Category Archives: NRI

HC quashes dowry case against NRI brothers. Indian courts can’t hear matter if demand made abroad

Screenshot - 2_17_2018 , 11_13_47 AM

HC quashes dowry case against NRI brothers

Says Indian courts can’t hear the matter if demand for money is made abroad

Source : THE TRIBUNE, PUNJAB

Posted at: Feb 15, 2018, 1:23 AM; last updated: Feb 15, 2018, 1:23 AM (IST)

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, February 14

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that dowry demand raised abroad can’t be tried by courts in India. The HC quashed a dowry harassment case against two NRI brothers, accused of instigating their brother to such a demand.

“In the instant case, even if there was instigation at the behest of the petitioners for demand of Rs 5 lakh from the complainant, the demand was raised outside the territorial jurisdiction of Bathinda. Therefore, the courts are not competent to entertain the matter,” Justice Jaishree Thakur ruled.

Justice Thakur said specific role, injury, dowry demand, entrustment of dowry articles, “istridhan” or its misappropriation was not attributed to the petitioners. “It is apparently clear that the FIR has been registered against the petitioners only to harass the family,” the judge added.

The ruling came on a bunch of two petitions filed against Punjab and other respondents by Rajesh Kumar Gupta and Rakesh Kumar Gupta through counsel RS Bajaj. They were seeking the quashing of an FIR dated July 14, 2012, registered at Kahnwan police station in Pathankot district under Sections 406, 498-A, 420 and 34 of the IPC. Directions were also sought for quashing all consequential proceedings. Bajaj told Justice Thakur’s Bench that the petitioners’ brother and the complainant got married in 2006. Subsequently, the parties resided together in England. No complaint was made during that time before the authorities there or during their annual visits to India. A perusal of the FIR also did not reveal that the petitioners attended the marriage ceremony; or that there was any entrustment of dowry articles.

After hearing Bajaj and going through the documents, Justice Thakur referred to the reply filed in the matter before observing that the petitioners were permanent residents of England and residing separately at a distance of 175 km from the complainant’s matrimonial home. “Even if, for the sake of argument, it is taken into account that the petitioners instigated their brother to raise a demand of Rs 5 lakh from the complainant, it was a demand that was raised in England, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the courts in Bathinda. Therefore, the offence, if any, had been committed in England,” Justice Thakur added.

Referring to a similar case before the Supreme Court, she said the parties were residing in Canada, but the FIR was registered in Jalandhar, alleging demand of dowry and misappropriation of dowry articles. “The proceedings were quashed, holding that the Jalandhar court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the matter,” she concluded.

 

 

10 % NRI marriages troubled. Is it easier 2 MILK NRI threatening them of arrest etc ?

More NRI brides file dowry cases

DECCAN CHRONICLE. | DEEPAK PINTO
Published Jun 19, 2016, 1:07 am IST
Updated Jun 19, 2016, 7:46 am IST
10 per cent of NRI marriages troubled, cops attribute this to lack of background checks, cultural problems.
The education of the girl, caste and employment status also affect the amount of dowry demanded.

 The education of the girl, caste and employment status also affect the amount of dowry demanded.

 

Hyderabad: More cases of dowry harassment involving NRI brides are being reported of late. Police attributes this to the lack of proper background check of grooms, and brides being unable to adjust with the cultural differences after after marriage.

According to the police, out of around 100 NRI marriages every year, at least 10 per cent are troubled. The CID issues look-out circulars against persons who are accused in dowry harassment cases, which enables them to nab the accused when he lands at any international airport.

As many as 27 LOCs were issued in Telangana till April this year. Officials from the Crime Investigation Department, who investigate NRI-related dowry harassment cases, say that in addition to demanding extra dowry, there are many others reasons leading to harassment. In most of the cases, lack of adjustment to the local situation and lack of family support act as triggers.

Parents of Indian brides accept NRI grooms without background checks on his education, job and other issues.  “Many such grooms after marriage are found to be either jobless or have exaggerated facts to the bride’s family. A few people who are already married abroad marry a second time and take the girl to do household chores,” said and official from the CID.

For many parents, their son being abroad is an additional reason to demand more dowry. The education of the girl, caste and employment status also affect the amount of dowry demanded.

“Parents look at dowry as an option to recover  the money they have spent on their son’s education abroad. In the recent past, harassment cases have involved grooms who are highly educated,” he said.

Police says parents should not believe blindly in what the man or his family says, and should do a background check before accepting the proposal. Girls marrying NRI men also should be aware of the cultural and social differences between India and overseas, they said.

He said NRI men also face harassment when their wives fail to adapt to foreign lands and threaten them with police cases.

