Daily Archives: April 25, 2017

Bombay HC : No advance bail for bizman accused of dowry harassment – TOI

No advance bail for bizman accused of dowry harassment
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court dismissed a pre-arrest bail application filed by a city based businessman accused by his wife and business partner of dowry harassment.

Ganesh Shetty who along with his wife had started a call centre in Andheri, had claimed that there was no need for custodial interrogation in a matrimonial dispute case.Justice Ajay Gadkari rejected the contention, stating that Shetty had failed to produce the stridhan or details of the money that he had allegedly siphoned off from the company .

“For recovery of the ornaments and stridhan mentioned in the FIR and to unearth facts behind siphoning of funds of the joint account of the company , Shetty’s custodial interrogation is necessary ,” said Justice Gadkari. “After taking into consideration serious allegations against Shetty and his non-cooperation with the investigating agency … disentitles him for protection of pre-arrest bail” the judge said.

Shetty and Seema married in 2011 and founded the call centre. The couple opened a joint bank account. According to Seema, her husband siphoned off substantial company funds without her know ledge. She alleged that due to psychological harassment by Shetty when she was pregnant, she suffered a miscarriage. The complaint also said Shetty abused her and failed to provide money for daily expenses. Two non-cognizable complaints were filed in 2015 and 2016 after she was allegedly assaulted. Seema then filed an FIR at DN Nagar police station, accusing Shetty of dowry harassment and criminal intimidation and alleged that he had taken away her stridhan.

In August 2016, the high court granted interim pro court granted interim pro tection to Shetty and asked him to regularly attend the police station in connection with the pro be. The court also appointed a mediator to explore possibility of reconciliation between the couple, but it failed.

When the matter came up for hearing, Shetty’s lawyers said that Seema took away the stridhan and blamed her for failure in reconciliation. Additional public prosecutor Jyoti Lokhare told the court that Shetty remained present at the police station but did not cooperate with the probe.

The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, but said that the interim protection from arrest would continue to operate for another two weeks.


Wife foists false dowry case, HC lets man divorce – The Times of India

MUMBAI: A Bandra resident who got her husband arrested in a false dowry harassment case treated him cruelly, an act that entitles him to divorce, the Bombay high court ruled. A division bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Anuja Prabhudessai dismissed a plea filed by Ronita Mascarenhas challenging the divorce order that ended her two-decade marriage to William.

Ronita admitted that she had filed the false criminal case at Kherwadi police station in 2005, accusing William, who suffers from a physical disability, of stealing her gold ornaments and demanding Rs 1 lakh as dowry from her to buy a car, to force him to come back to Mumbai.

“If on the wife’s own showing the criminal complaint filed by her against her husband was false and was filed only to bring back her husband, and consequent to which he was arrested and was in jail for about seven days, it would constitute a clear case of cruelty by her,” said the judges, pointing out that William was eventually acquitted. Ronita lodging a false complaint against William, after which police arrested him from his parent’s house at Goa and he was incarcerated, was sufficient to grant a decree for dissolution of marriage to the husband on grounds of cruelty by the wife, added the judges.

The court disbelieved Ronita allegations that William was having extramarital affairs, or that she wanted to again live with him again. “We find her claim, despite serious allegations against her husband, including that of having extramarital affairs, that she wants her husband to come and stay with her is not bona fide… we are unable to brush aside the case of the husband that due to his wife’s behaviour and conduct, he was fed up with life and despite having a job with (a leading company), he decided to take voluntary retirement and settle in Goa with his parents,” the court said.

The court rejected Ronita’s plea for maintenance for herself and their two daughters. The judges said the daughters were 28 and 26 and were not entitled to maintenance. On Ronita’s claim for monthly maintenance, the HC said she was living in a Thane flat bought by William, while she had rented out their Bandra flat. She also had a row house that he had bought in Goa.

Ronita and William, who lived in the same building in Bandra, had fallen in love and married in 1987. Around 2005, their relationship soured and William went to live with his parents in Goa. Ronita filed a dowry harassment case against William and he sought divorce on grounds of cruelty. A family court in 2008 granted William divorce, which was challenged by Ronita in the HC.

(Names of the couple changed to protect their identities)


#SEX #Robot industry has a glorious future in #India 🇮🇳 !!

#Marriage is becoming a heavily boobytrapped minefield in India. Many Indian men are also morally tuned not to go to prostitutes. The fear of #false #rape is a further deterrent. #SexualURGE however can’t be totally avoided. So, the #sexROBOT industry has a glorious future in india 🇮🇳 🇮🇳🇮🇳

Husband Can Initiate Proceedings Under DV Act Against Wife, Her Relatives: Karnataka HC

Husband Can Initiate Proceedings Under DV Act Against Wife, Her Relatives: Karnataka HC [Read Order]
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that any person, whether male or female, aggrieved and alleging violation of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, can invoke the provisions under the Act.

Justice Anand Byrareddy was hearing a petition filed by Mohammed Zakir against dismissal of his complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act against his wife and her relatives by Addl. City Civil Court, Bangalore.

The civil judge was not impressed with the complaint, as the Act clearly is loaded in favour of women only and it does not contemplate any male person being aggrieved by domestic violence.

The high court observed that it is to be noticed that the said issue was subject matter of an appeal before the apex court in the case of Hiral P Harsora vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, wherein the Supreme Court has struck down a portion of Section 2(a) on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the phrase “adult male” as appearing in Section 2(q) stood deleted.

“If the said sub-section is read after deleting the expression ‘adult male’, it would appear that any person, whether male or female, aggrieved and alleging violation of the provisions of the Act could invoke the provisions under the Act. In that view of the matter, the petitioner’s complaint could not have been trashed on the ground that the Act does not contemplate provision for men and it could only be in respect of women,” the court said.

The high court has directed the city civil judge to consider the complaint afresh.

Read the Order here.