Monthly Archives: July 2018

Wife called him impotent. So he starred in a pornographic video and sent it to his in-laws. Finally police arrested him 😂😂😂

The bizarre attempt to hit back at his estranged wife did not go down well with anybody.

CHENNAI: Confronted with the possibility of divorce on the grounds of impotence, a 32-year-old man from Hyderabad made a pornographic video with another woman and sent a five-minute clip of the recording to his wife’s father and aunt to disprove the charge belittling his manhood.

The bizarre attempt to hit back at his estranged wife did not go down well with anybody. Police arrested Vibavasu, a resident of Lal Bahadur Nagar in Hyderabad, on a complaint by his wife Anusha’s family, and a court sent him to jail.

— Read on m.timesofindia.com/city/chennai/facing-divorce-man-stars-in-porn-video-sends-it-to-in-laws/articleshow/65206202.cms

Advertisements

No #DV relief if woman did NOT #divorce first Husband and was in ADULTERY with second fella !!! #BombayHC

Reshma Begum W/O. Gajanfar Kazi vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 25 July, 2018

Bombay High Court

Reshma Begum W/O. Gajanfar Kazi vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 25 July, 2018

Bench: M. S. Patil

1 Cri.Rev.Apln 82/17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 82 OF 2017

Reshma Begum W/o Gajanfar Kazi, APPLICANT

Aged 30 years, Occ. Household,

R/o. At present N-6, A, 120 CIDCO,

Aurangabad, Taluka & Dist. Aurangabad

V E R S U S

[1] The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS

[2] Gajanfar Kazi @ Jawed S/o Kazi

Qaiseruddin, Aged 41 years, Occ.

Mechanic, R/o. Katkatgate,

Aurangabad, Taluka & Dist. Aurangabad

Mr. N.R. Shaikh, Advocate for the Applicant

Mr. A.R. Kale, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1-State

Mr. H.I. Pathan, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

Reserved On : 29 June 2018

Pronounced On : 25 July 2018

J U D G M E N T :

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, the matter is heard finally.

2 Cri.Rev.Apln 82/17

  1. Very short issue that arises for determination in this Revision is as to the interpretation of provision of Section 2 [f] of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the D.V. Act‘]. The factual matrix leading to revision can be put in a short compass.
  2. The applicant who belongs to Jain Hindu community was married to one Shantaram Mahadu Ughade and the couple begotten a child out of the wedlock. It was averred that, that marriage was brought to an end by virtue of a customary divorce on 15.10.2011. It is averred that she thereafter came in contact with the respondent No.2 who is a Muslim by religion. The acquaintance blossomed into an affair. He was already married and was having children. She got converted to Islam and the couple entered into a marital tie in presence of a Kazi on 21.07.2012. The couple also got a child out of such relation on 29.04.2013. However, a dispute arose and the couple separated. She filed a proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act against him in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Aurangabad bearing Criminal Misc. Application No.28 of 2013.

  3. The respondent No.2 contested the proceeding primarily on 3 Cri.Rev.Apln 82/17 the ground that the applicant was already married and so was he. The marriage between the two was not legally possible, since they were already having subsisting marital relation. He also denied even that she was staying with him in some kind of relation.

  4. The learned Magistrate allowed the application holding that the relationship between the two was in the nature of marriage and was covered by Section 2 [f] of the D.V. Act and granted various reliefs.

  5. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.2 preferred Appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act bearing Criminal appeal No. 156 of 2015. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge by the impugned Judgment and order dated 12.01.2017 relying upon Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal; 2010 (3) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 764 (S.C.) concluded that the applicant and the respondent No.2 were not qualified to enter into a legal marriage since they were already married and their marriages were in subsistence. The relationship was not covered by Section 2 [f] of the D.V. Act. She was not entitled to take recourse to the provision of Section 12 of the D.V. Act. The appeal was allowed and the Judgment and order passed by the Magistrate was set aside. Hence, this Revision.

4 Cri.Rev.Apln 82/17

  1. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that since the applicant had already got the customary divorce in the form of execution of Notarized Deed on 15.11.2011, her first marriage had come to an end. Since the respondent No.2 is Muslim, his personal Law permits him to solemnize the second marriage. Since there is evidence in the form of testimony of Kazi and a Nikahnama demonstrating that the marriage was solemnized between the applicant and respondent No.2, the relationship between the two was in the nature of marriage within the meaning of Section 2 [f] of the D.V. Act. The couple had also has a child out of the relation. There was a birth certificate of the child which demonstrated that the couple was holding themselves out as husband and wife and the relationship was duly covered under that provision. The observation and the conclusion drawn by the Magistrate was unassailable. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has ignored these aspects and without any cogent and convincing reason, quashed and set aside the Judgment of the Magistrate. There is no sufficient legal basis to substantiate the interpretation of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The impugned Judgment and order is not tenable in law and be quashed and set aside, thereby restoring the Judgment and order passed by the Magistrate.
  • Though the respondent No.2 has been disputing all the 5 Cri.Rev.Apln 82/17 averments, there is enough material to show that the applicant and the respondent No.2 had established a kind of relationship. They had entered into marriage ceremony in presence of a Kazi [PW 2]. A Nikahnama was executed [Exhibit 35]. There is also a Birth Certificate showing that a child was born to the applicant and the respondent No.2 was shown as the father of the child.

