Wednesday, October 25, 2006


Letter to supreme court


The Regstrar General,
Supreme Court of India,
Tilak Marg,New Delhi
(With a request to place this letter beforethe honourable CJI and
other judges)

Sub. :Restoration of peace and tranquility in Indian families

Respected Sir,
This to submit that there is continuous exponential growth of
suicide in India in which family problem is the biggest cause. Also
there is continuous exponential growth of matrimonial litigations in
India both civil and criminal. These are objective facts and are
matters of government record and need no proof.
2. Consequently.these two phenomena prove that there is severe
social disorganisation in India.
3. It is,therefore,needless to mention that all the three pillars of
society- legislation, judiciary and executive are not effective to
maintain peace and tranquility in the Indian families. Hence, this
appeal is preferred to invite attention of all concerned for the
restorarion of peace and tranquility in Indian families.

4.I am making this appeal after a lots of observations of the
Courts' decisions and directions to the government, articles in
various news papers and magazines and my own observations on
deterorating condition of Indian families.
It's very well known to all the above that now a days apart from
conventional civil matters criminal proceedings are created out of
blue.To keep her husband in-laws under her toes a married woman not
only threatens them to send to jail but virtually she does so. If a
has some illicit relations and is caught red handed, she would
the husband to either keep quite or be ready to undergo the criminal
proceedings. If the girl's parents interfere more than reasonable in
the family matters and the boy objects, they threaten to book him
criminal proceedings. This is thanks to softness towards women
despite their nefarious activities that are against their family
obligations.. Occaisionally honorable
courts have also experienced this and have given some decisions
these facts. But unfortunately, these court instructions are not
sufficient enough for the need of the hour. So as a concerned
citizen of India I submit below my concerns for the consideration of
legislation, judiciary and executive to restore peace and
tranquility in the indian families.

5.The DV Act is more than 20 years old today and certainly needs
because of it's nature. Women and their families today are using
this act to satisfy their ego. By the amendment anti-family
propaganda must be censored.

6. Article 21 of the constitution guaratees dignified life. But as
it is clear by now that hardly less than 2% cases under section 498A
IPC end in conviction. Therefore, lakhs of innocent people are
rendered to indignity because of this law. Unfortunately this
provision is applied even before marriage and after divorce also
which makes it sure that WIFE means Worry Invited For Ever.
Therefore, a pre-registration invesigation be made mandatory on
family matters.

7· What caused the legislation not to review the Acts passed
more than 20 years ago?

If the situations have not changed even and even deteriorated
after 20+ years
then it should be clear that the laws aren't good enough and
aren't working to make the things better.

· What caused the parliament to believe that husbands and in-laws are
worse than the terrorists? The parliament removed TADA and POTA
stating that
it can be misused and no innocent should be punished, but when it
to families their opinion changed. Why? Neither the husbands nor
families are hardcore criminals. Thus it should be dealt accordingly,
whereas it is done just opposite at the moment.

What caused the parliament to believe that a woman
can't lie, especially if she is a married and alleging against her
husband and in-laws?

· Even though the Supreme Court verdicts the 498a as a Legal
Terrorism in India, it wasn't sufficient enough for the Parliament
to awake. Why?

· What caused the Parliament to have biased laws? Why is
there assumptions made on behalf of gender, caste or religion? All
laws superseded the fundamental rights of Indian Citizens. Also,
laws superseded the basics of law in India is that no innocent should
suffer. It is of lot of concern for the legislation,judiciary and

· What caused the govt. to ignore the Mallimath Committee
report? If they were already of some pre mind set, then why did the
waste public money?

· Constitution says that nothing stops the parliament to
make provisions for the betterment of backward classes and weaker sex
(females). Reservation in our country is a provision to uplift the
backward classes and the weaker sex. But 498a is not a provision,
it's a criminal law and constitution does not allow that. There has
to be a difference between a criminal law and a provision. A
can't land a family in jail, male, female children and old for no
reason, just because a girl says
that she was harassed. It's a serious matter to be looked into by
the all three pillars of the society. I would request the honorable
court to put a stay
on this law and get this law removed or changed so it justifies with
the Indian citizens irrespective of gender or caste.

· Why haven't government looked into the matters, even
after knowing that the Women Cells aren't of any use and are just
working for extorting money from innocent people?

· The statistics of 498a cases tells that it's been
heavily misused, then why haven't parliament added a provision to
the law to punish the false complainants?

· If parliament would collect the statistics of all the 498a
cases, they would come to know that :

o Only 2% were actually convicted

o Most of the cases settled after the lady took huge amount of
money from their husbands

o Majority of cases were found false by the courts

Hence our matters of concerns are as below:

· Why parliament is not looking into this severe matter
which is causing a lot of damage to our society?

