If ppl cry about maintenance tell them how a magistrate ordered a neighbour to pay maintenance… 😳😳😳

Neighbour can’t pay for husband’s violence: HC
The times of India on mobile
Ahmedabad: When Bhavna Rajput filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against her husband Ramesh and her in-laws, a neighbour, Ramila Suthar, was also saddled with court proceedings. 
Interestingly, lower courts in Mehsana had ordered this neighbour to jointly bear the responsibility to pay for Bhavna’s maintenance and residential accommodation. Bhavna quit her matrimonial home in Kamli village of Unjha, following the incident, and went to live at her parental home in Khandosan village, Visnagar taluka.
Bhavna approached a magisterial court in 2013, which ordered the Rajputs to pay Rs2,000 every month towards her maintenance. The order was challenged by both parties in the sessions court, where the amount of maintenance was increased to Rs 4,000 per month besides Rs1,000 for residential accommodation. The court orders were binding upon Suthar, too, because she was also named as a respondent. Her name figured in the complaint, because Bhavna felt that she had a part behind the ill treatment Bhavna faced from her husband and in-laws.
When the issue came before the Gujarat high court on Monday, it immediately dropped the case against Suthar. 
The court also quashed payment orders on the ground that the complaint under the DV Act against a neighbour is “not only unwarranted, but unjustified and illegal”. The HC further said that if there is no relationship between such third person and the husband or spouse, then, any court order under DV laws against third person becomes nullity and they are required to be quashed.
The high court criticized lower courts for ignoring settled law that complaints under DV laws are not maintainable against a person who is not part of the family or in relationship with the spouse. “The trial court has failed to restrict such order only against husband and in-laws of the complainant. Unfortunately, similar mistake continued when the appellate court decided the appeals. Again, the appellate court has failed to differentiate the liability opponents No 1 to 5 (husband and in-laws) on one hand and opponent No 6 (Ramilaben) on the other.”
Neighbour can’t pay for husband’s violence: HC – The Times of india 

Dowry case – FIR quashed !!

#Dowry #498a #Quash
Dowry harassment—When the allegations are shown to be non-specific and not of the degree of seriousness contemplated in law, and when the applicants accused are shown to be living separately coupled with attendant facts and aspects noticed and noted, the alleg mations become too bald to be sustained in law—FIR quashed. : 2017 (2) LRC 465(Guj)

How Fake498a has become a court vs Muslim matter 

We don’t have to Watch TV Drama, When Real Drama is going in Indian Court

Madras HC :Babu Vs Naseema : 9/Jun/2017
+ Wife files 498A/420 combo against her husband & over half dozen family members including sisters

+Husband who may have been terrorized / horrified by such false case first tried to settle the case and told he would take back “498A Knife” If she withdraw the complaint

+Wife after making sure that husband is in her full control, she withdrew the case, police closed the complaint. 

+Followed by which Husband immediately gave “Tripple Talaq” 

+Thereby Wife filed cheating case (420/120B) against husband & family members 

+Further Wife challenged this “Tripple Talaaq” in Lower court to declare it as null and void. To which Lower court declared it as “null and void”

+Against such order, Husband challenged it in District Court, who had set aside trial court order and declared Tripple Talaq as Valid

+Magistrate issued summons & non bailable warrant to which husband didn’t accept it so Wife filed contempt or court (execution) petition at HC to force police to arrest him 

+Husband & family members filed AB at HC, but HC instead of giving AB directed them to surrender at Lower court. After which husband got bail

+Wife witch-hunt continued and so Magistrate again issued non bailable warrant against husband, Subsequently Police arrested him again.

+Aggrieved by such humiliation, Husband filed complaint against Magistrate & demanded 5 lakh compensation

+Meanwhile Husband approached to Jammath (Relgious Organization) and complaint against wife & her father. To which Jammath summoned the father and issued FATWA that “Wife’s Father should not have gone to High Court as “Kaafir Judges” are passing order against “Islamic & Quranic Law” –

+Husband & family members also approached to HC For Quashing entire complaint citing “Arneshkumar SC judgement” which went to deaf hear as far as husband is concerned but Honorable Hc indeed spared sisers and brother-in-law by quashing complaint against them

+And So this ugly false 498A fight would still continue…..


Woman attacks husband with sickle for checking her phone – caught with paramour by husband’s relatives !!

  • The Times of India on Mobile

    Woman attacks husband with sickle for checking her phone


AGRA: A woman allegedly attacked her husband with a sickle for allegedly checking her WhatsApp chat and call log. 
The incident took place in Bhilawali village of Kheragarh area on Saturday late night. 
The victim was rushed to S N medical college following the incident. 
Though Netrapal Singh, 21, was married to Nitu Singh, 19, the couple lived separately. It was alleged that the girl had an affair with another man in her village. 
Meanwhile on May 8, family members of the couple organized `gauna’ of the girl and the latter came to husband’s home when the incident took place. 
Speaking to TOI, Netrapal Singh said, “On Saturday I saw my wife chatting with another man on WhatsApp. When I asked her to show me the phone, she refused and told me to stay away. However, I forcefully took her phone when she attacked me with a sickle from behind and I fainted.” 
Netrapal’s father Rajeev Singh said, “Nitu was having affair with another caste man about which we were not aware before the marriage. After the gauna, her parents tried to reason with her but she refused to listen and continued to be touch with the other youth.” 
Following the incident, Nitu tried to flee the spot with her paramour who was waiting on a motor-cycle outside the village. However, her plot was foiled by an alert Netrapal’s relative who caught him and thrashed him. 
Meanwhile Nitu claimed that her husband sickle injury was self-inflicted. “He asked me to wear jeans and t-shirt. When I wore the dress as per his demand, he said that now I will teach you a lesson and attacked himself,” she claimed. 
An FIR is yet to be registered. Kheragarh Station officer Ajay Singh said, “We have detained the woman and are waiting for written complaint from victim.”

Cash demand to meet crunch not dowry: Court

married woman hands


Rebecca Samervel | TNN | Updated: Jun 12, 2017, 02.23 AM IST

MUMBAI: In a recent order, a magistrate court while acquitting a man and his family members of dowry and cruelty charges, has observed that a demand for money on account of financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry.

While dismissing the wife’s case due to lack of evidence, a Borivli magistrate court held, “Even if the accused had demanded an amount of Rs 5 lakh for purchase of household articles, then that does not ipso facto amount to unlawful demand under IPC Section 498 A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty).” The court also pointed out that the FIR was registered with the Dindoshi police two years after the alleged cruelty first started and the delay was not explained.

The court reasoned that the definition of dowry under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act meant any property or valuable security that should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly, at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage. “The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for ‘dowry’ as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants (accused) as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure,” the court said. The woman lodged a complaint with the cops on March 24, 2015, against her husband and in-laws. The woman said that she married the accused on May 5, 2011 and began to live with her in-laws. She said that she was treated well for a month after the marriage. However, despite giving cash and ornaments at the time of the wedding, the accused started demanding a washing machine, cooler, colour TV and Rs five lakh cash for purchasing a flat. The woman alleged that she told her parents about the harassment. Subsequently her parents handed over Rs 50,000 to her in-laws. She further alleged that on October 12, 2012, her husband and in-laws abused her for the dowry.

The woman said that after she returned to her parents home in March 2013, the husband assured her family about her well-being and took her back home. She said that the assault however continued and on June 24, 2013, she was thrown out of the house.

The defence denied the allegations and said that the delay in lodging the FIR “robbed the genuineness of the prosecution’s case.” The defence submitted that the woman should have approached the cops as soon as she was made to leave her husband’s home and the delay showed that the case was dubious.