Daily Archives: January 5, 2019

Hope all these #ALFA #crooks are brought back & made to pay back our #TAX MONEY

MEN pay the largest share of #taxes in India. My guess is that man pay more than 80% of the taxes. These #crooks who have tried to run away with our tax money must be #severely #punished

#Sabarimala : Unfortunate, Judiciary & a few low-class activists attempting to disturb a great tradition/faith

30 million men visit #Sabarimala every year, after a period of austerity following celibacy, teetotalism & vegetarianism. Pilgrims benefit a lot – peace, health, discipline & detox. Unfortunate, Judiciary & a few low-class activists attempting to disturb a great tradition/faith

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

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

Wife #KILLS #husband by #smashing #head, throws #corpse away & claims some #else killed !! पति के स िर पर लाठी मार हत्या की, अधजला शव घर के बाहर डाल ा, थाने जाकर कहा- किसी ने मार दिया

पति के सिर पर लाठी मार हत्या की, अधजला शव घर के बाहर डाला, थाने जाकर कहा- किसी ने मार दिया

Jodhpur News – क्राइम रिपोर्टर | आसोप/जोधपुर जोधपुर-नागौर रोड पर स्थित आसोप कस्बे में रहने वाले मनोहर मोची (35) की रोजाना शराब…

Dainik Bhaskar

Jan 05, 2019, 05:00 AM IST
Jodhpur News - rajasthan news stick to the head of the husband killing the dead body outside the house went to the police station and said someone killed क्राइम रिपोर्टर | आसोप/जोधपुर

जोधपुर-नागौर रोड पर स्थित आसोप कस्बे में रहने वाले मनोहर मोची (35) की रोजाना शराब पीकर झगड़ा करने से उसकी प|ी इतनी परेशान हो गई, कि शुक्रवार सुबह उसने पहले तो भारी लाठी पति के सिर पर दे मारी और बाद में चूल्हा जलाने वाली लकड़ियां रखकर जला डाला। इसके बाद अधजले शव को घसीट कर घर से बाहर लाई, लेकिन आसपास कुछ लोगों ने उसे देख लिया। तब, वो शव को वहीं छोड़ आसोप थाने जा पहुंची और पुलिस से कहा कि किसी ने उसके पति को मार दिया है। हालांकि, उसकी यह कहानी ज्यादा देर नहीं टिक पाई। उधर, युवक के पिता ने पुलिस को दी रिपोर्ट में पुत्रवधु पर अपने पति से मारपीट करने और खुद के पीहर में रहने के लिए मजबूर करने का आरोप लगाते हुए हत्या का मामला दर्ज कराया है। आसोप पुलिस ने अारोपी महिला को हत्या के आरोप में गिरफ्तार किया है।

एसपी (जोधपुर रूरल) राजन दुष्यंत ने बताया कि आसोप कस्बे में रहने वाली महिला ललिता ने अपने पति मनोहर की हत्या कर घर में ही शव को जलाने का प्रयास किया। इसके बाद अधजले शव को घसीटकर सुनसान जगह पर ले जाने की फिराक में थी, लेकिन आसपास कुछ लोगों ने उसे देख लिया। तब, वो आसोप थाने पहुंची और खुद के पति की अज्ञात लोगों द्वारा हत्या करने की झूठी कहानी रची। घटना की जानकारी मिलने पर आसोप एसएचओ सुनील सहित अन्य की टीम मौके पर पहुंची। प्रारंभिक पड़ताल में ही पुलिस का संदेह ललिता पर था। मनोहर के पिता गोविंदराम मोची ने भी पुत्रवधु पर हत्या का आरोप लगाते हुए केस दर्ज कराया। गहनता से की गई पूछताछ में ललिता (30) ने पति की हत्या करना स्वीकार किया है। इस पर उसे हत्या के आरोप में गिरफ्तार कर लिया। ललिता ने पुलिस को बताया कि अखबार वितरित करने के बाद मनोहर शराब पीकर आया था और इसी बात को लेकर शुक्रवार को भी उसका झगड़ा हुआ था।


