Divorce to wife, for Cruelty by wife - G.V.N. Kameswara Rao Vs G. Jabilli

                                                  SUPREEME COURT OF INDIA

                                      2002 AIR SCW 162  (From : Andhra Pradesh)
                              
D. P. MOHAPATRA AND K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 140 of 2000 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 1417 of 2000), D/- 10-1-2002.

Appellant:G.V.N. Kameswara Rao

Vs.

Respondent : G. Jabilli.

(A) Hindu marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 13(1)(ia) — Divorce — Cruelty — Need not be of such nature as causing reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful for petitioner to live with other party — Act committed with intention to cause suffering to other party — Is cruelty — Social status of parties is relevant consideration — Cruelty cannot be judged from solitary incident.

It is not necessary to prove that the nature of the cruelty is such as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful for the petitioner to live with the other party. English Courts in some of the earlier decisions had attempted to define ‘cruelty’ as an act which involves conduct of such a nature as to have caused damage to life, limb or health or to give rise to reasonable apprehension of such danger. But such a degree of cruelty is not required to be proved by the petitioner for obtaining a decree for divorce. Cruelty can be said to be an act committed with the intention to cause suffering to the opposite party. Austerity of temper, rudeness of language, occasional outburst of anger, may not amount to cruelty, though it may amount to misconduct.

(Para 10)
The Court has to come to a conclusion whether the acts committed by the counter-petitioner amount to cruelty, and it is to be assessed having regard to the status of the parties in social life, their customs, traditions and other similar circumstances. Having regard to the sanctity and importance of marriages in a community life, the Court should consider whether the conduct of the counter-petitioner is such that it has become intolerable for the petitioner to suffer any longer and to live together is impossible, and then only the Court can find that there is cruelty on the part of the counter-petitioner. This is to be judged not from a solitary incident, but on an overall consideration of all relevant circumstances.

(Para 12)
(B) Hindu marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 13(1)(ia) — Divorce — Cruelty — Mental cruelty — Petitioner-husband a double doctorate holder working in USA — Alleging that attitude of wife was not cordial and cooperative causing him mental cruelty — Wife returning back to India — Preventing entry of petitioner in house when he came to persuade her to return — Also filing criminal complaint against petitioner and his mother — Married life of parties even as per wife was not happy — Incidents throw insight in past conduct of wife — Husband held entitled to divorce.

The petitioner-husband is a double doctorate holder working in USA. Respondent wife is also a post graduate degree-holder. The marital life of the petitioner and the respondent ran into rough wheather from the very beginning of their stay in United States. There used to be occasional quarrel between the parties. A daughter was born to them. A few years latter the wife returned to India with the daughter. The misunderstandings between parties deepened leading to filing of divorce petition by husband. The husband alleged that after solemnization of their marriage, the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty. It was alleged that when the petitioner alongwith his relatives went to house of wife’s sister to persuade wife to join his society the wife prevented the entry of husband in the house. It was also alleged that wife had filed a criminal complaint of assault against the husband and her mother. Held, married life of the petitioner with the respondent had never been happy. Even the respondent wife had also alleged that their marriage life was not happy and cheerful. The case of the petitioner that he had been subjected to cruelty by the wife is not put as such solely on the basis of one or two incidents. The way in which the petitioner-husband was treated by the respondent when he visited her sister’s house and the subsequent filing of the criminal complaint whereby the petitioner was subjected to severe humiliation would go to show that the respondent was not prepared to extend any kind of cooperation to the petitioner-husband. These incidents throw an insight into her past conduct when she was staying wth the petitioner. The mental cruelty faced by the petitioner is to be assessed having regard to his status in his life, educational background, the environment in which he lived. The petitioner could have suffered traumatic experience because of the police complaint and the consequent loss of reputation and prestige in the society. The incidents brought out in the evidence would show that the relationship between the parties was irretrievably broken, and because of the non-cooperation and the hostile attitude of the respondent, the petitioner was subjected to serious traumatic experience which can safely be termed as ‘cruelty’ coming within the purview of S. 13(1)(I-a).

