Category Archives: Fake mollesation

2 months jail for #false #POCSO case on daughter’s barber. दिल मांजे more !!

A court has granted 2 months jail for a mother who filed a #false #POCSO case using her daughter. she filed the Sexual harassment case on her Daughter’s barber. During inquiry it has come to light that the case is a false case. the poor barber has been in Jail since June (when #fale #falsePOSCO cases was filed

We hope that in such cases the jail term would be extended to a minimum of five years or whatever the accused would have suffered

2 months false POSCO case - Dil Mange more !

#Bangalore and every metro has 1000s of #fakeDV #fake498s. Who will stop them ?

every metro including #bangalore has 10s of 1000s of #FakeDV #fake498a but no one cares a damn… 1000s of men and elders have died and NO one cares a fart. Hardly any #fakeCase female has been jailed. Now, Just One night, and for a few hours, some / few women were probably #molested and we have 1000s of MEN and WOMEN and Dozens of #presstitutes agonizing and Crying over that… All Indian men and All Bangaloreans are being tarnished … The police and government are all being pulled up …. How do you think MEN will get any justice or any equality in this country ??? When will our men wake up ? when oh when ??

India is a land of culture ! Dating is NOT common, but FALSE rape , 498a is VERY common !! :-)

  • India is a land of great culture. SEX before marriage is NOT common. Dating is NOT common. However FAKE rape, 498a is very common in India. Recently it was found that 70+ % of rape cases filed in Delhi were fake. They were either “rape to force a marriage” or “rape to extract money” or completely fake to settle scores !!
  • Since the last 15 or so years, courts have repeatedly stated that 498a and Dv act is often misused to harass the husband and in laws
  • Still there is NO change in fake cases. Fake rape is a recent lucrative addition !!

Screenshot - 15_05_2016 , 11_23_46

One-off incident of dowry demand, if any, or abuse, cannot amount to domestic violence – Delhi MM court !

One-off incident of dowry demand, if any, or abuse, cannot amount to domestic violence – Delhi MM court !

“……In the opinion of the court no economic abuse has been committed as the father is fulfilling his responsibility of maintaining his child. As far as the maintenance of the wife is concerned under the Act, maintenance can only be given if domestic violence is established. The aggrieved has vaguely made allegations and in absence of actual and proper allegations, it cannot be taken that domestic violence was committed upon her. The allegation for demand of dowry are also not continuous and it is only stated that respondents demanded dowry once for the business of the respondent no.1. One off incident of dowry demand, if any, or of any abuse cannot amount to domestic violence……”


IN THE COURT OF MS. BHAVNA KALIA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE: MAHILA COURT­ 01:SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET
COURT: NEW DELHI

CC No: 22/1/15

Jurisdiction of Police Station : Mehrauli

Smt. Papiya Chakraborty
W/o Shib Shankar Chakraborty
D/o Late Sh. Vikram Shou,
C/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar,
H. No. B­6, Second Floor, Flat No.2,
Saidulajab, New Delhi­110030. ……….Aggrieved

Versus

  1. Sh. Shib Shankar Chakraborty,
    S/o Sh. Dinesh Chakraborty
  2. Sh. Dinesh Chakraborty,

  3. Sh. Sapna Chakraborty,
    All R/o ­34, Eas – Purba Panchanantala,
    P.O. Nonachandan Pukur,
    PS Titagarh, Barrackpore,
    Distt. North 24 Parganas,
    Kolkatta – 700122 ………Respondents

Date of filing : 09.03.2015.
Date of arguments : 09.03.2016.
Date of judgment : 26.04.2016.

EX­PARTE JUDGMENT

  1. It is the case of the complainant aggrieved that she was legally married to respondent no. 1 on 17.6.2002. Photographs are Ex.

CW1/1. In the said marriage parents and other relatives of the complainant gave valuable gifts and 2 items to respondent no.1 and his family members. After the marriage aggrieved went to her matrimonial home with respondent no. 1 at Kolkatta and both started living there as husband and wife. One boy namely Suman was born to them on 17.1.2008.

