Daily Archives: May 14, 2016

Filing a dowry case is easier than ordering pizza !! Toll free lines also provided !!

Women empowerment is the name of the game. Women are being employed, and the more they are empowered, the more we see Dowry cases comming out

These days, husbands are also “booked” on dowry case, just on the words of a woman (i.e.) NO further proof is necessary. In all other cases, say bounced cheque case or illegal possession case, you have to provide documents and concrete evidence before filing cases !! but in case of a dowry case, the words of the woman are considered absolute truth and case booked !!!

Now, in this case an ablaa naari, embodiment of low claims there was a 50 lakh dowry demand and her husband is already “booked” !!!

Screenshot - 14_05_2016 , 16_19_39

Married 2nd time, Man hit with dowry case by lecturer wife !!

Men do NOT learn…. Even if the first marriage fails, ends in a divorce, men sing the NAWALT (not all women are like that ) song, or “It wont happen to me” song and run to get married the second time. For some its social pressure, for some its the urge for sex, but for many, the second marriage ends in great misery !!

Here is one such case where a guy who got married a second time is being threatened with criminal action within 2 years of second marriage !! If the wife’s statements are to be studied, there was trouble from day 1 !(of this marriage)

It’s just a wonder that men do NOT learn, men JUST DO NOT learn how big a gamble this marriage is ..how matrimonial laws have become anti male and how one can mess up one’s own pleasant life with just that one stupid move !!

news from TOI, forwarded for the reader’s benefit !!

 

Lecturer accuses techie husband, in-laws of dowry harassment

TNN | May 14, 2016, 07.57 AM IST

Noida: A 32-year-old woman working as a lecturer in a Greater Noida engineering college has accused her techie husband of dowry harassment and mistreatment. A resident of Agra, the woman lives in Noida while her husband is based in Meerut. The woman on Friday met Vishwajit Srivastava, SP (crime) Noida, and registered a police complaint.

Pushpa Sharma (name changed) had an arranged marriage with Mohit Sharma (name changed) on July 6, 2014. The families had come in contact through a matrimonial advertisement in a newspaper.

The woman alleged that her husband and in-laws had started demanding dowry from Day 1. “They started mistreating me when the demands were not met,” she said.

The woman said that after marriage she stayed for a week at her husband’s place in Meerut. She returned to her parents’ place and then to Noida for work. She said her husband never came to meet her or take her to Meerut.

She said that during her stay in Meerut, her in-laws confined her inside the house. The woman’s mother said the family had sold land and given dowry besides managing all the wedding expenses.

“My in-laws started demanding more dowry and resorted to physical and mental torture when the demands were not met,” the woman said. She said she had reported her ordeal to the National Commission for Women (NCW), where her husband allegedly submitted a letter saying that he and his wife were willing for a mutual divorce. Incidentally, the marriage with Pushpa is the second for Mohit, who had revealed to her before the marriage that he was a divorcee.When contacted, Mohit denied the allegation of dowry harassment. He told TOI that the issue was with the NCW. “The NCW is looking into the mater. So I wouldn’t comment on it,” he said.

SP Vishwajit Srivastava said the complaint has been forwarded to the women police cell. “The case will be investigated and appropriate action will be taken,” he said.

Bookmark or read stories offline –

 

source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/noida/Lecturer-accuses-techie-husband-…

Woman earning 35,000 pm files fake DV on dead husband’s poor family

Woman earning 35,000 pm files fake DV on dead husband’s family who are poor and living on daily / meagre wages

A woman who owns the property in which she lives, and is also earning handsome amount of rs 35000 pm by bookbinding business, files a false domestic violence case, on her ex-husband, I.e dead husband’s family members… !!! She seeks huge monthly maintenance when the brother in law ( Jeth ) has retired and without money , and other family members are daily wage earners Eking out small amounts to make a living doing odd menial jobs

The respondents reply saying that the woman has taken away the book binding biz from the mother in law and this DV cases is to further terrorise the family


Ms Beena vs Kishan Lal on 27 August, 2010

Delhi District Court

Ms Beena vs Kishan Lal on 27 August, 2010

Author: Sh. O.P. Gupta

IN THE COURT OF SH. O. P. GUPTA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE – 02, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

Cr. Appeal No. 05/09
CC No. 364/6/07
PS Kamla Market
U/s 12 DV

Ms Beena W/o Late Sh. Raju R/o 2537, Mohalla Niyarian, Behind G.B. Road, Delhi -110006. …. Appellant

Versus

1.Kishan Lal S/o Itwari Lal 2.Sh. Kishori S/o Sh. Itwari Lal 3.Sh. Nitin S/o Sh. Ram Chander 4.Sh. Mahesh S/o Sh. Kishan Lal all R/o 2537, Mohalla Niyarian, G.B. Road, Delhi. … Respondents