  • However, it is necessary to ascertain, whether such kind of relationship is covered by the definition of domestic relationship as contained in Section 2 [f] of the D.V. Act. The definition reads thus :

  • “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.

    It is important to note that the interpretation put on the definition and particularly the words ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ by the Supreme Court in the case of Velusamy [supra] to mean :

    6 Cri.Rev.Apln 82/17

    [a] The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin

    to spouses.

    [b] They must be of legal age of marry.

    [c] They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal

    marriage, including being unmarried.

    [d] They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out

    to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.

    Even in the case of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma; AIR 2014 S.C. 309, a comparison has been made between the relations which are in the nature of marriage and live in relationship and guidelines have been culled out to distinguish between the two.

    1. Perusal of these decisions makes it abundantly clear that not all the live in relationships are covered by the provision of Section 2 [f] of the D.V. Act. It is only those which qualify to be the relationship in the nature of marriage which are governed by that provision. In order to constitute such relationship, a legal marriage between the two must be possible.

    7 Cri.Rev.Apln 82/17

    1. There is one more aspect which needs such an interpretation to be put to words ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ contained in Section 2 [f] of the D.V. Act. It is well recognized principle of interpretation of statute that a statute should be interpreted in a manner which would not promote illegality. It has made a provision to enable a woman in a relationship in the nature of marriage to seek various remedies under the D.V. Act. One cannot put an interpretation to Section 2 [f] of the D.V. Act which would promote an adulterous relationship which is an offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, these words will have to be interpreted in a conducive and harmonious manner so as not to offend a penal provision contained in the Code. Therefore looked at from this angle, one cannot interpret this provision which would offend any law. The legislature in its wisdom has enacted the Law so as to cover and protect not only a legally wedded wife but has gone a step further to bring in its ambit a woman who has been in a relationship in the nature of marriage. Use of word ‘marriage’ to qualify the relationship is conspicuous and the only interpretation that can be put is that the marriage between the couple must be legally possible. Any other interpretation which would offend any other law would not be permissible.
  • Once it is clear that in order to enable the applicant to claim 8 Cri.Rev.Apln 82/17 any relief under the D.V. Act the relation between her and the respondent No.2 was not in the nature of marriage, she is clearly not entitled to claim any relief under that Act. Admittedly, on her own admission, her first marriage was still in subsistence, and if that be so, she could not have married legally with the respondent No.2 albeit he is a Muslim and his personal law permits him to solemnize the second marriage. In view of such state of factual matrix and the evidence, the observation and the conclusion drawn by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that the relationship between these two did not fall into the ‘domestic relationship’ as defined under Section 2 [f] of the D.V. Act is unassailable. The Revision is dismissed.

  • The rule is discharged.

    [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ] SRM/25/7/18

    Fathers name optional in birth certificate. But alimony or maintenance is not optional. That is compulsory And men have to pay it at any cost

    Father’s name optional in birth certificate, don’t force single mothers: Madras HC

     

    The court said it was sufficient for the mother to file an affidavit that the child was born from her womb.

    In what may be considered as a huge relief for single mothers and those going for intrauterine insemination across the country, the Madras High Court has ruled that mentioning the father’s name in birth certificates is optional.

    The ruling came after a divorcee filed a petition in the Madurai bench of Madras High Court against Tiruchi Municipal Corporation (TMC).

    In the petition, she had stated that she gave birth to a baby girl in a hospital in Tiruchi through intrauterine insemination and that TMC had issued a birth certificate with the name of the sperm donor as the father. The petitioner requested TMC to issue a certificate without the father’s name, which was refused by TMC citing that the law does not provide for removing the father’s name from the birth certificate.

    The petitioner’s counsel argued that section 15 of the Births and Deaths Act empowers the officials to correct any erroneous entry in the birth and death certificates.

    She hence requested the court to direct TMC to issue a corrected birth certificate, reported The Hindu.

    Judge MS Ramesh, taking note of the plea, passed an interim order directing the TMC officials to treat the mentioning of the donor’s name as an error and correct it.

    In his final order, the judge recorded the civic body’s submission that a corrected birth certificate has been issued to the petitioner.

    The court said it was sufficient for the mother to file an affidavit that the child was born from her womb.

    Pointing out that neither the Births and Deaths Act of 1969 nor the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules of 2000 requires the father’s name to be recorded in the birth register, the judge said that women who decide to raise children with their own income could not be compelled to name the deserters in birth certificates.