  1. The aggrieved came to know that left eye of respondent no. 1 was made of stone and that respondent no.1 was more than 13 years older than the aggrieved which was not disclosed to her before marriage. The aggrieved has stated that her husband and in­ laws misbehaved with her and abused and taunted her for bringing more dowry and cash of Rs. 5,00,000/­ for further investment in the business of respondent no. 1. The aggrieved told them that she was unable to meet their demand for dowry. She had stated that she was made to do all the domestic work like a maid servant even while she was sick.
  • She has stated that her father­in­law used to instigate her husband to send her back to her parental home and not bring her back till dowry demand is met. She has stated that respondent no. 4 was an alcohol addict. She further stated that when she told her parents about all this she was advised to tolerate the same. Thereafter, after one year her parents came to Delhi for their job and used to send money every month by depositing same in bank account of respondent no. 1. Still respondent no. 1 failed to maintain her and her child. She stated that she was assaulted by all the respondents and when she informed the same to her mother, her mother came to her matrimonial home on 19.04.2014. On the said date, she moved out of her matrimonial home with her husband and her son and the respondents took her statement forcefully on a paper that she was leaving her matrimonial home willfully. Thereafter, she filed petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C., but withdrew the same on 18.12.2014. She came to Delhi with her son to visit her mother and thereafter, she returned to her husband in Kolkatta. Just after her arrival respondent no. 1 abused her and assaulted her physically and held her neck forcefully with the intention to kill her, but she somehow escaped and called her mother. On 09.01.2015, mother of aggrieved reached her daughter and thereafter told her to pacify the matter, but due to regular physical assault and abuses, on 12.01.2015 respondent no. 1 drove her and her mother out of their rented accommodation and retained the custody of the minor son. He threatened the aggrieved not to inform the police. Thereafter, aggrieved came to Delhi with her mother and filed the complaint before the police.

  • Respondent was summoned by the court, but he failed to appear after service of notice by registered post and on 03.06.2015 the respondent was proceeded ex­parte.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

  • Ex­parte affidavit was tendered in evidence by the aggrieved. Thereafter, ex­parte arguments were heard and matter was reserved for ex­parte orders. Considering that the respondent did not cross examine the applicant, her testimony remained unrebutted. However, it remains to be seen whether the applicant has been able to prove the ingredients as stated in the Act.

  • In order to claim any Relief under the Act, it is imperative for the aggrieved person to show that she shared a domestic relationship with the respondent and she was subjected to domestic violence during the said period.

  • As per the Act, domestic relationship which is defined in section 2(f) 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.

  • As per section 2(s) of the said Act, shared household means a household where the person aggrieved lives or has at any time lived in a domestic relationship with the respondent. Shared household means a house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house which belongs to joint family of which husband is a member1.

  • It is submitted by the aggrieved person that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent and they got married on 17.06.2002. From her averments it further appears that she and the respondent have resided in a shared household and one child was born out of their marriage. This fact, as stated earlier, has remained unrebutted. Hence, fact of marriage and domestic relationship are established.

  • Further, it has to be now seen whether any domestic violence 1 Neha Jain & anr. v. Gunmala Devi & Anr. RSA 282/2015 decided on 30.7.2015 was suffered by the aggrieved or not. Domestic violence is defined in section 3 of the said Act as any act or omission on part of the respondent which causes physical, sexual, verbal emotional and economic abuse to the aggrieved or an act or omission which harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security or an act which threatens or which causes physical or mental harm to the aggrieved.

  • In the definition of domestic violence u/s 3 of the Act, it is stated that there must be an act, omission or commission or conduct of respondent which amounts to domestic violence. To constitute Domestic Violence, the conduct of the respondent should be such as to imply that the aggrieved was harassed or tortured by the said act. Aggrieved has stated only one incident of 07.01.2015 when her husband had beaten her and threatened her. There is nowhere in the affidavit any allegation against the respondent no. 1 except one incident and in the opinion of the court one incident cannot constitute domestic violence. The aggrieved has stated that respondent no.1 neglected to maintain her and their child properly and the same would amount to economic abuse. Under the definition of economic abuse there has to be deprivation of all economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved is entitled. Aggrieved has stated that respondent neglected to maintain her and her child and that her mother used to send money for daily expenses, for school fee and for transport fare of her son, who was studying in school. Since the child is staying with the father it is assumed that he must be taking care of all the financial needs of the minor child. In the opinion of the court no economic abuse has been committed as the father is fulfilling his responsibility of maintaining his child. As far as the maintenance of the wife is concerned under the Act, maintenance can only be given if domestic violence is established. The aggrieved has vaguely made allegations and in absence of actual and proper allegations, it cannot be taken that domestic violence was committed upon her. The allegation for demand of dowry are also not continuous and it is only stated that respondents demanded dowry once for the business of the respondent no.1. One off incident of dowry demand, if any, or of any abuse cannot amount to domestic violence. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