Date of Institution : 22.05.2009
Arguments heard on : 23.08.2010
Judgment Announced on ; 27.08.2010 JUDGMENT

  1. The wife has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 30.04.2009 passed by Ld. MM on petition u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic violence act , 2005. At the very outset it may be mentioned that the appellant is widow, respondent no.1 and 2 are jeth of appellant, respondent No. 3 is son of another jeth and respondent No. 4 is son of respondent No. 1/jeth.
  2. The admitted facts are that appellant was residing on theground floor of H. No. 2537, Mohalla Niyarian, G.B. Road, Delhi and was carrying on the business of book binding there. The said premises were in the tenancy of husband of appellant and respondents No. 1, 2 and other brothers. Appellant contributed her share of rent. According to the appellant she had two minor children. Daughter Shalu is handicapped. After the death of her husband, the respondent, and their family started harassing appellant in one way or the other. She made numerous complaints to the police. She filed her affidavit in evidence.
  3. The respondent filed a joint reply pleading that the complaint was false and fictitious and has been cooked up. The husband of complainant died in August 1997. The complainant was earning more than Rs. 35,000/- from the business of book binding. Respondent no. 1 was working in printing press as daily wager and was earning Rs. 80/- per day. Respondent No. 2 was retired and was not getting any pension. However he was earning Rs. 36/- to Rs. 48/- per day. Respondent No. 3 was drawing salary of Rs. 2200/- per month and had to support his mother, one studying brother and one handicapped sister. Respondent No. 4 was a daily wager and getting Rs. 65/- per day. The complaint had been filed to deter the respondents from claiming any share in the business of complainant which she had taken over from her mother in law. They denied that they ever harassed or used abusive language.
  4. The respondents filed their affidavits in their evidence.
  5. The impugned order recites that the counsel for the complainant stated that matter on record was sufficient to decide the case finally and the same was not objected to by counsel for the respondent. Thus the matter was finally heard and decided on the basis of affidavits of both the parties.
  6. In appeal the grievance of the appellant is that Ld. Trial Court over looked the report of protection officer. In para 7 of reply the respondents have made bald and wild allegation that the appellant was living a loose life.
  7. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. At the very outset I may mention that in petition before Ld. Trial Court, the appellant prayed for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the complainant and her children towards loss of income and earning, Rs. 2,000/- per month towards house hold expenses. In appeal the appellant has added medical expenses @ Rs. 7,000/- per month, food, cloths and basic necessities to the tune of Rs. 7,000/-, school fee to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- per month, enhanced demand of house hold expenses from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month. I do not think that the appellant can claim something beyond the petition, for the first time in appeal.
  8. It is not clear as to what is the difference between food, cloths and basic necessities for which Rs. 7,000/- have been claimed and house hold expenses for which Rs. 3,000/- per month has been claimed.
  9. The counsel for the respondent urged and rightly so that the appellant did not mention even an iota of word about her income from book binding. Without that she could not claim any expenses. Not only this despite specific plea in the written statement that complainant was earning Rs. 35,000/- she did not no better in replication except simply denying that she was earning Rs. 35,000/-. This time too she did not come out with a counter reply as to what her income was.
  10. The report of the Protection Officer on which much reliance has been placed by the appellant does not serve any purpose. The same is simply reproduction of what the appellant told the Protection Officer. The Protection Officer did not make any inquiry from neighbourer and did not try to find out the truth. Form No. I & II attached with the report contain particulars of complainant, respondents, children. Date, place and time of variance as contained at page 2 of form No. I were never pleaded in the petition. Form No. II is the proforma of petition to be filed by complainant. The counsel for the respondents submitted that appellant is not entitled to any relief on account of loss in income & earning because the complainant nowhere specified as to what her income was and to what extent the same was reduced. Without that, loss any income cannot be calculated. The arguments appears to be convincing.
  11. The counsel for the appellant strongly pressed into service the allegations made in para 7 of reply. It is true that it contains certain allegations about character of the appellant which were not necessary. But nevertheless such conduct alone is not sufficient to grant the relief to the appellant.
  12. The Ld. MM has already directed the respondents not to evict the complainant and her children without due process of law. It is only the denial of monetary reliefs which have compelled appellant to file the present appeal. On the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find that the appellant is entitled to any monetary relief.
  13. Last but not the least fact is that during arguments in appeal, the counsel for the respondents stated that the appellant has purchased the house in which she and respondents are residing. Now respondents are tenant of the appellant. For ascertaining this fact I recorded statement of appellant in which she admitted that she had purchased the property from previous owner Mohd. Ibrahim about two years ago for Rs. 1,30,000/-. This fact alone is sufficient to deny the monetary reliefs to the appellant.
  14. As a result of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in appeal. The same is dismissed.

Announced in the open Court (O.P. GUPTA) on 27.08.2010 Additional Sessions Judge-02 Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi