RTI – Law Ministry Karnataka Family Court Information

RTI MATTER – URGENT

Dt.06/08/2010/Bangalore

To,

PA/Secretary to Law Minister of Karnataka,

Office of the Honorable Law Minister of Karnataka,

Ministry for Law & Parliamentry Affairs
#327, Vidhan soudha, Bangalore-560001

Sub: Request for information under Right to information act–2005

Enclosed a Postal Order no:                   of Rs. 10/- in favour of the Accounts officer, Government of Karnataka

Dear Sir,

I am P Suresh, a resident of Bangalore City. Provide me the following information’s regarding Family Court, Bangalore:

A)   Is it true that your ministry is receiving petitions from large number of citizens and various NGOs to start Morning/Evening/Holiday shifts in Bangalore Family Court due to huge pendency and slow disposal of cases?

B)   What is the status/stage of the above proposal?

C)   If answer to above question is YES then please tell me when Morning/Evening/Holiday shifts will be started in Bangalore Family Court.

D)   Please provide me the pending Child Custody cases in Bangalore, Family Court as on today.

E)    Please provide me the pending MC (Divorce) cases in Bangalore, Family Court as on today.

F)    Please provide me the pending C.Mis. (CrPC 125) cases in Bangalore, Family Court as on today.

Thanking you sir,

Yours truly,

P SURESH,

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

Request for information under RTI Re Misuse of section 498A of IPC – DGP

                                                                                                                   Dt.19/07/2010                                                                                                                         Bangalore

To,

Public Relation Officer (CB/ NGO)
No.1, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore

Sub: Request for information under Right to information act–2005

Enclosed a Postal Order no:                of Rs. 10/- in favour of the Accounts officer, DGP Office

Dear Sir,

I am P Suresh, a resident of Bangalore City. I want certain information regarding Advisory issued by “Union Ministry of Home Affairs” to “Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka” dated 20-October-2009 vide no 3/5/2008-Judl Cell regarding “Misuse of section 498A of IPC”. The said Advisory is attached here as Annexure along-with this RTI application.

I quote the paragraph 12 of the said Advisory below:

“All the State Governments/UT Administrations are requested to take effective measures in the light of the directions/orders issued by the courts and advisories issued by the Government of India from time to time to put to rest the allegations of misuse of section 498A of IPC”

In this regard please provide me the following information’s:

A)   What action/measure has been taken by “Karnataka Police” for the above stated Advisory by “Union Ministry of Home Affairs”?

B)   Whether DGP, Karnataka has issued any Circular/Advisory to the “Karnataka Police” in the light of above said Advisory? If yes please a copy of such Circular/Advisory.

Thanking you sir,

Yours truly,

P SURESH,

XXXXXXXX

Request for information under RTI Re “Misuse of section 498A of IPC”

                                                                                                                                      Dt.19/07/2010

Bangalore

To,

Shri S.V. Ranganath & PIO,
Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka
Room No.320, III Floor, Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore-560 001

Sub: Request for information under Right to information act–2005

Enclosed a Postal Order no:                of Rs. 10/- in favour of the Accounts officer, Government of Karnataka

Dear Sir,

I am P Suresh, a resident of Bangalore City. I want certain information regarding Advisory issued by “Union Ministry of Home Affairs” to “Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka” dated 20-October-2009 vide no 3/5/2008-Judl Cell regarding “Misuse of section 498A of IPC”. The said Advisory is attached here as Annexure along-with this RTI application.

I quote the paragraph 12 of the said Advisory below:

“All the State Governments/UT Administrations are requested to take effective measures in the light of the directions/orders issued by the courts and advisories issued by the Government of India from time to time to put to rest the allegations of misuse of section 498A of IPC”

In this regard please provide me the following information’s:

A)    What action/measure has been taken by “The Government of Karnataka” for the above stated Advisory by “Union Ministry of Home Affairs”?

B)    Whether “The Government of Karnataka” has issued any Circular/Advisory to the “Karnataka Police” in the light of above said Advisory? If yes please a copy of such Circular/Advisory.

Thanking you sir,

Yours truly,

P SURESH,

XXXXXXX

Sub: A petition under Right to information act–2005 for information regarding “Abuse & Misuse of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005”. Enclosed a postal order no: of Rs. 10-00 in favour of the accounts officer, Ministry of Women & Child Development, New Delhi.

RTI MATTER – URGENT
Dt.05/09/2009 Bangalore
To:
Mr. Manas Ranjan Mohanty,
Director & PIO,
Ministry of Women & Child Development,
Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110001

Sub: A petition under Right to information act–2005 for information regarding “Abuse & Misuse of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005”. Enclosed a postal order no: of Rs. 10-00 in favour of the accounts officer, Ministry of Women & Child Development, New Delhi.

Dear Sir,

Through this petition I would like to bring the rampant misuse of the above said law by wife’s in urban India. The said act is totally one sided and is highly misused by ladies in urban India. I would like to bring to your kind attention and notice the issues faced by the Indian Husbands, in view of the women favored laws so that you can conduct independent research and study of the issue and make suitable suggestions to the Government.

The main issues of the “Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005” are listed below.

1. Heavily biased in favor of women: This law is made in such a way that husband has no scope to give a complaint to the magistrate regarding the domestic violence on him by his wife. The law is made by assuming that only women can be victims of the domestic violence.

2. Made only for daughter-in-law: Another major issue is the legal terms are used in such a way that only daughter-in-laws are using this Act. We have reached 21st century and in this era the daughter-in-law are educated, sophisticated, have financial and social freedom. Whereas the mother-in-laws are from older generation and mostly uneducated. A mother-in-law who is 60+ years old suffering from various illnesses cannot harass a 21st century daughter-in-law. But this law is made by assuming that only daughter-in-laws are suffering.

3. Complain is same as 498a and CrPC 125: The most unfortunate thing is the petition filed in front of a magistrate is normally same as the 498a and CrPC complaint. The overburdened judiciary is virtually dealing with 3 or more cases in different court the same charges and same relief.