· If the case has to be settled after taking money, then why
the filing of case. Please mind, it's a criminal offence and no
crime can be settled by money, or can it be? Then, why the cases were
settled after taking money? It should be banned, that this case
can't be settled by taking money and if the girl later on tries to
take back the case, she should be punished for lodging a false

· Why haven't parliament created a law to stop any kind
of gift exchange to avoid the consequences later on? What has caused
parliament to believe that if claimed, all the gifts given to the
are always Dowry? And if so, then it should be banned. Then why is
a provision of "Stri Dhan"?

· Why is there no right to the men for the same?

· Divorce to be settled only after the 498a proceedings are
over. Also, because of it's nature proceedings should be fast and it
should be done at the earliest.

· Why are these feminists given such freedom to interfere in
Indian judicial system? And why is parliament working under their
pressure? Their work is to make the government aware of the facts
and to
work at ground levels to make the things better for the women but not
pressurize the parliament to make any biased laws and spreading wrong
message in public to use the laws to settle their personal scores.

· It is of grave concern that a
girl goes to police and says that her husband and his family are
harassing her for dowry, and just the words are more than enough to
the husband and his family to jail. Now its husband and his family
who have
to prove their innocence. Please suggest the ways how to prove their
innocence? If the husband would record the conversation or record the
daily activities, would it be justified? Isn't this something which
can cause a disbelief in husband and his family's mind? Or should
husband send a private detective after the girl? Is that fine? If you
also agree with me that everyone should have freedom, then how a man
prove his innocence? If it can't be proven and a husband has be
punished then why this court proceedings and all this humiliation?
send them jail. It's a family matter and should be kept within the
family. If anyone has an issue, they can always apart. Why is govt.
much interested to spy in our family matters? If govt. argues that
it's a family matter and is difficult to prove and that's why
this is non-bailable then we would counter this by only one statement
that it's vice-versa. If girl can't prove this then it's
same with the boy. In this whole episode of proceeding the elders and
children have to go through severe mental trauma and abuses. It
be stopped with the immediate effect. US govt. has a caution printed
when applied for VISA for India (its about 498a). This is also not
enough to make the parliament to awake. I would like to ask, what
can be
done to awake the parliament.

Above all I again would invite your attention to the fact that this
supersedes the basics of Indian constitution and thus should be made
null and void.

We seek some sincere efforts from the all the three pillars to save
society from this draconian law.

8.Sincere apologies for any mistake in the letter as I am n't legal
expert . But I just felt that since it's a
matter of great concern for our society, it becomes the moral
responsibility of us, the Indian citizens to bring this matter into
notice of three pillars to save the society.
9. Finally, this is to submit that promoting scientific temper is
our findamental duty under Article 51A of the Constitution of India.
It is scentific to say that married women can be as cruel as any
body else and so also they can be as kind as all the rest. So
presuming that no married woman can be cruel and only her husband
and in-lwas can be cruel lacks scientific temper. So it is submitted
that all the three pillars may demonostrate scientific temper as
expected by our constitution and set all the family laws right to
restore peace and tranquility in the Indian families.

10.Looking forward to sincere efforts from all the three pillars of
the society.

Thanks and Regards.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006


False dowry case ample ground for divorce: HC (Delhi)

False dowry case ample ground for divorce: HC (Delhi)
Times of India dated 2nd Feb 2005.
By Bhadra Sinha/TNN
New Delhi: In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has ruled that lodging false dowry complaints against men amounts to cruelty and can be a ground for dissolution of marriage. The court granted divorce to a man who alleged mental cruelty by his wife.
With this order, Justice O P Dwivedi disposed of a four-year-old petition in which a woman had challenged a lower court¢s order permitting divorce to the husband. Mita Jain (name changed) admitted during the proceedings that she had filed a false case of dowry against her husband, in-laws and their relatives in Meerut.
As a result of the false complaint, the husband and relatives were in jail for 10 days. The court construed this to be an instance of cruelty. It also concluded against that Mita¢s acceptance of Rs 5.25 lakh as a final settlement for divorce was an unfair act.
After receiving the payment, Mita gave a statement before Meerut¢s chief judicial magistrate in which she admitted that the dowry case against her husband was false. Yet she refused to give divorce.
¡¡The act of the woman in filing a false case was not based on true facts. It clearly amounts to cruelty. Not only did she receive Rs 35,000 and Kisan Vikas Patras, she resiled from her agreement and did not sign papers of divorce,¢¢ said Justice Dwivedi.
In 1999, the lower court had passed an order in favour of Mita¢s husband who claimed his wife had been mentally harassing her since 1993, the year when they left the family home to live separately. According to him, she once attempted to get a false case registered against him.
The lower court observed in its order that things went wrong between the two after they started staying in a rented accommodation. ¡¡As per the averments of the husband, the wife refused to cook meals for some of his friends whom he had invited for a party on his birthday,¢¢ the judge had said.