 

 

SOURCE

http://www.deccanchronicle.com /nation/crime/190616/ more-nri-brides-file-dowry-cases-in- hyderabad.html

 

Husband to be represented by POA & counsel at Family court! MP HC

MP HC permits NRI Husband to be represented by POA & counsel (his own father!!) at Family court! This case can be used by ALL NRI / outstation husbands. Also please check this blog timeline for similar cases from various HC
***************

In this case, A Husband who is abroad is unable to attend court dates. He is set to ex party. Husband appeals to HC who permits husband to appear thru his father and counsel at the family court ! classic case that can be used by NRI and outstation husbands

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jemini Bhargava vs Smt. Pranjali Parashar on 5 July, 2012

Criminal Revision No.1141/12

05.07.2012.

Shri Ajay Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner.

Heard finally.

This revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.has been filed in order to set aside Order dated 1.6.12 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal by which request of petitioner to appear through power of attorney holder and permission to represent by a counsel has been rejected.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on the given date, i.e., 26.6.12, petitioner who is working in a foreign country (Australia), could not appear so Court has proceeded ex parte and now case has been fixed for ex-parte evidence on 17.7.12.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that application has been rejected mainly on the ground that reconciliation is must and without personal appearance no reconciliation can be made. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no hope of compromise and his party is not willing to do any compromise. He submits that respondent/wife is not entitled for any maintenance allowance as she was earning. Reliance has been placed on a decision of Apex Court in Mrs.Komal S.Padukone vs. Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore City and another AIR 1999 Karnataka 427.

The relevant para 14 is quoted below :-

“In this case the wife is staying in United States. She left India
before the notice was served. She has stated that it will be
difficult for her to come over to India before July,1999. She,
therefore, sought permission to engage a counsel and exemption from
personal appearance till July,99. There is nothing unreasonable about
either of the requests. As a result of rejection of her applications,
she has been placed ex parte. If the order is allowed to stand, it
would cause irreparable injury to her.”

Looking to the circumstances of the case together with the ratio of the above decision, Order dated 1.6.12 is hereby quashed and learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal is directed to permit petitioner Jemini Bhargava to be represented by power of attorney holder who is his father and by his counsel. Petitioner shall be permitted to take part through his counsel and power of attorney holder. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

With the above directions, this petition stands disposed of.

(M.A.Siddiqui) Judge.

Jk.

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

 

Gulf based NRI’s wife returns 2 India files 498A 506 cocktail Guj HC quashes case against ALL inlaws

A gulf Based NRI’s wife who goes abroad immediately after marriage & stays with him for three and half years at Saudi Arabia, returns to India and promptly files 498a on husband and four in laws !! Guj HC appreciates the facts, understand that she hardly stayed with in laws and has only vague allegations, quashes the case against ALL In-laws.

* Marriage on 24th May 2011 at Rajkot.
* Soon after marriage wife & husband left for Saudi Arabia & stayed at Saudi Arabia for almost three & a half years.
* On 4th October 2014, they came back to India. On December 2014, wife left matrimonial home & returned 2 parental home. On 3rd July 2015, she lodged FIR.
* In this quash, applicant #1 is father-in-law, application #2 mother-in- law, applicant #3 married sister-in-law & applicant #4 husband of sister-in-law !!
* She has hardly stayed for two months with the applicants, that too, only the applicant nos.1 and 2 after her return from Saudi Arabia.
* There is hardly any case of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. Other allegations are quite vague and general.

So…..
* FIR bearing No.I-CR No.38 of 2015 lodged with the Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad, is hereby ordered to be quashed

*****************************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 HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION

(FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 13276 of 2015

**********************************************************
KAMLESHBHAI SHANTILAL VAKHARIYA & 3….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)
**********************************************************
Appearance:
MR. JAY M THAKKAR, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 4
MR AR KADRI, ADVOCATE for MR PRATIK Y JASANI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JK SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
**********************************************************

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 24/11/2015

ORAL ORDER

RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Shah, the learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.1. Mr.Kadri, the learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.2.

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the FIR bearing I-CR No.38 of 2015 lodged with the Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

It appears from the materials on record that the applicant no.1 is the father-in-law, the application no.2 is the mother-in- law, the applicant no.3 is the married sister-in-law and the applicant no.4 is the husband of the sister-in-law. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

The marriage of the first informant was solemnized with the original accused no.1 on 24th May 2011 at Rajkot. It appears that soon after the marriage, the first informant along with her husband left for Saudi Arabia. The first informant stayed at Saudi Arabia for a period of almost three and a half years. On 4th October 2014, they came back to India. In December 2014, she left her matrimonial home and returned to her parental home. On 3rd July 2015, she lodged the FIR.

In view of the above dates, it is very difficult for me to accept the submissions canvassed on behalf of the first informant that there was harassment at the end of the applicants. She has hardly stayed for two months with the applicants, that too, only the applicant nos.1 and 2 after her return from Saudi Arabia. She may be having some differences with the husband, but the husband is not before me. There is hardly any case of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The other allegations are quite vague and general.

In view of the above, this application is allowed. The First Information Report bearing No.I-CR No.38 of 2015 lodged with the Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad, is hereby ordered to be quashed so far as the applicants herein are concerned. The case shall proceed further in accordance with law so far as the husband is concerned. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)