4. Breaking the families: This law is virtually breaking the Indian families. In the name of “Women Empowerment” the Government of India has introduced a biased law which has accelerated the pace of breaking of Indian families. Daughter-in-laws are misusing this law to blackmailing their husbands to throw his old parent out of the house.

5. Cruelty on Husbands: Husbands are left with no choice but to face the same charges in different court and keep defending them in front of different forum to prove their innocence.

6. Right to residence: The act has provision of “Right to residence” for a daughter-in-law and also a “protection order”. In this case the husband has to leave the house. In Indian tradition normally in the old age parent stays with their son. In recent trends, it is observed that after getting the “Right to residence” the daughter-in-laws are throwing the husband and his parent out of the house. The old aged parents are left on the streets just on the basis of a false complaint.

7. Maintenance to daughter-in-law: This is another unreasonable relief granted to a daughter-in-law in this Act. Whereas there are already provisions in the law like CrPC 125 for maintenance, there was no need of this relief in this law. If a woman is in real need of maintenance then there is a provision of interim maintenance in the CrPC 125.

8. Sole testimony of women is enough: Section 32 (2) says that “under the sole testimony of the aggrieved person, the court may conclude that an offence has been committed by the accused.
By treating the victim’s testimony, as gospel truth without any need for corroboration it has virtually empowered all women to punish men at their will. This is very dangerous for innocent men and society in large. As it is the rape, adultery and dowry laws are already skewed in favor of women. And now this Act would leave the men with absolutely no remedy against the erring women who would lodge false complaint. All she has to do is go to the court/police, register the false case and the husband will be right behind bars in a moment.
9. Wordings are unfortunate: (Ch.II, S.3) of the Domestic violence Act includes actual abuse or threat of abuse — physical, verbal, emotional or economic. While physical and economical abuse can be proved it is almost impossible to prove verbal & emotional abuse. In this scenario, the inclusion of verbal and emotional abuse could result in women registering false cases as they won’t have to prove anything
10. Tool to harass men: There are many such loopholes in the Domestic Violence Act. The Domestic Violence Act, under the garb of protecting harassed women, has now actually become a powerful tool in the hands of women to harass men and strip them off all their rights. The Act will actually worsen the domestic problems leading to breakdown in marriages as women will be now tempted / encouraged to go to courts/police after trivial fights happening in the heat of the moment. The Act not only gives sweeping powers to females but also takes away all the rights of men. While it imposes a lot of responsibility on men, it gives lots of rights to women without fixing any responsibility on them.
11. Tool for revenge: While domestic laws are enacted to save the poor female, there have been many cases where many cunning, unscrupulous women have misused these laws to their advantage. For example the misuse of Section 498a meant to protect women from cruelty and dowry harassment. There have been cases where women were incited by the family members to take revenge to settle family disputes by registering false cases. Such gangs of extortionists to extract money from innocent men and to wreck vengeance will now grossly misuse the Domestic Violence Act that is made to protect women. By making a one sided Act, wives / live-in partners will now be tempted to use it against their husbands / partners.
12. Gender partisanship is wholly out of place in cases of domestic violence. Tweaking the way the law is interpreted in such a way as to diminish responsibility for one sex or the other could have mortal consequences for poor men. For the courts and women organizations, it is a matter of obvious mistruth that women cannot commit domestic crimes or that women cannot register false cases. Why shouldn’t men also have protection against domestic violence? Why can’t the same factors, attributed to men for harassing their wives can also be attributed to women? Suicide rate of men in India goes up by almost 50% after marriage due to emotional abuse. Why isn’t there any provision in the Act that will punish a woman who misuses the law?
Sir, In view of the above I want certain information from you.
1. Is your Ministry aware of the above issue?
2. Has the Ministry of Women & Child Development done any study or research on this issue?
3. Is there any proposal in Ministry of Women & Child Development to study this issue and make suitable recommendation to the Government of India?

Thanking you sir,
Yours truly,

P SURESH
XXXXXXX

Mobile – 9880141531 / E mail – psuresh29@yahoo.com
http://www.family-harmony.org

Sub: A petition under Right to information act–2005 for information regarding “Abuse & Misuse of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005”. Enclosed a postal order no: of Rs. 10-00 in favour of the accounts officer, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi.

RTI MATTER – URGENT
Dt.05/09/2009 Bangalore
To:
Udaya Kumara,
CPIO and Deputy Legislative Counsel
Room No. 431-A,
4th Floor, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110001

Sub: A petition under Right to information act–2005 for information regarding “Abuse & Misuse of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005”. Enclosed a postal order no: of Rs. 10-00 in favour of the accounts officer, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi.

Dear Sir,

Through this petition I would like to bring the rampant misuse of the above said law by wife’s in urban India. The said act is totally one sided and is highly misused by ladies in urban India. I would like to bring to your kind attention and notice the issues faced by the Indian Husbands, in view of the women favored laws so that you can conduct independent research and study of the issue and make suitable suggestions to the Government.

The main issues of the “Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005” are listed below.

1. Heavily biased in favor of women: This law is made in such a way that husband has no scope to give a complaint to the magistrate regarding the domestic violence on him by his wife. The law is made by assuming that only women can be victims of the domestic violence.

2. Made only for daughter-in-law: Another major issue is the legal terms are used in such a way that only daughter-in-laws are using this Act. We have reached 21st century and in this era the daughter-in-law are educated, sophisticated, have financial and social freedom. Whereas the mother-in-laws are from older generation and mostly uneducated. A mother-in-law who is 60+ years old suffering from various illnesses cannot harass a 21st century daughter-in-law. But this law is made by assuming that only daughter-in-laws are suffering.

3. Complain is same as 498a and CrPC 125: The most unfortunate thing is the petition filed in front of a magistrate is normally same as the 498a and CrPC complaint. The overburdened judiciary is virtually dealing with 3 or more cases in different court the same charges and same relief.

4. Breaking the families: This law is virtually breaking the Indian families. In the name of “Women Empowerment” the Government of India has introduced a biased law which has accelerated the pace of breaking of Indian families. Daughter-in-laws are misusing this law to blackmailing their husbands to throw his old parent out of the house.