(Paras 16, 18)
Held further, by invoking S. 23, the petitioner could not be denied relief on ground that he has much prior to filing of this petition executed a power of attorney in favour of his brother-in-law, authorizing him to take steps for seeking divorce or on ground of the incident of assault on wife. The respondent, after she came to India in 1982, refused to come back to United States even after much persuasion and under those circumstances the petitioner executed the power of attorney. That only shows that right from 1982, the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was not good and the parties thought of divorce. But the petitioner did not file any application in 1982. As regards the incident relating to police complaint also, in his statement the petitioner had admitted that the respondent had scratch injury. But there is nothing in the evidence to show that either the petitioner or his mother caused any serious injury to the respondent.

(Paras 17, 18)
Cases Referred:Chronological Paras
S. Hanumantha Rao v. S. Ramani, 1999 AIR SCW 1012 : AIR 1999 SC 1318 : (1999) 3 SCC 620  14 V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat, 1994 AIR SCW 45 : AIR 1994 SC 710 : (1994) 1 SCC 337
15 Dr. N. G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534  11  L. Nageswara Rao, Senior Advocate and S. Uday Kumar Sagar, Advocate with him for the Appellant; M. N. Rai Senior Advocate Annam, D. N. Rao, Advocate with him for the Respondent.


K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. :— Leave granted.

2. The husband who had been unsuccessfully fighting litigation for the past more than 15 years for snapping his marital ties with the respondent wife is the appellant before us. The appellant is double doctorate holder — one in Mathematics from Andhra University and another from U.S.A. and had been working in United States during the relevant period. The respondent is a post-graduate in Home Science and was working as a lecturer in the year 1979. The appellant came to India in 1979 and gave advertisement in the newspaper seeking matrimonial alliance from a suitable bride. The relatives of the respondent responded to the advertisement and there was mutual consultation between the parties, which led to the marriage of the appellant with the respondent on 30-7-1979. After the marriage, the appellant and respondent stayed together for some period and thereafter, the appellant left India for United States. The respondent was asked to join him after having obtained the visa and completing other formalities. The respondent, after a period of six months, joined the appellant in United States. It appears that the marital life of the appellant and the respondent ran into rough whether from the very beginning of their stay in United States. There used to be occasional quarrel between the parties. A daughter, Sandhya, was born to them, on 10-6-1981. In 1982, the appellant, respondent and their daughter Sandhya came to India, but the appellant returned to United States in November, 1982 itself and the respondent joined him only in April, 1983. In January, 1985, the respondent along with her daughter returned to India and it seems that the misunderstanding between the parties deepened and ultimately the appellant filed application for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 alleging that after the solemnization of their marriage, the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty.

3. The respondent contested the proceedings and denied all the allegations made by the appellant in the petition and also made counter-allegations alleging that the appellant was responsible for wrecking the marriage. Parties on either side examined witnesses to substantiate their allegations. The learned Family Court Judge after assessing the rival contentions and the evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondent had treated the appellant with mental cruelty and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to get a decree for dissolution of marriage. This was challenged by the respondent before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the decision of the Family Court holding that the appellant was at fault and he had been trying to take advantage of his own wrongs; hence, he was not entitled to get a decree in his favour in view of Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu marriage Act. The judgment of the Division Bench is challenged before us.

4. We heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. L. Nageswara Rao and Mr. M. N. Rao, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent. The learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that there was complete breakdown of the marriage due to the attitude of the respondent and the appellant was under severe mental agony and that the various acts committed by the respondent amounted to mental cruelty and the High Court was not justified in reversing the finding of the Family Court. The learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that there were differences of opinion between the appellant and the respondent on many matters, but the respondent had not done anything to cause mental pain or agony to the appellant. It was argued that the Family Court Judge passed his decision based on a solitary incident and, therefore, the same had been rightly reversed by the High Court.