  • In view of the above observations the present application is dismissed.

    Pronounced in open court (BHAVNA KALIA)
    on 26th of April, 2016 M.M./(Mahila Court)­01/South District
    New Delhi/26.04.2016

    *****************************disclaimer**********************************
    This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


    CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting


    Your Honour I do NOT know her, she is NOT my wife. How could I beat her or my brother mollest? What DV?

    * Woman files DV case, alleges cruelty, beating by husband and even molesting by bro in law at the instigation of husband! The accused man turns up at court and says he DOES NOT know her, she’s NOT his wife ! and his wife is dead long ago !! The woman is a stranger who is trying to take away his property
    * The brother in law (other accused) etc turn up and say they are not living with the accused male. the accused claim this is a method to take away their property !!
    * Finally the woman who complained DV, runs away during cross !!

    This is the fate of law’s empowering women !! anyone can file DV cases on anyone… matter will go to court and all accused will have to run to court and spend money to exonerate themselves !! However NO strictures are made against such misuse

    Now…Now… I’m NOT making up these things, these are from the Honourable court’s records

    allegations
    ********************
    “….Immediately, after her marriage, the respondent no.1 & 2 subjected her to mental as well as physical cruelty. She was tortured and harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. The respondent no.2 at the behest of respondent no.1 used to molest her in the presence of respondent no.1. She was thrown out of her matrimonial house and was compelled to stay first at Faridabad and thereafter at Delhi. On 15.06.2006 in the absence of respondent no.1, the respondent no.2 assaulted her and took her signature on some stamp papers. The respondent no.4 to 6 also joined the respondent no.2 and ousted her from matrimonial house after beating her mercilessly. ….”

    counter
    *********************
    * complainant is complete stranger to him
    * she has filed the present complaint at the instance of some unscrupulous person
    * has filed the present complaint with an ulterior motive to grab his property
    * further stated that he was married to one Smt. Angoori Devi, around 50 years ago
    * later on, his wife Angoori Devi and both his daughters expired.
    * He never remarried and has never seen the complainant. !!!

    during cross
    ********************
    * She was cross examined at length on 27.09.2011 and thereafter her further cross examination was deferred.
    * Thereafter, she failed to appear in the witness box for her further cross examination despite availing sufficient opportunities for the said purpose.
    * Consequently, CE was closed on 08.11.2012.

    *****************************disclaimer**********************************
    This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
    *******************************************************************************
    CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
    *******************************************************************************

    IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIYA MAHENDRA
    METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT: SOUTH DELHI
    SAKET COURT COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.

    CC No.418/1 of ( Date of filing:1.10­2009)

    IN THE MATTER OF:

    Mrs. Bhagwan Devi W/o Shri Ram Prakash Joshi,
    R/o House No. B­183B,
    Durga Vihar, Khanpur Devli,
    New Delhi. …….Aggrieved person

    Versus

    1. Ram Prakash Joshi,
    2. Om Prakash, Both sons of Sh. Roshan Lal,
    3. Ajay,
    4. Subhash,
    5. Anil,
    6. Chandra Kant All sons of Om Parkash,
    All resident of VPO Jawar (via Mursan),
    District Aligarh (UP). …..Respondents

    JUDGMENT

    1. The complainant has filed a petition u/s 12 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) interalia seeking reliefs under Section 18, 19, 20 & 22 of the Act.

    2. The brief facts as disclosed in the petition stated by the aggrieved person are that she was married to respondent no.1 in the month of June, 1980 at Village .