5. Cruelty on Husbands: Husbands are left with no choice but to face the same charges in different court and keep defending them in front of different forum to prove their innocence.

6. Right to residence: The act has provision of “Right to residence” for a daughter-in-law and also a “protection order”. In this case the husband has to leave the house. In Indian tradition normally in the old age parent stays with their son. In recent trends, it is observed that after getting the “Right to residence” the daughter-in-laws are throwing the husband and his parent out of the house. The old aged parents are left on the streets just on the basis of a false complaint.

7. Maintenance to daughter-in-law: This is another unreasonable relief granted to a daughter-in-law in this Act. Whereas there are already provisions in the law like CrPC 125 for maintenance, there was no need of this relief in this law. If a woman is in real need of maintenance then there is a provision of interim maintenance in the CrPC 125.

8. Sole testimony of women is enough: Section 32 (2) says that “under the sole testimony of the aggrieved person, the court may conclude that an offence has been committed by the accused.
By treating the victim’s testimony, as gospel truth without any need for corroboration it has virtually empowered all women to punish men at their will. This is very dangerous for innocent men and society in large. As it is the rape, adultery and dowry laws are already skewed in favor of women. And now this Act would leave the men with absolutely no remedy against the erring women who would lodge false complaint. All she has to do is go to the court/police, register the false case and the husband will be right behind bars in a moment.
9. Wordings are unfortunate: (Ch.II, S.3) of the Domestic violence Act includes actual abuse or threat of abuse — physical, verbal, emotional or economic. While physical and economical abuse can be proved it is almost impossible to prove verbal & emotional abuse. In this scenario, the inclusion of verbal and emotional abuse could result in women registering false cases as they won’t have to prove anything
10. Tool to harass men: There are many such loopholes in the Domestic Violence Act. The Domestic Violence Act, under the garb of protecting harassed women, has now actually become a powerful tool in the hands of women to harass men and strip them off all their rights. The Act will actually worsen the domestic problems leading to breakdown in marriages as women will be now tempted / encouraged to go to courts/police after trivial fights happening in the heat of the moment. The Act not only gives sweeping powers to females but also takes away all the rights of men. While it imposes a lot of responsibility on men, it gives lots of rights to women without fixing any responsibility on them.
11. Tool for revenge: While domestic laws are enacted to save the poor female, there have been many cases where many cunning, unscrupulous women have misused these laws to their advantage. For example the misuse of Section 498a meant to protect women from cruelty and dowry harassment. There have been cases where women were incited by the family members to take revenge to settle family disputes by registering false cases. Such gangs of extortionists to extract money from innocent men and to wreck vengeance will now grossly misuse the Domestic Violence Act that is made to protect women. By making a one sided Act, wives / live-in partners will now be tempted to use it against their husbands / partners.
12. Punishment for misuse: Gender partisanship is wholly out of place in cases of domestic violence. Tweaking the way the law is interpreted in such a way as to diminish responsibility for one sex or the other could have mortal consequences for poor men. For the courts and women organizations, it is a matter of obvious mistruth that women cannot commit domestic crimes or that women cannot register false cases. Why shouldn’t men also have protection against domestic violence? Why can’t the same factors, attributed to men for harassing their wives can also be attributed to women? Suicide rate of men in India goes up by almost 50% after marriage due to emotional abuse. Why isn’t there any provision in the Act that will punish a woman who misuses the law?
Sir, In view of the above I want certain information from you.
1. Is your department aware of the above issue?
2. Has the Legislative Department done any study or research on this issue?
3. Is there any proposal in Legislative Department to study this issue and make suitable recommendation to the Government of India?

Thanking you sir,
Yours truly,

P SURESH
XXXXXXXXXX
Mobile – 9880141531 / E mail – psuresh29@yahoo.com
http://www.family-harmony.org

Sub: A petition under Right to information act–2005 for information regarding “Abuse & Misuse of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005”. Enclosed a postal order no: of Rs. 10-00 in favour of the accounts officer, Legal affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi.

RTI MATTER – URGENT
Dt.05/09/2009 Bangalore
To:
M.K Sharma,
CPIO and Additional Legal Adviser
Ministry of Law & Justice, Deptt. of Legal Affairs
Room No. 417-A,
A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110001

Sub: A petition under Right to information act–2005 for information regarding “Abuse & Misuse of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005”. Enclosed a postal order no: of Rs. 10-00 in favour of the accounts officer, Legal affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi.

Dear Sir,

Through this petition I would like to bring the rampant misuse of the above said law by wife’s in urban India. The said act is totally one sided and is highly misused by ladies in urban India. I would like to bring to your kind attention and notice the issues faced by the Indian Husbands, in view of the women favored laws so that you can conduct independent research and study of the issue and make suitable suggestions to the Government.

The main issues of the “Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005” are listed below.

1. Heavily biased in favor of women: This law is made in such a way that husband has no scope to give a complaint to the magistrate regarding the domestic violence on him by his wife. The law is made by assuming that only women can be victims of the domestic violence.

2. Made only for daughter-in-law: Another major issue is the legal terms are used in such a way that only daughter-in-laws are using this Act. We have reached 21st century and in this era the daughter-in-law are educated, sophisticated, have financial and social freedom. Whereas the mother-in-laws are from older generation and mostly uneducated. A mother-in-law who is 60+ years old suffering from various illnesses cannot harass a 21st century daughter-in-law. But this law is made by assuming that only daughter-in-laws are suffering.

3. Complain is same as 498a and CrPC 125: The most unfortunate thing is the petition filed in front of a magistrate is normally same as the 498a and CrPC complaint. The overburdened judiciary is virtually dealing with 3 or more cases in different court the same charges and same relief.

4. Breaking the families: This law is virtually breaking the Indian families. In the name of “Women Empowerment” the Government of India has introduced a biased law which has accelerated the pace of breaking of Indian families. Daughter-in-laws are misusing this law to blackmailing their husbands to throw his old parent out of the house.