5. For the proper appreciation of the disputes between the parties, it is necessary to consider the various allegations made by the appellant in his petition and also the counter-allegations made by the respondent in her reply. The appellant alleged that respondent entered into marriage with the appellant because of the persuasion of the sisters and brother and that the respondent was not taking any interest or co-operating to have a happy married life. The appellant alleged that the respondent joined him in the United States after a period of six months unwillingly, and right from the beginning of her life in United States, she picked up quarrel with the appellant and created scenes on many occasions. The appellant alleged that it was known to the Indian community, mainly to the people of Andhra Pradesh, who had settled down in and around the area where the appellant was residing, that the respondent was not having a good relationship with the appellant. He also alleged that the respondent was not doing any household work and the appellant had to do all the work himself and his brother Ravi, who was staying with him, was helping him. The appellant alleged that the respondent used to insult the appellant in the presence of his friends and guests and that the respondent was taking no interest in sharing bed with the appellant and this caused mental and physical agony to the appellant.

6. The respondent had denied all these allegations made by the appellant in the petition and she also made counter-allegations. But it is pertinent to note that the respondent has no case that they were having a happy married life and the attempt of the respondent was to put the blame at the doorstep of the appellant. She stated that the appellant had no interest to live with the respondent and was all the time attending parties, watching TV and playing cards and the respondent was completely neglected by the appellant. The respondent alleged that the appellant used to treat her as an intruder. The respondent also stated that she was not given proper medical aid when she was in labour pain and had to give pre-mature birth to the baby without any medical assistance.

7. It is true that the Family Court rightly found that all the allegations made by the appellant in the petition were not satisfactorily substantiated by him. But nevertheless, some glaring facts are to be noted in this case. The married life of the appellant and respondent started in 1979 and right from the very beginning, the parties were under severe mental stress. Both the parties mutually tried to put the blame on each other. In 1982, the appellant, the respondent and their daughter returned to India. The respondent, however, refused to accompany the appellant back to the United States, and according to the appellant, she threw up the visa and other papers at him and joined him in United States only in 1983 and the subsequent evidence shows that the respondent had not willingly joined the appellant. She came back to India with her daughter in 1985. Though the appellant stated that the appellant’s nephew, Ramu received her, she refused to talk to him and left with her own relatives. The respondent has denied these facts. However, it is important to note that the appellant has alleged that he did not know the whereabouts of the respondent and his child, at least for some period, after they returned to India. This is evident from the fact that the appellant wrote two letters to his daughter and these letters had to be re-directed to the address of the appellant. She was staying at Araku Valley, which was evidently not known to the appellant. The appellant stated that he suffered severe mental torture and, only after some searching inquiry, he could come to know that she was staying with her sister at Araku Valley. The appellant along with his two relatives went to Araku Valley to persuade the respondent to join the society of the appellant, but the very entry of the appellant and his relatives to the house was prevented by the respondent and later, only at the intervention of her sister, Suryakantham, they were permitted to enter the house. It may be noticed that the respondent and her child left United States in January 1985. The nature of the treatment meted out to the appellant by the respondent, even when he was meeting her after an interval of one year, is satisfactorily proved by the evidence of PW4 and his evidence was completely accepted by the Family Court Judge. The appellant being highly educated person having a position in life must have felt serious humiliation. The incident also shows that the respondent did not extend courteous behaviour to the appellant even in the presence of others. The conduct of the respondent assumes importance as this incident happened when they both were meeting each other after a long lapse of time.

