Author Archive

Protest over proposal of “Ministry of Women and Child Development” to offer tax rebates to divorced women


29th Jan 2016



The Hon’ble President,

Rashtrapati Bhavan                                            

New Delhi – 110 004

Phone: 011 23015321

Subject: Protest over proposal of “Ministry of Women and Child Development” to offer tax rebates to divorced women.

About National Family Harmony Society®: “National Family Harmony Society® NFHS is a Non Governmental Organization (NGO) promoting the cause of “family harmony” and “gender equality”. It is registered under “The Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960” and is based in Bangalore. We have branches in more than 16 states and in abroad too. We have approximately 14500 members all over India. To know more about us please visit /

Dear Sir,

We saw recent article in a section of media that “Ministry of Women and Child Development” has sent a proposal to the Finance ministry to offer tax rebates to divorced women.

  1. If tax rebates are offered to “senior citizens” OR to those family who sacrificed their life for nation OR to those “physically disabled” then we can fully understand the intention of the government. But to offer tax rebates to divorced women is bizarre.
  2. On the contrary, we should do every-thing to discourage the phenomenon of Divorce in the society but the proposal seems to be encouraging Divorces.
  3. Just curious to know, why every proposal from Ministry of women and child development seems to be focusing on women and not for child development? And in the context of women also they seems to be focusing only of divorced women or young daughter-in-law. The older mother-in-law are not women?
  4. The very thought of proposal of tax benefit to women who have broken family is very funny. Law must be made in such a way that our culture and traditions of years are protected and safeguarded. Already due to the onslaught of western culture it is very rare to see Joint Families, which are replaced by nuclear families. If government will make such laws of giving benefit to divorced women then indirectly breaking of families will be accelerated.
  5. Already there are five laws in India by which women can claim alimony, property and monthly maintenance from Ex Husband. Is that not enough that this new proposal is being brought.
  6. In this modern era we should make laws which are “Gender Neutral”. There are thousands of farmers who end their life unable to pay loans, let’s give tax break to them instead of well earning women.
  7. If I recall correctly then women are exempted to pay tax till 3 lakh per annum that works out to be 25,000/- INR per month. Is it logical to give tax break to people earning 25K?
  8. A divorced women may be getting 10 lakh per annum and a poor man getting 3 lakh per annum. Who deserve tax break in this case?


We demand your intervention and direction to Finance Ministry not to accept any such proposal from “Ministry of Women and Child Development”. Kindly send this petition for the kind consideration of Union Finance Minister Shri Arun Jaitely.

P Suresh, President, 9880141531

National Family Harmony Society

Categories: President

Strong protest by “National Family Harmony Society®” on proposal of Sexual Offender’s Register

Today at 12:01 PM

23rd December 2015



The President Of India,
Rashtrapati Bhavan,

New Delhi, India – 110 004

Subject: Strong protest by “National Family Harmony Society® on proposal of Sexual Offender’s Register

About National Family Harmony Society®: “National Family Harmony Society® NFHS is a Non Governmental Organization (NGO) promoting the cause of “family harmony” and “gender equality”. It is registered under “The Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960” and is based in Bangalore. We have branches in more than 16 states and in abroad too. We have approximately 16000 members all over India. To know more about us please visit /

This is regarding the recent news reports appearing in a section of the media regarding the proposal from Ministry of Home affairs for registry of sex offenders, convicted of sexual offences ranging from voyeurism and stalking to rape and aggravated sexual assault. There is no doubt that we need to do everything to ensure safety of women but while doing so we seems to be guided by emotions and sentiments rather than by past experience.

I as president of National Family Harmony Society register my protest on the said proposal on below counts.

Firstly, before drafting such important legislation, no public consultation has been done which is the normal practice. Even in case of debate over the validity of National Judicial Accountable Commission – NJAC, Supreme Court has invited suggestions from common public and NGOs but before framing such important legislation, Government has not deemed it necessary to initiate public opinion.

Secondly, we know that the victim is severely traumatized in case of the crime. The cases received at our NGO with respect to 498A IPC and Domestic Violence Act shows that when these laws are misused and false cases are filed then the accused is so traumatized that they are driven on the verge of suicide. So we demand that those filing false cases and those who misuse the law should also be penalized and should be shamed so that only those who have been genuinely victimized use the law. All those who misuse the law should also be named in the separate register.