5. Cruelty on Husbands: Husbands are left with no choice but to face the same charges in different court and keep defending them in front of different forum to prove their innocence.

6. Right to residence: The act has provision of “Right to residence” for a daughter-in-law and also a “protection order”. In this case the husband has to leave the house. In Indian tradition normally in the old age parent stays with their son. In recent trends, it is observed that after getting the “Right to residence” the daughter-in-laws are throwing the husband and his parent out of the house. The old aged parents are left on the streets just on the basis of a false complaint.

7. Maintenance to daughter-in-law: This is another unreasonable relief granted to a daughter-in-law in this Act. Whereas there are already provisions in the law like CrPC 125 for maintenance, there was no need of this relief in this law. If a woman is in real need of maintenance then there is a provision of interim maintenance in the CrPC 125.

8. Sole testimony of women is enough: Section 32 (2) says that “under the sole testimony of the aggrieved person, the court may conclude that an offence has been committed by the accused.
By treating the victim’s testimony, as gospel truth without any need for corroboration it has virtually empowered all women to punish men at their will. This is very dangerous for innocent men and society in large. As it is the rape, adultery and dowry laws are already skewed in favor of women. And now this Act would leave the men with absolutely no remedy against the erring women who would lodge false complaint. All she has to do is go to the court/police, register the false case and the husband will be right behind bars in a moment.
9. Wordings are unfortunate: (Ch.II, S.3) of the Domestic violence Act includes actual abuse or threat of abuse — physical, verbal, emotional or economic. While physical and economical abuse can be proved it is almost impossible to prove verbal & emotional abuse. In this scenario, the inclusion of verbal and emotional abuse could result in women registering false cases as they won’t have to prove anything
10. Tool to harass men: There are many such loopholes in the Domestic Violence Act. The Domestic Violence Act, under the garb of protecting harassed women, has now actually become a powerful tool in the hands of women to harass men and strip them off all their rights. The Act will actually worsen the domestic problems leading to breakdown in marriages as women will be now tempted / encouraged to go to courts/police after trivial fights happening in the heat of the moment. The Act not only gives sweeping powers to females but also takes away all the rights of men. While it imposes a lot of responsibility on men, it gives lots of rights to women without fixing any responsibility on them.
11. Tool for revenge: While domestic laws are enacted to save the poor female, there have been many cases where many cunning, unscrupulous women have misused these laws to their advantage. For example the misuse of Section 498a meant to protect women from cruelty and dowry harassment. There have been cases where women were incited by the family members to take revenge to settle family disputes by registering false cases. Such gangs of extortionists to extract money from innocent men and to wreck vengeance will now grossly misuse the Domestic Violence Act that is made to protect women. By making a one sided Act, wives / live-in partners will now be tempted to use it against their husbands / partners.
12. Punishment for misuse: Gender partisanship is wholly out of place in cases of domestic violence. Tweaking the way the law is interpreted in such a way as to diminish responsibility for one sex or the other could have mortal consequences for poor men. For the courts and women organizations, it is a matter of obvious mistruth that women cannot commit domestic crimes or that women cannot register false cases. Why shouldn’t men also have protection against domestic violence? Why can’t the same factors, attributed to men for harassing their wives can also be attributed to women? Suicide rate of men in India goes up by almost 50% after marriage due to emotional abuse. Why isn’t there any provision in the Act that will punish a woman who misuses the law?
Sir, In view of the above I want certain information from you.
1. Is your department aware of the above issue?
2. Has the Legal affairs Department done any study or research on this issue?
3. Is there any proposal in Legal affairs Department to study this issue and make suitable recommendation to the Government of India?

Thanking you sir,
Yours truly,

P SURESH
XXXXXXXX

Mobile – 9880141531 / E mail – psuresh29@yahoo.com
http://www.family-harmony.org

Sub: A petition under Right to information act–2005 for information regarding “Abuse & Misuse of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005”. Enclosed a postal order no: of Rs. 10-00 in favour of the accounts officer, Law Commission of India, New Delhi.

RTI MATTER – URGENT
Dt.05/09/2009 Bangalore
To:
Smt Pawan Sharma
Additional Govt. Counsel & CPIO,
Law Commission of India
Room No. 11, 2nd Floor,
Indian Law Institute Building, Bhagwan Das Road,
New Delhi-110001
Tel No: (Office) 23381737
(Residence) 26149847

Sub: A petition under Right to information act–2005 for information regarding “Abuse & Misuse of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005”. Enclosed a postal order no: of Rs. 10-00 in favour of the accounts officer, Law Commission of India, New Delhi.

Dear Sir,

Through this petition I would like to bring the rampant misuse of the above said law by wife’s in urban India. The said act is totally one sided and is highly misused by ladies in urban India. I would like to bring to your kind attention and notice the issues faced by the Indian Husbands, in view of the women favored laws so that you can conduct independent research and study of the issue and make suitable suggestions to the Government.

The main issues of the “Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005” are listed below.

1. Heavily biased in favor of women: This law is made in such a way that husband has no scope to give a complaint to the magistrate regarding the domestic violence on him by his wife. The law is made by assuming that only women can be victims of the domestic violence.

2. Made only for daughter-in-law: Another major issue is the legal terms are used in such a way that only daughter-in-laws are using this Act. We have reached 21st century and in this era the daughter-in-law are educated, sophisticated, have financial and social freedom. Whereas the mother-in-laws are from older generation and mostly uneducated. A mother-in-law who is 60+ years old suffering from various illnesses cannot harass a 21st century daughter-in-law. But this law is made by assuming that only daughter-in-laws are suffering.

3. Complain is same as 498a and CrPC 125: The most unfortunate thing is the petition filed in front of a magistrate is normally same as the 498a and CrPC complaint. The overburdened judiciary is virtually dealing with 3 or more cases in different court the same charges and same relief.

4. Breaking the families: This law is virtually breaking the Indian families. In the name of “Women Empowerment” the Government of India has introduced a biased law which has accelerated the pace of breaking of Indian families. Daughter-in-laws are misusing this law to blackmailing their husbands to throw his old parent out of the house.