मृतक युवक व आरोपी प|ी

आठ साल की मासूम बेटी लक्ष्मी 1 किमी दौड़ दादा की दुकान गई, बताया- पापा काे मार रही है मां

मनोहर के पिता गोविंदराम की रिपोर्ट के अनुसार उसका बेटा प|ी ललिता व तीन बच्चों के साथ गांव में ही अलग रहता था। परिवार से अलग होने के लिए ललिता पहले भी कई बार पति से झगड़ा करती थी। ललिता अपने पीहर पीपाड़ शहर में जाकर बसने का दबाव बनाती थी, जबकि मनोहर आसोप में ही जूते की दुकान चलाता था। गुरुवार रात को भी गोविंदराम ने बहू को समझाने की कोशिश भी की। शुक्रवार सुबह करीब 9 बजे मनोहर की बेटी लक्ष्मी (8) दौड़ते हुए करीब 1 किमी दूर अपने दादा की दुकान पर पहुंची। उसने दादा को बताया कि मां ने पापा के साथ मारपीट की है और पापा के खून आ रहा है। गोविंदराम दौड़े-दौड़े पोती के साथ बेटे के घर पहुंचे, तो पता चला कि ललिता ने मनोहर की हत्या कर शव को जला दिया है। लेकिन ललिता वहां नहीं मिली। थाने चली गई थी।

पीहर भागने वाली थी महिलाओं ने देख लिया

पुलिस की प्रारंभिक पड़ताल में सामने आया कि ललिता ने भारी मूसल से पति के सिर पर वार किया, जिससे वो वहीं गिर पड़ा। उसे समझ नहीं आया कि अब वह क्या करे, इसलिए शव को जलाकर सबूत नष्ट करने की योजना बनाई। इसके बाद वह पीहर भाग जाना चाहती थी लेकिन शव को घसीटते हुए लोगों ने देख लिया। एकबारगी लोग सहम गए। महिलाएं उसे पकड़ने दौड़ी। ऐसे में वह थाने जा पहुंची और कहा कि किसी ने मेरे पति को मार दिया है।

लक्ष्मी

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

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

No Cruelty on general allegations. Need Specific facts. #NO #maintenance to #DESERTING #Fake #498a filing WIFE !! #BombayHC

Bombay High Court

Sayyed Jabbar Ali vs Saheba Fatima on 11 October, 2001

Equivalent citations: 2002 BomCR Cri, 2002 CriLJ 1332, I (2002) DMC 231, 2002 (1) MhLj 623

Bench: R Batta

ORDER

1. The applicant husband (hereinafter referred as original non-applicant) has approached this Court against judgment dated 25-9-1998, in which he was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month from the date of application i.e., 24-5-1994 to the present respondent (hereinafter referred as original applicant).

2. The original applicant had filed application for maintenance for self and for her son. The trial Court, on the basis of evidence, came to the conclusion that the original applicant had failed to prove neglect and refusal on the part of the original non-applicant to maintain the original applicant and she was staying at her parents house on her own.

3. The revisional Court, however, came to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to indicate that the original non-applicant had not only refused and neglected to maintain the original applicant without sufficient cause, but the original applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment on account of demand for money as a result of which she had justifiable reason to leave the house of the original non applicant.

4. Learned Advocate for the original non applicant has argued before me that the revisional Court had not adhered to the limitations of the revisional

jurisdiction and has acted beyond the said limitations reappreclating the evidence in order to come to a different conclusion which is not based upon evidence on record. According to him, no details of either ill-treatment, beating or demand have been given and in respect of the same, no complaint was made at any time, except for the application for maintenance, He also pointed out that the allegation relating to the original non applicant having married or having illicit relations was only introduced by way of amendment by application dated 22-2-1997, and that in spite of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the original non applicant, the original applicant without any justifiable cause has refused to join the original non applicant and that at any rate the conclusions drawn by the Additional Sessions Judge, arc not based upon material evidence on record, nor findings of the trial Court can be said to perverse, so as to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction.