Full text of the Delhi HC judgment

FAO 67/2000

Smt. Pinki Jain ... Appellant.
Through: Mr. Gopal Narain Aggarwal, Advocate


Sh. Sanjay Jain ... Respondent.
Through:Mr.Narinder Kaushik, Advocate

DATE OF RESERVE: 12-01-2005
DATE OF ORDER: 31-01-2005



1.Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.12.99 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby respondent-husband's petition under section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ( for short the 'Act') seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty has been allowed.
Various instances of cruelty alleged by the respondent have been detailed in para No. 4 (i) to (xxii) of the impugned judgment.
In the written statement appellant-wife controverted the allegations made by the respondent husband and further alleged that
petition has been filed because the appellant did not satisfy the respondent's greed for more and more dowry. In support of their respective versions, the respondent husband examined himself as PW-1 and appellant wife examined herself as RW-1. After coisidering the material on record, learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant wife had lodged a false complaint at Meerut on the basis of which a case was registered in the Court of CJM, Meerut under section 147/149/498-A/33/504/506 IPC read with section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act regarding allegations of harassment for dowry. Police arrested the respondent husband, his father and uncle. They remained in jail for about ten days. Even their bail application was strogly opposed by the appellant. Ultimately a mutual settlement was arrived at between the parties under which the appellant agreed to receive Rs. 5,25,000/- towards full and final settlement for divorce by mutual consent. She also
received Kisan Vikas Patra valuing Rs. 3 lakh, Rs. 35,000/- in cash and the balance amount of Rs.1,90,000/- was to be paid by way of two FDR's in the sum of Rs.95,000/- each in the name of son and daughter who were being looked after by the appellant. Terms of the settlement are contained in the agreement Ex. PW-1/A. The appellant and her brother appeared as witness before the CJM but did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Ultimately respondent husband and other co-accused persons were acquitted by
he CJM vide order dated 6.6.95 (certified copy PW-1/B). After receiving Kisan Vikas Patra for Rs. 3 lakh and Rs. 35,000/- in cash, the appellant resiled from the settlement and did not agree for divorce by mutual consent. This according to the learned. Additional District Judge is a clear instance of cruelty. As regards other instances of cruelty enumerated in the petition, the learned Additional District Judge appears to have been inclined to accept the husband's version because the appellant wife did not examine her relations in whose presence some of the incidents of cruelty allegedly took place. As per allegations made in the petition corroborated by the statement of the respondent-husband, the incident of December 1989 when the parties had gone to Mahabirji, the appellant had insulted respondent in presence of her brother Arun Kumar and brother in law Padam Chand Jain. The incident dated February 1990 when the appellant allegedly insulted and abused the respondent
happened in presence of Padam hand Jain in hotel Claridge. According to the husband, the brother and father of the appellant were called on several occasions to advice the appellant to behave properly but instead of advising the appellant they insisted that husband should shift to Brut and settle down there to which husband did not agree. It was further alleged that in July 1993 the sister-in-law of the appellant came to reside with the parties for about 10 to 12 days and in her presence also appellant's insulting behavior continued. The appellant allegedly tried to commit suicide during that period. From the impugned order it appears that, the learned Additional District Judge was inclined to accept the statement of the husband regarding these incidents because appellant wife did not examine her relations in whose presence these incidents allegedly took place.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the burden of proof lay on the husband who has filed divorce petition to prove alleged instances of cruelty and the failure of appellant to examine her relations cannot be taken to be a factor against appellant nor respondent's case gets strengthened just because appellant did not examine her relations. Reference in this contention was made to:- Sm. Bijoli Choudhury Vs. Sukomal Choudhury-AIR 1979 Calcutta 87; Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and another Vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and others- AIR 1954 S.C. 526; Sankar Kumar and another Vs. Mohanlal Sharma- AIR 1998 Orissa 117; and M/s Roy and Co. and another Vs. Sm. Nani Bala Dey and others; AIR 1970 Calcutta 50. Further contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that many other instances of cruelty allegedly took place in presence of some relations of the husband but he too did not examine any of them e.g the incident at Nainital allegedly occurred