    “As such, the grievance of the petitioner has been met. Hence, no further orders are required in the present writ petition. However, an incidental issue that arises for consideration is with respect to the authority of the officials to insist upon the petitioner to declare the identity of the father of the child in the birth certificate,” the judge said and went on to deal with the issue in depth, reports stated.

    He stated that it would be unfair to compel single or unmarried mothers to declare the name of the father who has expressed no desire to be connected with the child.

    “There are also cases where women are constrained to raise children with their own resources in view of their unwilling and unconcerned partners. It would be totally unjustifiable to compel single or unwed mothers to declare the name of the father of the child who had chosen to abandon the child,” the judge said.

    Kidnapping children to India is supported by current minister – govt of India. Beware, Be careful, protect your children

    0A8D6676-D4D6-4972-8F6B-28EE696B8C7E

    NCPCR mediation cell for women fleeing with kids from abroad to escape domestic violence: Maneka Gandhi

    Gandhi said her ministry was desperately looking for a solution for women who have fled from abroad with their child to escape domestic violence or for some other issue.

    A mediation cell has been opened on the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights’ (NCPCR) website to register complaints of Indians who have fled with their children from abroad to escape domestic violence or some other issue, Union minister Maneka Gandhi has said.

    Addressing a national conference of the state women commissions, Gandhi yesterday said the cell, consisting of members of the Ministry of External Affairs and the NCPCR, would contact the embassies of the respective countries and try to reach a solution after consultations with them.

    About why India should not become a signatory of the Hague Convention, she said if India was a signatory, then the child would have to be sent back and the woman apprehended.

    “We refused that we would not send our women back so their child is snatched away from them,” the Women and Child Development minister said.

    She said her ministry was desperately looking for a solution for women who have fled from abroad with their child to escape domestic violence or for some other issue.

    “We haven’t come to a solution, but till a solution is reached this cell has been formed,” Gandhi added.
    The Hague Convention is a multi-national treaty that seeks to protect children wrongfully removed by one of the parents from the custody of the other parent.

    She recommended members of the women commissions to follow three things — release a book on the performance every year, identify single cases and try to solve them and hire lawyers for women who cannot afford it.

    First Published on Jul 28, 2018 11:11 am

    TAGS #Current Affairs #India #Maneka Gandhi #NCPCR
    Last Updated : Jul 23, 2018 11:19 PM IST | Source: Moneycontrol.com

    — Read on www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/ncpcr-mediation-cell-for-women-fleeing-with-kids-from-abroad-to-escape-domestic-violence-maneka-gandhi-2775031.html

    NRI property 2 be grabbed IF U don’t follow summons on MEA net portal !! Turning established practices upside down just to GRAB PROPERTY ??

    NRI property may be attached IF you don’t follow summons on some online portal by MEA !! They are turning established practices upside down just to….just to… GRAB PROPERTY !!! 😦
    Remember this has NOTHING to do with Justice for elders who are on streets, children who are forsaken, children who are kidnapped and husbands killed
    1000s of Indian KIDS are being kidnapped to India. No one cares
    news item from TOI

    MEA developing portal to serve summons, warrants against absconding NRI husbands: Sushma Swaraj

    NEW DELHI: The MEAis developing a portal where summons and warrants against absconding NRI husbandswould be served, and if the accused does not respond he would be declared a proclaimed offender and his property would be attached, Union minister Sushma Swarajsaid on Friday.

    She said for coming up with such a portal, amendments need to be made in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPc) that would allow district magistrate to accept such summons and warrants put on the portal to be “deemed as served”.

    The External Affairs minister said the Law Ministry, Legislative Assembly, Home Ministry and the Women and Child Development Ministry have agreed on the proposal.

    Swaraj said the move aims to prevent NRI marriages where husbands abandon their wives and abscond or mentally and physically abuse them after marriage in a foreign country.

    According to the Ministry of External Affairs, 3,328 complaints have been received during the last three years (January 2015 to November, 2017) from distressed Indian women deserted by their NRI spouses.

    In a bid to prevent such fraudulent marriages, the Ministry of External Affairs is developing a portal, where summons and warrants against absconding NRI husbands would be served, and if the accused does not respond he would be declared a proclaimed offender and his property would be “attached”, Swaraj said.

    “We are trying if the amendments could be introduced in the Cabinet and we would try to get it passed in the next Parliament session,” she said at the national conference on NRI Marriages and Trafficking of Women and Children.

    In the meantime, an inter-ministerial committee has been established for which the Ministry of Women and Child Development is the nodal authority.
    The committee also has members from the Law Ministry and the Ministry of External Affairs and based on their recommendations, lookout notices against eight absconders have been issued and their passports have been cancelled.
    “The accused whose passports were revoked have surrendered,” she added.
    A Women and Child Development official has said the committee has received 70 complaints in the last two months based on which the National Commission for Women conducted its probe and recommended cancellation of eight passports.

     

    SOURCE

    https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/pol itics-and-nation/mea-developing-portal-to-serve-su mmons-warrants-against-abscond ing-nri-husbands-sushma-swaraj/articleshow/65162336.cms