5. Cruelty on Husbands: Husbands are left with no choice but to face the same charges in different court and keep defending them in front of different forum to prove their innocence.

6. Right to residence: The act has provision of “Right to residence” for a daughter-in-law and also a “protection order”. In this case the husband has to leave the house. In Indian tradition normally in the old age parent stays with their son. In recent trends, it is observed that after getting the “Right to residence” the daughter-in-laws are throwing the husband and his parent out of the house. The old aged parents are left on the streets just on the basis of a false complaint.

7. Maintenance to daughter-in-law: This is another unreasonable relief granted to a daughter-in-law in this Act. Whereas there are already provisions in the law like CrPC 125 for maintenance, there was no need of this relief in this law. If a woman is in real need of maintenance then there is a provision of interim maintenance in the CrPC 125.

8. Sole testimony of women is enough: Section 32 (2) says that “under the sole testimony of the aggrieved person, the court may conclude that an offence has been committed by the accused.
By treating the victim’s testimony, as gospel truth without any need for corroboration it has virtually empowered all women to punish men at their will. This is very dangerous for innocent men and society in large. As it is the rape, adultery and dowry laws are already skewed in favor of women. And now this Act would leave the men with absolutely no remedy against the erring women who would lodge false complaint. All she has to do is go to the court/police, register the false case and the husband will be right behind bars in a moment.
9. Wordings are unfortunate: (Ch.II, S.3) of the Domestic violence Act includes actual abuse or threat of abuse — physical, verbal, emotional or economic. While physical and economical abuse can be proved it is almost impossible to prove verbal & emotional abuse. In this scenario, the inclusion of verbal and emotional abuse could result in women registering false cases as they won’t have to prove anything
10. Tool to harass men: There are many such loopholes in the Domestic Violence Act. The Domestic Violence Act, under the garb of protecting harassed women, has now actually become a powerful tool in the hands of women to harass men and strip them off all their rights. The Act will actually worsen the domestic problems leading to breakdown in marriages as women will be now tempted / encouraged to go to courts/police after trivial fights happening in the heat of the moment. The Act not only gives sweeping powers to females but also takes away all the rights of men. While it imposes a lot of responsibility on men, it gives lots of rights to women without fixing any responsibility on them.
11. Tool for revenge: While domestic laws are enacted to save the poor female, there have been many cases where many cunning, unscrupulous women have misused these laws to their advantage. For example the misuse of Section 498a meant to protect women from cruelty and dowry harassment. There have been cases where women were incited by the family members to take revenge to settle family disputes by registering false cases. Such gangs of extortionists to extract money from innocent men and to wreck vengeance will now grossly misuse the Domestic Violence Act that is made to protect women. By making a one sided Act, wives / live-in partners will now be tempted to use it against their husbands / partners.
12. Punishment for misuse: Gender partisanship is wholly out of place in cases of domestic violence. Tweaking the way the law is interpreted in such a way as to diminish responsibility for one sex or the other could have mortal consequences for poor men. For the courts and women organizations, it is a matter of obvious mistruth that women cannot commit domestic crimes or that women cannot register false cases. Why shouldn’t men also have protection against domestic violence? Why can’t the same factors, attributed to men for harassing their wives can also be attributed to women? Suicide rate of men in India goes up by almost 50% after marriage due to emotional abuse. Why isn’t there any provision in the Act that will punish a woman who misuses the law?
Sir, In view of the above I want certain information from you.
1. Is Law commission aware of the above issue?
2. Has the Law commission done any study or research on this issue?
3. Is there any proposal in Law Commission to study this issue and make suitable recommendation to the Government of India?
Thanking you sir,
Yours truly,

P SURESH
xxxxxxxx
Mobile – 9880141531 / E mail – psuresh29@yahoo.com
http://www.family-harmony.org

Sub: A petition for information under “Right to information act–2005” regarding “Multiple provision of maintenance for wife in family dispute”

Dt.28/08/2009 Bangalore
To,

Udaya Kumara,
CPIO and Deputy Legislative Counsel
Room No. 431-A,
4th Floor, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110001

Sub: A petition for information under “Right to information act–2005” regarding “Multiple provision of maintenance for wife in family dispute”

Enclosed a postal order no: of each Rs. 10-00 in favour of the accounts officer, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi.

Dear Sir,

ABOUT MYSELF: I am P SURESH, a resident of Bangalore, Karnataka state.

ISSUE: This is a petition under “Right to information act–2005” regarding “Multiple provision of maintenance for wife in family dispute” I want to bring to your kind attention and notice a recent trend in the courts dealing with the family disputes between husband and wife. In case of dispute between husband and wife reaching courts the wife is seeking maintenance from the husband under various provisions of the law. In case the couple is Hindus then it is seen that the wife is seeking maintenance under atleast three provisions.

1. Domestic violence act:

I have reproduced the section 20(3) of the Domestic violence act below.

20(3) the Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

2. Code of Criminal Procedure 1973:

I have reproduced the section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 below.
125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.
(1) If any person leaving sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-
(a) His wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) His legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
(c) His legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
(d) His father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,
A Magistrate of’ the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct.

3. The Hindu Marriage Act , 1955:

I have reproduced the section 25 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 below.

25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.- (1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall, while the applicant remains unmarried, pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant and the conduct of the parties, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent.

It is seen as a trend in the courts dealing with the family disputes between husband and wife that in order to harass the husband, wifes are filing for maintenance under all the available sections, Acts and forums with identical petitions with identical relief. In turn the husbands are running around all the courts with defending all the cases wherein identical accusations are made. This amounts to “Double jeopardy” for husbands. Even in various acts and also in constitution of India it barred to put a person on trial for same offence twice.

1. Section 71, second Para, Indian Penal Code.
“Section 71. Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences
Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offences, unless it be so expressly provided.
[Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, or
Where several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence,
The offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment then the Court which tries him could award for any one such offences.]”

2. Section 26, General Clauses Act, 1897.
“26. Provisions as to offences punishable under two or more enactments.- Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.”