Thirdly, we strongly feel that just adding a person based on the conviction of the lower court may lead to severe damage to the accused in case he is acquitted by the higher courts. So a person’s name should not be added in the Sex Offender’s Register (SOR) unless he has exhausted all his legal and fundamental right till from Supreme Court.

Fourthly, if such persons who are named in the register want to reform then such register will come in the way of their integration in the society. No one will employ them because there name exist in the register. If such people fail to get employment due to this then they may go to any extent for their livelihood. This will prove to be counter-productive.

Fifthly, I feel, placing the man’s name on the registry, which is public, amounts to cruel and/or unusual punishment under the Constitution. Having his name on the searchable database will hurt his ability to find jobs, affect his family life and resulted in depression.

Sixthly, bringing new laws for the ever changing society is needed but what is also needed is proper checks and balances to prevent its misuse because our criminal system is based on a single innocent should not be punished. This is very important in the light of thousands of incidents recently reported which were found to be false. There have been incidents where a person was convicted on false complaint and were later acquitted by High Court or Supreme Court.

With profound respects, Jai Hind!!!


P Suresh, Mobile-9880141531

President, National Family Harmony Society /

Categories: Online grievance

Regarding inviting suggestion of collegium system from public


Nov 12 at 1:02 PM
Categories: Judges

Karnata HC: Husband RCR upheld and wife’s Divorce dismissed

September 7, 2015 1 comment

Categories: Judgement, Judgement

Karnataka HC: bonafide of wife doubtful, her transfer petition dismissed

Categories: Judgement

Court pulls up Rana Pratap Nagar police for violating SC guidelines on arrest

Nagpur: A judicial magistrate first class (JMFC) on August 23 rejected police custody remand of Ashwin Ingale underlining violation of supreme court guidelines by Rana Pratap Nagar police in a case registered under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) filed by wife for alleged torture at in-laws place. No notice was also served to Ingale before arrest violating the guidelines laid down by the apex court.

The violation, now on record, may lead to departmental action against the investigating officer apart from a proceedings of contempt of court to be instituted by high court having territorial jurisdiction as per the order issued by the apex court. Apart from Section 498-A of IPC, Ingale was booked along with mother, maternal aunt, sisters and a woman friend under additional charges under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 406 of IPC following a complaint from his wife Rasika on July 23 at Rana Pratap Nagar police station for alleged torture at in-law’s place along with charges of assault, threatening and criminal breach of trust. A woman friend of Ingale was also made an accused as they were thought to be having an illicit relationship.

Ingale was arrested on August 22 from a kin’s place by cops from Rana Pratap Nagar police station. Sources claimed Ingale’s arrest was made under pressure from a top politician. He was produced before a JMFC court by the cops who pleaded for two days of custody till August 25. Police wanted to secure remand custody to recover ‘streedhan’ of the complainant that they had recorded as reason in the document of arrest.

The court, finding the cops’ motive for arrest unjustified, observed that there was no reason ‘concrete and meritorious enough so as to justify the arrest made by the investigation officer in this case’. The court further lambasted the police stating ‘the reasons mentioned by investigation officer are mostly vague, general and cryptic in nature’. The magistrate also observed ‘the investigation officer has not recorded satisfactory reasons in this case before arresting the accused, as has been directed by Hon’ble supreme court in authority of Arnesh Kumar (supra).’ In a similar manner, court also observed that police did not make any ‘serious effort’ to serve the accused notice before arresting him.

Ingale was sent to magisterial custody till August 31. Counsel Sameer Sonwane, representing Ingale, said he would soon file a petition against the police for irregularities

Categories: Judiciary

High Court directs police to file perjury under CrPC 340 against wife for filing forged documents

Madras High Court
Karthick vs The Commissioner Of Police on 8 July, 2013
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated   08.07.2013
The Honourable Mr.Justice R.SUBBIAH
Criminal Original Petition No.14889 of 2013

Karthick							..Petitioner


1. The Commissioner of Police,

2. The Inspector of Police,
    E-4, Abiramapuram Police Station,
    Chennai-600 028.					..Respondents

	Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482  of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the 2nd respondent to register an FIR on the petitioner's complaint dated 04.02.2013, investigate the same and file a final report in accordance with law.