in presence of his friend Amar Jain. The incident dated 30.6.89 when appellant allegedly insulted the respondent for not brining a decent gift at the time of her B'day allegedly took place in presence of relations of the respondent husband. But none of them have been examined.
he four arbitrators, the people from the biradari namely Harish Chand Jain, Mahipal Jain, Pawan Kumar Jain and Rajinder Kumar Jain have also not been examined by the respondent husband. The incident dated 31.12.91 allegedly took place in presence of Mohini, Bhabhi of the husband. The instance of January 1993, when the appellant allegedly abused the father of the husband took place in the presence of the father of the respondent but he has also not been examined. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that when no adverse inference has been drawn against the respondent husband for not examining his close friends and near relations on various allegations of cruelty, the same approach should have been adopted while assessing the effect of the appellant's failure to examine her friends and relations. This argument carries weight. No implicit faith can be reposed in the testimony of the either party in such litigation when parties are inclined to make wild allegations
against each other. It is important to note that after their marriage in January 1988, parties resided in the matrimonial home i.e House No. 2159, Gali No.9, Kailash Nagar, New Delhi, up to August 1993. Their three children, born in 1989, 1991 and 1993 were all born in this very house. The parties took separate rented accommodation only in August 1993.Even cantankerous ladies are normally accepted in the family fold if they bear a male child. In the present case male child was born on 18.6.93 after the birth of two daughters. When the parties continued to reside in matrimonial home for years together, cohabited and produced three children from the wedlock the inference that the alleged acts of cruelty which took place before 18.6.93 were condoned can be safely drawn. It is obvious that something went seriously wrong with the parties during their stay in the rented accommodation at Yamuna Vihar in August-September 1993. As per the averments made in the petition and the
statement of the respondent husband the appellant refused to cook meals for some friends whom he had invited for a party on the occasion of his B'day on 15.8.93 and then on 13.9.93 the appellant allegedly poured kerosene oil on her and raised hue and cry. These averments have been denied by the appellant and there is no independent evidence to corroborate solitary statement of the respondent husband. But one single instance of cruelty which stands admitted between the parties takes the wind out of appellant's sails. Admittedly, appellant wife had lodged a complaint at Meerut on the basis of which a case was registered in the Court of CJM, Meerut under section 147/149/498-A/323/504/506 IPC read with section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act making false allegations of torture for dowry against her husband, father-in-law and other relations of the husband. It is also admitted between the parties that Police arrested the respondent, his father and uncle. They remained in jail
for about ten days. It is further admitted that some settlement for divorce by mutual content was arrived at between the parties vide PW-1/A under which the appellant agreed to receive Rs. 5,25,000/- towards full and final settlement for divorce by mutual consent. It is further admitted that the appellant received Kisan Vikas Patra amounting to Rs. 3 lakh and Rs. 35,000/- in cash and the balance amount of Rs.1,90,000/- was to be paid at the time of filing joint petition for divorce by way of two FDR's in the sum of Rs.95,000/- each in the name of son and daughter who are living with the apellant. These subsequent events can very well be taken into consideration as facts are admitted between the parties. The statements of the appellant and his brother were recorded before the CJM wherein it was admitted that the complaint was not based on true facts. The act of the appellant in filing a false complaint case and getting her husband and other in-laws arrested clearly amounts
to cruelty. The statement of the appellant and her brother before CJM points towards falsity of the complaint. Not only that she received Rs. 35,000/- and kisan vikas patra for Rs.3 lakh long back in the year 1994. Yet she resiled from the agreement and did not sign papers of divorce. In the case of GVN Kameswara Rao Vs. G. Jabilli- (2002) 2 SCC 296, Supreme Court taking note of its earlier decision in the case of (1994) 1 SCC 337, V. Bhagat Vs. D. Bhagat, observed that :-