3. Article 20, Constitution of India.
20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences.—(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

4. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down;
“300. Persons once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence—
(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof”.

SUGGESTIONS:

So it is clear that even though there is a bar on “Double jeopardy” in the constitution of India and in various other acts but still courts are allowing and accepting multiple maintenance petitions. Only way to solve this issue is by simplifying the maintenance laws in India i.e. by allowing maintenance just under one act and by abolishing all other maintenance under all other acts.

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION:

Dear Sir, please provide me the following information.

1. Is your department aware about the issues faced by lakhs of husbands facing maintenance cases under different sections of the Acts.

2. Is your department aware about loss of precious times of the various courts in deciding the same issue under various acts?

3. If the answers to the above questions are yes, then what steps are being taken by your department/ministry to address this issues.

Thanking you sir,
Yours truly,

P SURESH
xxxxxxxx
Mobile – 9880141531
E mail – psuresh29@yahoo.com
http://www.family-harmony.org

Sub: A petition for information under “Right to information act–2005” regarding “Multiple provision of maintenance for wife in family dispute”

Dt.28/08/2009 Bangalore
To,

M.K Sharma,
CPIO and Additional Legal Adviser
Ministry of Law & Justice, Deptt. of Legal Affairs
Room No. 417-A,
A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110001

Sub: A petition for information under “Right to information act–2005” regarding “Multiple provision of maintenance for wife in family dispute”

Enclosed a postal order no: of each Rs. 10-00 in favour of the accounts officer, Legal affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi.

Dear Sir,

ABOUT MYSELF: I am P SURESH, a resident of Bangalore, Karnataka state.

ISSUE: This is a petition under “Right to information act–2005” regarding “Multiple provision of maintenance for wife in family dispute” I want to bring to your kind attention and notice a recent trend in the courts dealing with the family disputes between husband and wife. In case of dispute between husband and wife reaching courts the wife is seeking maintenance from the husband under various provisions of the law. In case the couple is Hindus then it is seen that the wife is seeking maintenance under atleast three provisions.

1. Domestic violence act:

I have reproduced the section 20(3) of the Domestic violence act below.

20(3) the Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

2. Code of Criminal Procedure 1973:

I have reproduced the section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 below.
125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.
(1) If any person leaving sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-
(a) His wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) His legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
(c) His legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
(d) His father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,
A Magistrate of’ the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct.

3. The Hindu Marriage Act , 1955:

I have reproduced the section 25 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 below.

25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.- (1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall, while the applicant remains unmarried, pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant and the conduct of the parties, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent.

It is seen as a trend in the courts dealing with the family disputes between husband and wife that in order to harass the husband, wifes are filing for maintenance under all the available sections, Acts and forums with identical petitions with identical relief. In turn the husbands are running around all the courts with defending all the cases wherein identical accusations are made. This amounts to “Double jeopardy” for husbands. Even in various acts and also in constitution of India it barred to put a person on trial for same offence twice.

1. Section 71, second Para, Indian Penal Code.
“Section 71. Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences
Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offences, unless it be so expressly provided.
[Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, or
Where several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence,
The offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment then the Court which tries him could award for any one such offences.]”

2. Section 26, General Clauses Act, 1897.
“26. Provisions as to offences punishable under two or more enactments.- Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.”

3. Article 20, Constitution of India.
20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences.—(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

4. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down;
“300. Persons once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence—
(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof”.

SUGGESTIONS:

So it is clear that even though there is a bar on “Double jeopardy” in the constitution of India and in various other acts but still courts are allowing and accepting multiple maintenance petitions. Only way to solve this issue is by simplifying the maintenance laws in India i.e. by allowing maintenance just under one act and by abolishing all other maintenance under all other acts.

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION:

Dear Sir, please provide me the following information.

1. Is your department aware about the issues faced by lakhs of husbands facing maintenance cases under different sections of the Acts.

2. Is your department aware about loss of precious times of the various courts in deciding the same issue under various acts?

3. If the answers to the above questions are yes, then what steps are being taken by your department/ministry to address this issues.

Thanking you sir,
Yours truly,

P SURESH
xxxxxxxx
Mobile – 9880141531
E mail – psuresh29@yahoo.com
http://www.family-harmony.org

Sub: Request under Right to information act–2005 for information regarding “Maintenance Cases under Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005”

RTI MATTER – URGENT
Dt.05/09/2009 Bangalore
To:
H.M.Mulagund,
Deputy Registrar,
State Public Information Officer,
High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore
Office: 22869542 Ext. 342
Residence: 22954265

Sub: Request under Right to information act–2005 for information regarding “Maintenance Cases under Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005”

Enclosed a postal order no: of Rs. 10-00 in favour of the accounts officer, High court of Karnataka, Bangalore.

Dear Sir,

Please provide me the following information in the same tabular format from the Magistrate’s Court in the Bangalore Urban Jurisdiction where a case under “Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005” can be filed.

Year Name of Court Case no. Whether interim maintenance was awarded? If yes then how much? How much final maintenance order was passed? How much was husband’s salary? Whether wife working? Wife’s qualification? Wife’s salary

2006 e.g. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (Traffic Court-IV)

2007

2008

2009

Thanking you sir,
Yours truly,

P SURESH
xxxxxxxx
Mobile – 9880141531 / E mail – psuresh29@yahoo.com
http://www.family-harmony.org

Sub: Request under Right to information act–2005 for information regarding “CrPC 125, Divorce & Child custody cases”

RTI MATTER – URGENT
Dt.09/09/2009
Bangalore
To:
Shri. S Jagadish,
Sheristredar & Public Information Officer,
Office of the Principal Judge,
Family Court, 3rd Floor, Nyayadegula,
H Siddaiah Road,
Bangalore, Karnataka

Sub: Request under Right to information act–2005 for information regarding “CrPC 125, Divorce & Child custody cases”

Enclosed a postal order no: of Rs. 10-00 in favour of the accounts officer, Office of the Principal Judge, Bangalore.

Dear Sir,

Please provide me the following information in the same tabular format.