	For Petitioner      :  Mr.J.Saravanavel

	For Respondents :  Mr.C.Emalias, A.P.P.,


The present petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent to register a case on the petitioner’s complaint dated 04.02.2013, investigate the same and file a final report in accordance with law.

2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

Petitioner is the husband of one Narayanee @ Krithika. A case in HMOP No.383 of 2007 is pending between the petitioner and his wife before the Family Court at Chennai. In the said petition, apart from other miscellaneous petitions, I.A.Nos.486, 1649 and 2429 of 2010 and 2035 of 2011are pending; of which, I.A.Nos.486 and 1649 of 2010 have been filed by the wife on behalf of the minor child Keerthana to enhance the maintenance and to pay the educational expenses respectively. I.A.No.2429 of 2010 has been filed by the wife to strike off the defence and I.A.No.2035 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner to revise the order of maintenance. During the said enquiry in the said I.As., on 09.04.2004, 23 documents were filed by the wife Krithika through her power agent Viswanathan and the same were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-23. Among which, Ex.P-16 is a document, which is claimed by the said Krithika to be a document issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Delhi, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said document is a non-existent and a forged document. The petitioner was informed by the Ministry of External Affairs by a letter dated 10.06.2012 that it seems to be a fabricated/forged document. The petitioner made a complaint dated 04.02.2013 to the 1st respondent seeking to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings for forgery and perjury against Krithika and her power of attorney Viswanathan for having fabricated a document and producing the same before the Family Court as evidence, and the same was forwarded to the 2nd respondent for taking action; but the 2nd respondent did not take any action. Hence, the present petition has been filed to register a case on his complaint.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that in a case pending between him and his wife in HMOP No.383 of 2007 before the Family Court, Chennai, his wife marked a document purported to be issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India and the same was marked as Ex.P-16. It is the case of the petitioner that the said document is a forged one and, hence, the petitioner had sent an application on 16.04.2012 to the Ministry of External Affairs under RTI Act to verify, whether Ex.P-16 is a genuine document or or not? But the Regional Passport Officer sent a reply dated 10.06.2012 that the document seems to be a fabricated/forged document. That apart, the petitioner had received a reply dated 05.07.2012 from the Regional Passport Officer in response to the RTI Application dated 26.04.2012. The questions raised by the petitioner in his letter dated 26.04.2012 with regard to Ex.P-13 and the answers given by the Regional Passport Officer by his letter dated 10.06.2012 are as follows:


Questions raised by the petitioner Reply given by the Department

1. Whether this document is issued by you ?


2. If it is issued by you, on what basis you have issued (as my passport comes under regional passport office at Chennai) and also on what basis you have mentioned various contents of the document?

Not issued by this office.

3. Whether you have issued any other document(s) relating to me to Narayanee ?

No. No record is available

6. After getting these answers from the Regional Passport Officer, the petitioner has lodged a complaint with the 1st respondent police to initiate action against his wife and power agent for their involvement in producing a false document before the court, which is punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. The said complaint which was given to the 1st respondent was forwarded to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent, after recording the statement of power agent, has raised a doubt with regard to the jurisdiction of police investigating the offence. Therefore, they have not taken any further action in the matter. On 06.05.2013, the petitioner sent an application under the RTI Act to know about the status of the complaint. But the Inspector of Police, the 2nd respondent sent a reply dated 17.05.2013 to the queries raised by the petitioner. The questions raised by the petitioner and the answers given by the 2nd respondent are as follows:


Questions raised by the petitioner Reply given by the 2nd respondent

1. Whether FIR has been filed on the said accused – if it is so, in what sections and the present stage of the proceedings on the FIR.

No case registered against the petition dated 04.02.2013 preferred by the petitoner Thiru S.Karthick.

2. If the FIR is not filed the specific reason for the same?

The forgery documents said in the complaint was filed by the counter petitioner in the family court is lies within the compound of the High Court the Court only decide necessary action on this if it is deem fit.

3. Copies of the petition filed by me dated 04.02.2013 ?


4. Copy of the statement if received from the accused person ?


By giving the above recorded answers, the 2nd respondent expressed doubts about the jurisdiction of the police to investigate the offence since already the document was marked in the Court. Aggrieved over the same, the present petition has been filed.

7. It is the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and investigate the same since the document was created outside the court and thereafter, filed and marked in the court proceedings.

8. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that under section 195(1)(b((ii) Cr.P.C. will operate as a bar for the police to entertain the complaint since the document was already marked in the court proceedings. The only option available to the petitioner is to invoke section 340 of Cr.P.C.before the concerned court.

9. In view of the arguments advanced by both sides, the core question that has to be considered is, whether the police authorities can register a case for creating a forged document, which was allegedly marked in the course of evidence before the Court ?

10. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370 (Iqbal Singh Marwah and another .vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another) is giving a fitting answer for this issue. The factual aspects of the cited case would show that in a probate proceedings, the petition was contested by the respondents on the ground that the Will was forged. Hence, the respondents moved an application before the court concerned requesting the court to file a criminal complaint against the appellants. A reply to the said application was filed on 27.07.1994; but the said application was not disposed of. Hence, the respondents filed a criminal complaint before the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi for prosecution under sections 192,193, 463, 464, 465, 467, 469, 471, 499 and 500 IPC on the appellants and their mother on the ground that the Will produced by the appellants was a forged and fictitious document. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that the question whether the Will was a genuine document or a forged one, was an issue before the District Judge in the probate proceedings where the Will had been filed, Sections 195(1)(b)(i) and (ii) Cr.P.C. operate as a bar for taking cognizance of the offences under sections 192, 193, 463, 464, 471, 475 and 476 IPC. The complaint was accordingly dismissed by order dated 02.05.1998. Subsequently, the respondents in that case filed a criminal revision against the order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate before the Sessions Court, who relying upon the case of Sachida Nand Singh .vs. State of Bihar reported in (1998) 2 SCC 493, held that the bar contained in section 195(1)(b)(ii) would not apply where forgery of a document was committed even before the production of the said document in the Court. The revision petition was accordingly allowed and the matter was remanded to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate for proceeding in accordance with law. The appellants challenged the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge by filing a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. before the Delhi High Court, but the same was dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the appellants preferred S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been observed as under:

“25. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii), whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate where after commission of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in court, is capable of great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh after preparing a forged document or committing an act of forgery, a person may manage to get a proceeding instituted in any civil, criminal or revenue court, either by himself or through someone set up by him and simply file the document in the said proceeding. He would thus be protected from prosecution either at the instance of a private party or the police until the court, where the document has been filed, itself chooses to file a complaint. The litigation may be a prolonged one due to which the actual trial of such a person may be delayed indefinitely. Such an interpretation would be highly detrimental to the interest of the society at large.

26. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the courts are normally reluctant to direct filing of a criminal complaint and such a course is rarely adopted. It will not be fair and proper to give an interpretation which leads to a situation where a person alleged to have committed an offence of the type enumerated in clause (b)(ii) is either not placed for trial on account of non-filing of a complaint or if a complaint is filed, the same does not come to its logical end. Judging from such an angle will be in consonance with the principle that an unworkable or impracticable result should be avoided. In Statutory Interpretation by Francis Bennion (3rd Edn.), para 313, the principle has been stated in the following manner:

“The court seeks to avoid a construction of an enactment that produces an unworkable or impracticable result, since this is unlikely to haver been intended by Parliament. Sometimes, however, there are overriding reasons for applying such a construction, for example, where it appears that Parliament really intended it or the literal meaning is too strong”.


33. In view of the discussion made above,we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court i.e. during the time when the document was in cutodia legis.”

11. Therefore, a reading of the said paragraphs would clearly show that section 195(1)(b)(ii)Cr.P.C.will not operate as a bar to entertain the complaint by the police where forgery of the document was committed even before the said document was produced in the Court. In the instant case, it is the specific allegation of the complainant that the document was fabricated outside the Court and marked during the course of proceedings. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the respondents are having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

In view of the above reasons, the second respondent is directed to consider the complaint and if the allegations contained in the complaint discloses the commission of any cognizable offence, the second respondent is directed to register the case, investigate the same and proceed further in accordance with law. Criminal Original petition is disposed of accordingly.

Index: Yes.							08.07.2013
Internet: Yes.
1. The Commissioner of Police,

2. The Inspector of Police,
    E-4, Abiramapuram Police Station,
    Chennai-600 028.

3. The Public Prosecutor,
    High Court, Madras.

																			R.SUBBIAH, J.,
Categories: Judgement