8. Another important incident, which found favour with the Family Court is that the respondent had filed a criminal complaint before the police alleging that she was beaten by the appellant and his mother. The appellant and his mother were called to the police station and they had to be there for more than 10 hours. The explanation offered by the respondent for this incident is far from satisfactory. According to the respondent, she was being ill-treated by the appellant and his mother, and on one day, while preparing the breakfast when she used the blender for grinding the pulses, her mother-in-law got angry and scolded her saying that she had not brought any article from her house, so she should not have used the blender. Further, the respondent alleged that the appellant and his mother threw away all her bags and clothes and the appellant’s mother asked her son to get the respondent out and the appellant became wild and gave a blow to the respondent with a sharp-edged weapon and it was under those circumstances that with bleeding injuries, she had gone to the police station and filed a complaint before the police. It is important to note that police did not register any case evidently as it was a domestic quarrel and not of a serious nature, and the incident shows the innate lack of self-control which had driven the respondent to this exorable conduct. But the humiliation and agony suffered by the appellant and his mother, considering their status in life and the social circumstances, was too much.

9. Under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu marriage Act, on a petition presented either by the husband or wife, the marriage could be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty. ‘Cruelty’ is not defined in the Act. Some of the provisions of the Hindu marriage Act were amended by Hindu marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976. Prior to the amendment, ‘cruelty’ was one of the grounds for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act. Under that Section, “cruelty” was given an extended meaning by using an adjectival phrase, viz. “as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party”. By the Amendment Act of 1976, “cruelty” was made one of the grounds for divorce under Section 13 and relevant provision reads as follows :—
“Divorce— (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party—
(i) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty, or
(ib) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(ii)-(ix) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .”

10. The omission of the words, which described ‘cruelty’ in the unamended Section 10 of the Hindu marriage Act, has some significance in the sense that it is not necessary to prove that the nature of the cruelty is such as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful for the petitioner to live with the other party. English Courts in some of the earlier decisions had attempted to define “cruelty” as an act which involves conduct of such a nature as to have caused damage to life, limb or health or to give rise to reasonable apprehension of such danger. But we do not think that such a degree of cruelty is required to be proved by the petitioner for obtaining a decree for divorce. Cruelty can be said to be an act committed with the intention to cause suffering to the opposite party. Austerity of temper, rudeness of language, occasional outburst of anger, may not amount to cruelty, though it may amount to misconduct.

11. This Court, in Dr. N. G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534 held at page 154, paragraph 34 as follows :
“We do not propose to spend time on the titles of their married life. Numerous incidents have been cited by the appellant as constituting cruelty but the simple trivialities which can truly be described as the reasonable wear and tear of married life have to be ignored. It is in the context of such trivialities that one says that spouses take each other for better or worse. In many marriages each party can, if it so wills, discover many a cause for complaint but such grievances arise mostly from temperamental disharmony. Such disharmony or incompatibility is not cruelty and will not furnish a cause for the dissolution of marriage. We will therefore have regard only to grave and weighty incidents and consider these to find what place they occupy on the marriage canvas.”

12. The Court has to come to a conclusion whether the acts committed by the counter-petitioner amount to cruelty, and it is to be assessed having regard to the status of the parties in social life, their customs, traditions and other similar circumstances. Having regard to the sanctity and importance of marriages in a community life, the Court should consider whether the conduct of the counter-petitioner is such that it has become intolerable for the petitioner to suffer any longer and to live together is impossible, and then only the Court can find that there is cruelty on the part of the counter-petitioner. This is to be judged not from a solitary incident, but on an overall consideration of all relevant circumstances.

13. This Court had an occasion to consider this question in some cases.

14. In S. Hanumantha Rao v. S. Ramani, 1999 (3) SCC 620 the husband alleged that the respondent wife had no interest in the marriage life and within a period of two months of the marriage, she went back to her parents house and stayed there for two and a half months. After about six months, she took off her mangalsutra and threw it at the appellant. The respondent wife explained that she removed the mangalsutra in privacy and handed over the same to the appellant on his own request. This Court held that removal of mangalsutra would not constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(a).