¡¡ Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to drove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may
not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made.¢¡

In that case it was found on facts that wife made a false complaint to the police which reflected adversely on the husband's reputation in the society. Marriage of the parties had broken down. The apex court, therefore, allowed the appeal and granted divorce. In the present case, the situation is still worse. Not only the wife made a false complain and got the husband and other in-laws arrested, she also took money and then resiled from the agreement. Admittedly, the husband and wife are living separately since September 1993. Learned Additional District Judge took note of this conduct of the appellant and held that it clearly amounts to an act of cruelty.
Taking over all view of the matter, I think, learned Additional District Judge has rightly allowed the petition and passed a decree of divorce under sections 13 (1) (ia) of the Act in favour of the respondent-husband. I am not inclined to take a different view in the matter.
In the result, this FAO 67/2000 filed under section 28 of the Act against the impugned order dated 24.12.1999 fails and is hereby dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

January 31, 2005 O.P.DWIVEDI J.

Monday, October 23, 2006


reply to editor of

Dear Editor,
The article mentioned in the subject talks about NRI men cheating after marrying indian women. I would like to bring to your notice that the article is flawed in its reasoning and seems to serve a hate-NRI propaganda. While I agree that there are cheaters in all sections of the society (including NRIs), it is obvious that a thorough and two-sided investigation and reporting has not been done by the team responsible for writing this story.

I would like to bring the following points to your notice:

1) If Anil had sent a visa for his wife, why did his wife not go to the US? The article says he did not respond after that and also says that she realized that she got cheated after reading one of Anil's emails. The article fails to mention what efforts are made by the girl in contacting him and what made her feel that she got cheated. The article also fails to mention the mode of his cheating - adultery, polygamy, dowry etc and whether there is a solid proof for that. How can a respected publication levy cheating charges without any of this information?

Instead, the real story could be something like this. Since NRIs stay far away from India, there are very limited options using which one can search for a wife. One such option is the internet. However as the article clearly mentioned, it is not always reliable as one does not have enough information about a person's background. The shortage of options is forcing NRIs to take a great risk. It is possible that the girl and her parents are interested only in money. Given this, NRIs are the most easy targets. Why? If the NRI is gullible, they can use him and his money for all their selfish needs. He is like the golden duck. If he is not, the girl can shed crocodile tears and implicate the guy with a false 498a and demand loads of money legally! It is possible that the wicked plans of the girl and her parents did not work on Anil and so they decided to take the alternate route. She might have decided not to go to the US and to stay in india and wait for Anil to show up. When he comes to India to visit family, the unsuspecting guy could have been caught and put behind bars. This could be the real story. We will not know unless you talk to both the parties and examine the facts. Was there any effort made by the eenadu team to talk to Anil?

I am sure you must be aware of the wide spread misuse of 498a and how easy it is to file a case under this law. You don't need any proof to file this type of case which can result in arresting the guy and his relatives. You have mentioned in your article that there is an increasing number of cases being filed, but have you looked at how many of these cases get proven in court? There are reports that 98% of such cases are dismissed in court. Given all this information, who should get the benefit of doubt? 98% or 2%?

2) In the same article, you had also mentioned that Kishore demanded for money in order to get a spouse visa instead of a fiance visa. I am not contesting the fact that he might have been married twice. It could be the case. However, my point is not relaed to that. Are you aware that US immigration laws for bringing spouses to the US are stricter and time consuming if you are permenant resident (green card holder) or a citizen? This is not the same for non-immigrant visa (F1, H1 etc) holders who can bring their spouses immediately on dependent visas. As far as I know, there is no way for a permenant resident or a citizen to bring spouses to the US other than sponsoring the spouse for a green card. The green card process takes a very long time and can be more than a few years depending on the case. So a lot of people do bring their spouses intermittently on a fiance visa. So the guy could not have provided any other visa other than a fiance visa given the circumstances. Also, is there proof that he demanded money? Again, was any effort made by the eenadu team to talk to Kishore?

3) You had also mentioned the story of a guy and a girl who got married after they met in the US. This girl had come to the US on her own and, I believe, has her own career. Your article says that the girl wanted to leave him and come to India and he filed a case against her for this reason. Also, the article says he harrased her. The US laws are very strict on domestic violence issues. Why did not she lodge a complaint in the US against him? Also, she could have just left him and stayed separately. He cannot force her to stay with him and there is no equivalent of RCR here. If your marriage is on the rocks and your spouse deserts you, there is nothing the other spouse can do other than file for a divorce. So why did she have to leave for India? If it had come to the extent that she has to leave for India, is she not better off taking a divorce and moving on with her life and career in the US itself? My point is there is no reason for her to come to India. Also, if we assume that she had taken a domestic role and had quit her job after marriage, the family court takes that into account while issuing a divorce and requires the guy to pay for alimony for a reasonable period of time until she can get back to her career. Why did she not explore those options? Why did not the eenadu team ask her these questions?

It is a pity that a renowned publication is writing stories without contacting and covering both sides of the story. I have a high regard for your publication but articles like this are questioning my opinion. Further, the article did not show any journalistic professionalism by revealing the true names of the people involved. This causes great damage to the reputation and career of those people whose cases are still in the courts and are not convicted. Further, the article showed double standards by revealing only the names of the guys and their relatives while keeping the names of the girls undisclosed.

I would urge you to treat this matter with utmost priority and take necessary action. I would also urge you to assign a team to investigate the misuse of 498a and related laws in our society today.

Thank you very much.

Best Regards,

P.S: I have included the link for the article mentioned above.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?