48 hours on Sunday.

According to police, the dead body of the victim was spotted by commuters travelling on the NH 45 on Saturday morning. On receiving information, Taluk police and forensic officials reached the spot and searched for clues.

Misty,a sniffer dog, was also pressed into service. The dog managed to reach the victim’s house in Vandimedu residential area stopped at a bathroom from which a blood-stained saree and underskirt were retrieved.

Further investigations by the police established the identity of the deceased as L Vadivelu, who was murdered by his wife for having reportedly reprimanding her over her extra marital relationship.

Local sources said Vadivelu (34), a loadman in a private parcel service and a native of Nagapattinam district, had been living with wife Srividhya (28) and three children near Vandimedu for the past nine years.

Srividhya, who is working as a lab assistant at Sanimedu Government Higher Secondary School, developed an with a local youth one P Surya Prakash (24) one year ago.

Vadivelu who had seen Surya Prakash and Srividhya together in his house many times had warned the duo to end the relationship. Many quarrels had taken place place between Vadivelu and Srividhya frequently in this connection.

Sources added that Surya Prakash, a law college dropout, was living with his father at Jeyalakshmi Nagar near Vandimedu after his mother deserted his father over a family quarrel three years ago.

Surya Prakash discontinued his studies and was reportedly leading a wayward life. When Surya Prakash and Srividhya found Vadivelu to be an obstacle to their relationship, they decided to murder him.

Following this, on Friday night, Srividhya mixed sleeping pills in the chutney and gave it to Vadivelu for dinner. When Vadivelu fell unconscious, Srividhya alerted Surya Prakash and the duo beat him to death using an iron rod.

Later, the lovers took the body and dumped it on an overbridge near NH 45 before returning home. Police detained Surya Prakash and Srividhya and are questioning them at an undisclosed location.

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

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

Advertisements

Daughter-in-law of senior HC judge says dowry tortured !! but prosecution says case closed !! :-(

CHENNAI: The daughter-in-law of a senior judge of the Madras high court has moved the court to register a criminal case against the judge’s son and wife for attempt to murder, abetment to suicide and dowry harassment.

Anootha Chandran, 30, of Kerala, said she married D Bala Rajendra Prabhu on February 22, 2013 and trouble erupted soon after. Anootha said she was harassed for dowry, beaten up and scolded when she questioned her husband’s manners. She said her eight-month-old daughter too suffered injury.

Though she lodged a complaint with the All Women Police Station in Mylapore, no FIR was registered, she said.

*** more from new article below !!!***

Even ONE false criminal complaint by wife constitutes matrimonial cruelty, hence Divorce allowed !!

Wife files a criminal complaint u/s 307 read with 34, 148A, 384, 324 of IPC. Husband and seven members of his family were arrested ! It is argued before the SC that this was a solitary criminal complaint and so cannot be cruelty ! However the Hon Sc concludes that Even ONE false criminal complaint by wife constitutes matrimonial cruelty, hence Divorce allowed !!

Facts :

  • The marriage at Hyderabad on 11th February, 1989.
  • Male child born on 8th May, 1991, after which the Respondent-Wife, as per her pleadings, started suffering from Sheehan’s syndrome.
  • On the night of 29th/30th June, 1995, wife left the matrimonial house and ever since then she has been living with her brother, who is a senior IAS officer.
  • On 14th July, 1995, husband filed an original petition praying for divorce on the ground of cruelty as well as of the irretrievable breakdown of their marriage.
  • Wife retorted by filing a criminal complaint against the Appellant as well as seven members of his family for offences under Section 307 read with Sections 34, 148A, 384, 324 of the IPC, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
  • The Appellant-Husband and seven of his family members were arrested and incarcerated.
  • On 30th June, 2000, the Learned Vth Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, acquitted the Appellant and his family members, and this Order has attained finality.