Year Total cases filed under CrPC 125 at Bangalore Family Court Total cases disposed under CrPC 125 at Bangalore Family Court Total divorce cases filed at Bangalore Family court Total divorce cases disposed at Bangalore Family court Total child custody cases filed at Bangalore Family court Total child custody cases disposed at Bangalore Family court
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009

Thanking you sir,
Yours truly,

P SURESH
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mobile – 9880141531 / E mail – psuresh29@yahoo.com
http://www.family-harmony.org

Sub: Request under Right to information act–2005 for information regarding “Maintenance Cases in Family court under CrPC 125”

RTI MATTER – URGENT
Dt.05/09/2009 Bangalore
To:
Shri. S Jagadish,
Sheristredar & Public Relation Officer,
Office of the Principal Judge,
Family Court, 3rd Floor, Nyayadegula,
H Siddaiah Road,
Bangalore, Karnataka

Sub: Request under Right to information act–2005 for information regarding “Maintenance Cases in Family court under CrPC 125”

Enclosed a postal order no: of Rs. 10-00 in favour of the accounts officer, Office of the Principal Judge, Bangalore.

Dear Sir,

Please provide me the following information in the same tabular format.

Year Case no. Whether interim maintenance was awarded? If yes then how much? How much final maintenance order was passed? How much was husband’s salary? Whether wife working? Wife’s qualification? Wife’s salary

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Thanking you sir,
Yours truly,

P SURESH
xxxxxxxx
Mobile – 9880141531 / E mail – psuresh29@yahoo.com
http://www.family-harmony.org

A petition for information under “Right to information act–2005” regarding “Chief-Justice remark against misuse of Domestic violence Act 2005”

Dt.31/08/2009 Bangalore
To,

H.M.Mulagund,
Deputy Registrar,
State Public Information Officer,
High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore
Office: 22869542 Ext. 342
Residence: 22954265

Sub: A petition for information under “Right to information act–2005” regarding “Chief-Justice remark against misuse of Domestic violence Act 2005”

Enclosed a postal order no: of each Rs. 10-00 in favour of the accounts officer, High court of Karnataka, Bangalore.

Dear Sir,

ABOUT MYSELF: I am P SURESH, a resident of Bangalore, Karnataka state.

ISSUE: This is a petition under “Right to information act–2005” regarding “Chief-Justice remark against misuse of Domestic violence Act 2005”. It has been noticed that girls are increasingly misusing the Domestic violence Act 2005 to settle score with their husbands and in-laws in case of family disputes. Since the “Domestic violence Act 2005” has been made in such a way that Husband can only defend the false charges. Even though it has been noticed that husbands are equally target of domestic violence. The remark of the Honorable Chief Justice of Karnataka made at a workshop is a landmark observation. In this regard I want certain information.

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION:

1. Has the observation of the “Honorable Chief Justice of Karnataka” been circulated to all the Honorable sitting Judges in Karnataka who are handling the cases under “Domestic violence Act – 2005”

2. In view of the landmark observation of the “Honorable Chief Justice of Karnataka” what steps are being taken by the “High court of Karnataka” to reduce the misuse of the “Domestic violence Act – 2005”?

Thanking you sir,
Yours truly,

P SURESH,

xxxxxxxx
Mobile – 9880141531
E mail – psuresh29@yahoo.com

Enc: A copy of the remark by the “Honorable Chief Justice of Karnataka” as appeared on Times of India

http://www.family-harmony.org

A petition for information under “Right to information act–2005” regarding “Multiple provision of maintenance for wife in family dispute”

Dt.28/08/2009 Bangalore
To,

H.M.Mulagund,
Deputy Registrar,
State Public Information Officer,
High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore
Office: 22869542 Ext. 342
Residence: 22954265

Sub: A petition for information under “Right to information act–2005” regarding “Multiple provision of maintenance for wife in family dispute”

Enclosed a postal order no: of each Rs. 10-00 in favour of the accounts officer, High court of Karnataka, Bangalore.

Dear Sir,

ABOUT MYSELF: I am P SURESH, a resident of Bangalore, Karnataka state.

ISSUE: This is a petition under “Right to information act–2005” regarding “Multiple provision of maintenance for wife in family dispute” I want to bring to your kind attention and notice a recent trend in the courts dealing with the family disputes between husband and wife. In case of dispute between husband and wife reaching courts the wife is seeking maintenance from the husband under various provisions of the law. In case the couple is Hindus then it is seen that the wife is seeking maintenance under atleast three provisions.

1. Domestic violence act:

I have reproduced the section 20(3) of the Domestic violence act below.

20(3) the Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

2. Code of Criminal Procedure 1973:

I have reproduced the section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 below.
125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.
(1) If any person leaving sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-
(a) His wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) His legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
(c) His legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
(d) His father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,
A Magistrate of’ the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct.

3. The Hindu Marriage Act , 1955:

I have reproduced the section 25 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 below.

25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.- (1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall, while the applicant remains unmarried, pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant and the conduct of the parties, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent.

It is seen as a trend in the courts dealing with the family disputes between husband and wife that in order to harass the husband, wifes are filing for maintenance under all the available sections, Acts and forums with identical petitions with identical relief. In turn the husbands are running around all the courts with defending all the cases wherein identical accusations are made. This amounts to “Double jeopardy” for husbands. Even in various acts and also in constitution of India it barred to put a person on trial for same offence twice.

1. Section 71, second Para, Indian Penal Code.
“Section 71. Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences
Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offences, unless it be so expressly provided.
[Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, or
Where several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence,
The offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment then the Court which tries him could award for any one such offences.]”

2. Section 26, General Clauses Act, 1897.
“26. Provisions as to offences punishable under two or more enactments.- Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.”

3. Article 20, Constitution of India.
20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences.—(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

4. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down;
“300. Persons once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence—
(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof”.

SUGGESTIONS:

So it is clear that even though there is a bar on “Double jeopardy” in the constitution of India and in various other acts but still courts are allowing and accepting multiple maintenance petitions. Only way to solve this issue is by simplifying the maintenance laws in India i.e. by allowing maintenance just under one act and by abolishing all other maintenance under all other acts.