5. The marriage of the original applicant and original non applicant had taken place on 22-12-1991 and for about 3 years both of them were residing at Bombay, after which they came to Buldhana on account of transfer of the original non applicant. The case of the original applicant is that sometime in the year 1993, the original non applicant and his parents and sister started demanding Rs. 10,000/-. It appears that at that time, the original applicant and original non applicant were staying at Bombay. Be that as it may, the case of the original applicant is that there was demand of Rs. 10,000/-, out of which Rs. 4,000/- were paid, but remaining Rs. 6,000/- could not be paid. She was being ill-treated and harassed and was being beaten. All these allegations are general in nature and no details thereof have been given, nor any complaint has been made in respect of the same, prior to the filing of the maintenance proceedings on 24-5-1994. The original non applicant had filed the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights on 22-6-1994, which proceedings were decreed on 7-5-1995. The evidence of original applicant was recorded on 8-1-1996 and 20-11-1996. In this evidence there is no allegation whatsoever that the original non applicant was either staying with another lady of* had illicit relations with another lady. It is only by way of amendment application dated 22-2-1997. That these allegations were introduced in the application for maintenance, but after that no further evidence was adduced by the original applicant in order to substantiate the said allegations added to the application by way of amendment. Therefore, in the context of the substantive evidence on this aspect, the case of the original applicant, that the original non applicant was staying with another lady or that he was having illicit relations with another lady cannot be accepted. The original applicant in the cross examination had stated that she was not willing to reside with original non applicant at Buldhana and added that due to ill-treatment, she was not willing. However, as already pointed out that the ill-treatment cannot be substantiated on the basis of general allegations in the absence of any details thereof. The original non applicant had in the course of the deposition also stated that he was ready and willing to take the applicant

with him, but it appears that the original applicant was not willing to go. In this set of facts, the findings of the revisional Court that there is sufficient evidence of refusal and neglect on the part of the original non applicant; that the original applicant was subject to ill-treatment, due to which she has justifiable reason to stay with her parents is not at all made from the evidence on record.

6. In spite of a decree for conjugal rights, the original applicant without justifiable reason did not join him and on account of this fact, the applicant cannot claim maintenance. It was pointed out by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sampuran Singh v. Gurdev Kaur and Anr., 1985 Cri.LJ. 1072 that the rule that in the presence of decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife, she has no right to claim maintenance has a qualification and that the wife can still claim maintenance in the presence of decree for restitution of conjugal rights against her, if the conduct of the husband is such which obstructs her to obey such a decree and the presence of another women in his house or another wife can be a valid ground for her to remain away from him.

7. In Dattatrey s/o Champatgir Giri v. The State of Maharashtra, 1993 Cri.L.J. 2181, this Court has held that where wife has no justification for withdrawal from the company of her husband, grant of maintenance is liable to be set aside.

8. In Mangula Arvind Chavan v. Arvind Shantaram Chavan and Anr., 1994 (I) Mh.LR. 617, the husband has sought restitution of conjugal rights, but the wife resisted the demand putting certain conditions. The Civil Court had found that the contention of wife regarding ill-treatment to her was baseless. Restitution of conjugal rights had been ordered in favour of the husband. The wife did not join her husband. It was held that if the wife did not want to cohabit with her husband despite her failure to prove her case for alleged ill-treatment, it could hardly be said that the wife was wrongfully neglected and denied separate maintenance allowance by the husband.

9. It may be mentioned here that the original applicant had also filed a Criminal Complaint under section 498-A, Criminal Procedure Code, in which the original non applicant has been acquitted.

10. Therefore, in the light of the evidence on record, the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, cannot be sustained. In fact, as rightly pointed out by learned Advocate for the original non-applicant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has transgressed the parameters of revisional jurisdiction and had set aside the findings of the trial Court which were based on material on record and the said findings can by no stretch of imaginations be said to be perverse. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The order of 25-9-1998 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim is set aside and the order dated 3-9-1997 of JMFC, Washim is restored.

11. Revision allowed.

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

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

Does #Shurpanakha meet criteria of #Desi #feminist heroine

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

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