The Honourable supreme court concludes that “…We unequivocally find that the Respondent-Wife had filed a false criminal complaint, and even one such complaint is sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty…”

************** case from SC (Judis) Website ***************

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1213 OF 2006

K.SRINIVAS .….. APPELLANT

vs

K. SUNITA ….. RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.

1 In this Appeal, counsel for the Appellant has sought to draw our attention to all the arguments that had been addressed before the High Court on behalf of the Appellant-Husband in support of his claim for dissolution of his marriage to the Respondent by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. We have, however, restricted him to the ground of alleged cruelty on account of the filing of a criminal complaint by the Respondent against the Appellant and several members of his family under Sections 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). We did this for the reason that if this ground is successfully substantiated by the Petitioner, we need not delve any further i.e. whether a marriage can be dissolved by the Trial Court or the High Court on the premise that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. This nature of cruelty, in the wake of filing of a false criminal case by either of the spouses, has been agitated frequently before this Court, and has been discussed so comprehensively and thoroughly that yet another Judgment on this well-settled question of law, would be merely a waste of time. A complete discourse and analysis on this issue is available in a well-reasoned judgment in K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa, 2013(5) SCC 226, in which numerous decisions have been cited and discussed. It is now beyond cavil that if a false criminal complaint is preferred by either spouse it would invariably and indubitably constitute matrimonial cruelty, such as would entitle the other spouse to claim a divorce.

2 The marriage of the parties was celebrated according to Hindu rites at Hyderabad on 11th February, 1989. A male child was born to the parties on 8th May, 1991, after which the Respondent-Wife, as per her pleadings, started suffering from Sheehan’s syndrome. On the night of 29th/30th June, 1995, the Respondent left the matrimonial house and ever since then she has been living with her brother, who is a senior IAS officer. On 14th July, 1995, the Appellant filed an original petition praying for divorce on the ground of cruelty as well as of the irretrievable breakdown of their marriage. The Respondent-Wife retorted by filing a criminal complaint against the Appellant as well as seven members of his family for offences under Section 307 read with Sections 34, 148A, 384, 324 of the IPC, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is pursuant to this complaint that the Appellant-Husband and seven of his family members were arrested and incarcerated. The Respondent-Wife also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. On 30th June, 2000, the Learned Vth Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, acquitted the Appellant and his family members, and this Order has attained finality. Meanwhile, by its Judgment dated 30th December, 1999, the Family Court at Hyderabad, granted a divorce to the Appellant on the ground of cruelty as also irretrievable breakdown of marriage; it rejected the Respondent’s petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Respondent-Wife successfully appealed against the said Judgment in the High Court, and it is this Order dated 7th November, 2005 that is impugned before us.

3 Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce has not found statutory acceptance till date. Under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has plenary powers “to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any case or order pending before it”. This power, however, has not been bestowed by our Constitution on any other Court. It is for these reasons that we have confined arguments only to the aspect of whether the filing of a false criminal complaint sufficiently proves matrimonial cruelty as would entitle the injured party to claim dissolution of marriage. It will be relevant to mention that the Law Commission of India in its Reports in 1978 as well as in 2009 has recommended the introduction of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for dissolution of marriage; the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill of 2013 incorporating the ground has even received the assent of the Rajya Sabha. It is, however, highly debatable whether, in the Indian situation, where there is rampant oppression of women, such a ground would at all be expedient. But that controversy will be considered by the Lok Sabha.

4. In the case in hand, learned counsel for the Respondent-Wife has vehemently contended that it is not possible to label the wife’s criminal complaint detailed above as a false or a vindictive action. In other words, the acquittal of the Appellant and his family members in the criminal complaint does not by itself, automatically and justifiably, lead to the conclusion that the complaint was false; that only one complaint was preferred by the Respondent-Wife, whereas, in contradistinction, in K.Srinivas Rao a series of complaints by the wife had been preferred. The argument was premised on the averment that the investigation may have been faulty or the prosecution may have been so careless as to lead to the acquittal, but the acquittal would not always indicate that the Complainant had intentionally filed a false case. What should be kept in perspective, it is reasonably argued, that the Complainant is not the controlling conductor in this Orchestra, but only one of the musicians who must deliver her rendition as and when and how she is called upon to do. Secondly, according to the learned counsel, the position would have been appreciably different if a specific finding regarding the falsity of the criminal complaint was returned, or if the Complainant or a witness on her behalf had committed perjury or had recorded a contradictory or incredible testimony. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Wife states that neither possibility has manifested itself here and, therefore, it would be unfair to the Respondent-Wife to conclude that she had exhibited such cruelty towards the Appellant and her in-laws that would justify the dissolution of her marriage.