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION:

Dear Sir, please provide me the following information.

1. Is “High Court of Karnataka” aware about the issues faced by lakhs of husbands facing maintenance cases under different sections of the Acts.

2. Is “High Court of Karnataka” aware about loss of precious times of the various courts in deciding the same issue under various acts?

3. If the answers to the above questions are yes, then what steps are being taken by “High Court of Karnataka” to address these issues?

4. Can “Chief Justice of Karnataka” take a “Suo Moto” case in this regard in the interest of suffering public to issue suitable direction to the “Union of India” to amend the laws?

Thanking you sir,
Yours truly,

P SURESH,

xxxxxxxx
Mobile – 9880141531 / E mail – psuresh29@yahoo.com

http://www.family-harmony.org

A petition for information under “Right to information act–2005” regarding “Multiple provision of maintenance for wife in family dispute”

Dt.28/08/2009 Bangalore
To,

Shri Raj Pal
Additional Registrar & Central Public Information Officer
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.
Tel. No.23384041
Fax No.23383792

Sub: A petition for information under “Right to information act–2005” regarding “Multiple provision of maintenance for wife in family dispute”

Enclosed a postal order no: of each Rs. 10-00 in favour of the accounts officer, Supreme court of India, New Delhi.

Dear Sir,

ABOUT MYSELF: I am P SURESH, a resident of Bangalore, Karnataka state.

ISSUE: This is a petition under “Right to information act–2005” regarding “Multiple provision of maintenance for wife in family dispute” I want to bring to your kind attention and notice a recent trend in the courts dealing with the family disputes between husband and wife. In case of dispute between husband and wife reaching courts the wife is seeking maintenance from the husband under various provisions of the law. In case the couple is Hindus then it is seen that the wife is seeking maintenance under atleast three provisions.

1. Domestic violence act:

I have reproduced the section 20(3) of the Domestic violence act below.

20(3) the Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

2. Code of Criminal Procedure 1973:

I have reproduced the section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 below.
125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.
(1) If any person leaving sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-
(a) His wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) His legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
(c) His legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
(d) His father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,
A Magistrate of’ the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct.

3. The Hindu Marriage Act , 1955:

I have reproduced the section 25 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 below.

25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.- (1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall, while the applicant remains unmarried, pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant and the conduct of the parties, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent.

It is seen as a trend in the courts dealing with the family disputes between husband and wife that in order to harass the husband, wifes are filing for maintenance under all the available sections, Acts and forums with identical petitions with identical relief. In turn the husbands are running around all the courts with defending all the cases wherein identical accusations are made. This amounts to “Double jeopardy” for husbands. Even in various acts and also in constitution of India it barred to put a person on trial for same offence twice.

1. Section 71, second Para, Indian Penal Code.
“Section 71. Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences
Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offences, unless it be so expressly provided.
[Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, or
Where several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence,
The offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment then the Court which tries him could award for any one such offences.]”

2. Section 26, General Clauses Act, 1897.
“26. Provisions as to offences punishable under two or more enactments.- Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.”

3. Article 20, Constitution of India.
20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences.—(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

4. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down;
“300. Persons once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence—
(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof”.

SUGGESTIONS:

So it is clear that even though there is a bar on “Double jeopardy” in the constitution of India and in various other acts but still courts are allowing and accepting multiple maintenance petitions. Only way to solve this issue is by simplifying the maintenance laws in India i.e. by allowing maintenance just under one act and by abolishing all other maintenance under all other acts.

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION:

Dear Sir, please provide me the following information.

1. Is “Supreme court of India” aware about the issues faced by lakhs of husbands facing maintenance cases under different sections of the Acts.

2. Is ““Supreme court of India” aware about loss of precious times of the various courts in deciding the same issue under various acts?

3. If the answers to the above questions are yes, then what steps are being taken by ““Supreme court of India”” to address these issues?

4. Can “Chief Justice of India” take a “Suo Moto” case in this regard in the interest of suffering public to issue suitable direction to the “Union of India” to amend the laws?

Thanking you sir,
Yours truly,

P SURESH,

xxxxxxxx
Mobile – 9880141531 / E mail – psuresh29@yahoo.com

http://www.family-harmony.org

A petition for information under “Right to information act–2005” regarding “Honorable Chief Justice of India” remark regarding “Misuse of the 498(a)”

Dt.31/08/2009 Bangalore
To,

Shri Raj Pal
Additional Registrar & Central Public Information Officer
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.
Tel. No.23384041
Fax No.23383792

Sub: A petition for information under “Right to information act–2005” regarding “Honorable Chief Justice of India” remark regarding “Misuse of the 498(a)”

Enclosed a postal order no: of each Rs. 10-00 in favour of the accounts officer, Supreme court of India, New Delhi.

Dear Sir,

ABOUT MYSELF: I am P SURESH, a resident of Bangalore, Karnataka state.

ISSUE: This is a petition under “Right to information act–2005” regarding the observation of the Honorable Chief Justice of India regarding the rampant misuse of the section 498(a). It has been noticed that girls are increasingly misusing the 498(a) to settle score with their husbands and in-laws in case of family disputes. Since the 498(a) is non bailable hence the all the people named in the FIR are instantly arrested by the police without any investigation. The remark of the Honorable Chief Justice of India made at a conference is a landmark observation. In this regard I want certain information.

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION:

Dear Sir, please provide me the following information.

1. Has the observation of the “Honorable Chief Justice of India” been circulated to all the Honorable sitting Judges who are handling the cases under “498(a)”

2. In view of the landmark observation of the “Honorable Chief Justice of India” what steps are being taken by the “Supreme court of India” to reduce the misuse of the “498a(a)”?

Thanking you sir,
Yours truly,

P SURESH,

xxxxxxxx
Mobile – 9880141531
E mail – psuresh29@yahoo.com

Enc: A copy of the remark by the “Honorable Chief Justice of India” as appeared on The Telegraph

http://www.family-harmony.org

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!