    Jawar, Distt. Aligarh (U.P.). No issue was born out of wedlock. The respondent no.2 is her brother in law and respondent no. 3 to 6 are sons of her brother in law. Immediately, after her marriage, the respondent no.1 & 2 subjected her to mental as well as physical cruelty. She was tortured and harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. The respondent no.2 at the behest of respondent no.1 used to molest her in the presence of respondent no.1. She was thrown out of her matrimonial house and was compelled to stay first at Faridabad and thereafter at Delhi. On 15.06.2006 in the absence of respondent no.1, the respondent no.2 assaulted her and took her signature on some stamp papers. The respondent no.4 to 6 also joined the respondent no.2 and ousted her from matrimonial house after beating her mercilessly. Having no other option, she reached her sister’s house at Faridabad (Haryana). She has not been allowed to enter her matrimonial house. Her entire Istridahn and Jwellery articles have not been returned by the respondents. Thereafter, the complainant has set out the income and financial status of the respondent no.1.

    3. The respondents filed the reply. In the reply, the respondent no.1 stated that the complainant is complete stranger to him and she has filed the present complaint at the instance of some unscrupulous person having enmity with him. The complainant has filed the present complaint with an ulterior motive to grab his property. He has further stated that he was married to one Smt. Angoori Devi, around 50 years ago and two children/daughters were born out of the wedlock. But later on, his wife Angoori Devi and both his daughters expired. He never remarried and has never seen the complainant. He never stayed or lived with the complainant in his entire life.

    4. The respondent no.2 to 6 have stated in their reply that the respondents are residing separately from the respondent no.1 from last 50 years. The complainant is not known to the respondent no.1 and the present complaint is mischievous and motivated.

    5. The complainant has filed the rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent controverting the stand taken by the respondents and reaffirming the averment mentioned in the petition.

    6. Thereafter, the complainant filed her evidence by way of affidavit which was duly tendered by her. In the said affidavit, she deposed on the same lines as in her petition. She was cross examined at length on 27.09.2011 and thereafter her further cross examination was deferred. Thereafter, she failed to appear in the witness box for her further cross examination despite availing sufficient opportunities for the said purpose. Consequently, CE was closed on 08.11.2012. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

    7. The respondents opted not to examine any witness in their defence on account of failure of the complainant to complete her evidence and to produce any other witness.

    8. It is vehemently argued by the counsel for the respondents that the falsity of the complainant is apparent from the fact that the complainant in a mid­way stopped appearing in the matter at the time of recording her evidence. The respondents have no relation with the complainant. The complainant has failed to prove her case and is not entitled to any relief.

    9. Arguments heard and record carefully perused.

    10.It is a well settled law that the evidence of any witness cannot be read unless it is tested on the anvil of cross examination. The complainant failed to appear in witness box after partial recording of her cross examination and her evidence, thus, remained inconclusive and incomplete. Therefore, the same cannot be read in support of her case. No other witness has been examined by the complainant to substantiate her case. The respondents have denied having any relationship with the complainant. Even, the factum of marriage between the complainant & respondent no.1 is in dispute. Her evidence also reveals that she has not filed any documentary evidence to prove her marriage with the respondent no.1. There are also inherent inconsistencies between her evidence and the cross examination. In her cross examination, she has admitted leaving her matrimonial house in 1980 itself after 5­6 months of marriage. She also stated that after leaving her matrimonial house she never visited her matrimonial house again. But in her evidence by way of affidavit, she has cited about the incident of 2006 when she was molested by the respondent no.1 and assaulted by the respondent no. 2 to 6 in the matrimonial house. The respondent was deprived of an opportunity to fully cross examine her on such vital points as she stopped appearing in the matter. Having considered the entire circumstances and material on record, I am of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove existence of domestic relationship between her and the respondent no.2 to 6 which is sine qua non for entitling her to any relief under the Act and consequently, is not entitled to any relief. The present petition is disposed off in the aforesaid terms.

    11. File be consigned to record room.

    Announced in open court On 21th January 2013.

    (PRIYA MAHENDRA)
    Metropolitan Magistrate:
    Mahila Court­ South Delhi,
    Saket Court Complex,
    New Delhi

    CC No:418/1 Smt. Bhagwan Devi vs. Ram Prakash & Ors.