5 The Respondent-Wife has admitted in her cross-examination that she did not mention all the incidents on which her Complaint is predicated, in her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. It is not her case that she had actually narrated all these facts to the Investigating Officer, but that he had neglected to mention them. This, it seems to us, is clearly indicative of the fact that the criminal complaint was a contrived afterthought. We affirm the view of the High Court that the criminal complaint was “ill advised”. Adding thereto is the factor that the High Court had been informed of the acquittal of the Appellant-Husband and members of his family. In these circumstances, the High Court ought to have concluded that the Respondent-Wife knowingly and intentionally filed a false complaint, calculated to embarrass and incarcerate the Appellant and seven members of his family and that such conduct unquestionably constitutes cruelty as postulated in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

6 Another argument which has been articulated on behalf of the learned counsel for the Respondent is that the filing of the criminal complaint has not been pleaded in the petition itself. As we see it, the criminal complaint was filed by the wife after filing of the husband’s divorce petition, and being subsequent events could have been looked into by the Court. In any event, both the parties were fully aware of this facet of cruelty which was allegedly suffered by the husband. When evidence was lead, as also when arguments were addressed, objection had not been raised on behalf of the Respondent-Wife that this aspect of cruelty was beyond the pleadings. We are, therefore, not impressed by this argument raised on her behalf.

7 In these circumstances, we find that the Appeal is well founded and deserves to be allowed. We unequivocally find that the Respondent-Wife had filed a false criminal complaint, and even one such complaint is sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty.

8 We, accordingly, dissolve the marriage of the parties under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties shall bear their respective costs.

………………………….J. [VIKRAMAJIT SEN]

………………………….J. [PRAFULLA C. PANT]

New Delhi;

19th November, 2014.

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

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

forget arrest AFTER marriage, NOW you can get 5 YEARS R.I. JUST after ENGAGEMENT !!

  • Once upon a time we used to warn Indian men that they could get easily arrested after marriage on fake dowry charges …Men and families had to be doubly …triply careful before getting into ANY relationship with women !!
  • Now women have been further empowered and can file Rape and Cheating charges EVEN after engagement !!
  • Here is the case of a man who called off a marriage after engagement and he is sentenced to undergo FIVE YEARS rigorous imprisonment !! Yep rigorous imprisonment which is reserved only for heinous crimes !!

*********** news from Deccan Chronicle ********

Man gets 5 yrs rigorous imprisonment for breaking engagement

P. ARUL | December 03, 2014, 06.12 am IST
29-year-old worker who refused to marry a girl after going through a betrothal ceremony, to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment on the charge of cheating her 29-year-old worker who refused to marry a girl after going through a betrothal ceremony, to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment on the charge of cheating her

Chennai: The mahila court in Chennai sentenced a 29-year-old worker who refused to marry a girl after going through a betrothal ceremony, to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment on the charge of cheating her. Promising to marry her, V. Thennarasu, 29, of Ayanavaram, engaged in sexual relations with the girl for more than a year before breaking off the engagement.

Thennarasu and his friend Sivakumar were working in a steel furniture manufacturing company in 2007. Thennarasu used to visit the houses of Sivakumar and his aunt, Sumathi (name changed) regularly, and became friends with Sumathi’s daughter, Ramya (name changed). After a few months, they became lovers. When members of both families came to know about their love affair, they decided to get them married and conducted an engagement ceremony on June 14, 2009.

Thennasaru and his family proposed to organise their marriage in six months. Meanwhile, Thennarasu forced the girl into sexual intimacy. Six month later, he refused to meet her and also stopped talking about the wedding. When she asked him about the wedding, Thennarasu replied that his father, M. Velayutham, 63, was against their marriage since her mother runs a roadside eatery and cannot pay dowry. He also informed her that his father had fixed another girl for him, whose family was willing to pay him a hefty sum as dowry.

Depressed over this, she filed a complaint with the commissioner of police and based on the CoP’s direction, women police attempted to resolve the issue. When Thennarasu failed to report to the police, Ramya lodged a complaint with the Ayanavaram police station where the police registered a case against Thennarasu under sections 376 (punishment for rape) and 420 (cheating). Judge Meena Sathish said, “The prosecution has proved the case beyond doubt against Thennarasu under section 420 of IPC”, and directed Thennarasu to also pay a fine of Rs5,000.

source :
http://www. deccanchronicle . com nation currentaffairs

woman files dowry case on hubby’s LAWYER. HC quash aftr 4 YEARS !! Lawer NOT related to womn, No arrest for woman !!!

We have seen women filing false cases on husband, mother in law, sister in law, kids and so on and so forth

Now as a new new here is an Ablaa who filed a DOWRY case on the husband’s lawyer !!

And IF this news is to be believed it took the LAWYER four years to move HC and get a quash !!

What about punishing this woman and the police who registered the case ???

*********