15. In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), 1994 (1) SCC 337, the husband was a practicing lawyer and the respondent wife was working in a television company at the time of marriage. They had a grown up son and a daughter. The husband alleged adultery on the part of the respondent. Respondent wife denied the allegations and she also suggested that the appellant was suffering from some mental hallucination. This Court, in paragraph 16 at page 347, observed as under :—
“The mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(ia) 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 prove 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 be had to the context in which they were made.”

16. The case of the appellant that he had been subjected to cruelty by the wife is not put as such solely on the basis of one or two incidents. Their marriage life started in 1979 with so many ups and downs. Both of them did not live together for a longer period as happily married couple. The appellant has succeeded in proving that the attitude of the respondent was not cordial and cooperative. The respondent also alleged that their marriage life was not happy and cheerful. The way in which the appellant was treated by the respondent when he visited her sister’s house at Araku Valley and the subsequent filing of the criminal complaint whereby the appellant was subjected to severe humiliation would go to show that the respondent was not prepared to extend any kind of cooperation to the appellant. The respondent’s allegation that she was physically assaulted by the appellant and his mother is not very convincing. The fact that there was a bleeding injury on her hand was taken note of seriously by the High Court but the question is, in those circumstances, would an ordinary prudent person rush to the police station and file a complaint to see that her husband and his mother be kept in police custody for unduly long hours. These incidents throw an insight into her past conduct when whe was staying with the appellant. The mental cruelty faced by the appellant is to be assessed having regard to his status in his life, educational background, the environment in which he lived. The appellant could have suffered traumatic experience because of the police complaint and the consequent loss of reputation and prestige in the society. Married life of the appellant with the respondent had never been happy. The appellant would say that from 1985 onwards, he has not been having conjugal relationship with the respondent and even prior thereto the respondent was not properly discharging her marital obligations.

17. The High Court has held in the impugned judgment that the appellant himself was responsible for many of the unhappy incidents and therefore, he shall not be allowed to take advantage of his own fault and the decree for dissolution of marriage shall be denied to him in view of Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu marriage Act. We do not think that the High Court was justified in holding this view. The decision was based on the fact that the appellant had executed a power of attorney in favour of his brother-in-law, Rama Rao, authorizing him to take steps for seeking divorce in the year 1982. The appellant admitted having executed that power of attorney. According to the appellant, the respondent, after she came to India in 1982, refused to come back to United States even after much persuasion and under those circumstances he executed the power of attorney, but later on came to know that power of attorney holder could not file an application. That would only show that right from 1982, the relationship between the appellant and the respondent was not good and the parties thought of divorce. But the appellant did not file any application in 1982. As regards the incident relating to police complaint also, in his statement the appellant had admitted that the respondent had a scratch injury. But there is nothing in the evidence to show that either the appellant or his mother caused any serious injury to the respondent.

18. We do not think that this is a case, where the appellant could be denied relief by invoking Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu marriage Act. On the other hand, various incidents brought out in the evidence would show that the relationship between the parties was irretrievably broken, and because of the non-cooperation and the hostile attitude of the respondent, the appellant was subjected to serious traumatic experience which can safely be termed as ‘cruelty’ coming within the purview of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu marriage Act. Therefore, we hold that the appellant is entitled to the decree for dissolution of marraige under Section 13(a)(ia) of the Hindu marriage Act. However, we make it clear that any order of maintenance passed in favour of the respondent will stand unaffected by this decree for dissolution of the marriage. We also make it clear that if any rights have been accrued to the respondent in the joint assets of both, she would be at liberty to take appropriate action to enforce such rights.

The appeal is allowed. Parties to bear their respective costs.

Cruelty not proven - Narender Kumar & Anr. Vs Delhi

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Narender Kumar And Anr.

Versus

State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)
[Along With Crl. Appeal Nos. 748, 749 And 787/2004] on 1/11/2007

JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 10th September, 2004 whereby he convicted the appellants under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and against the order of sentence dated 14th September, 2004 whereby he sentenced each of the appellants to undergo RI for 02 years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 498A and RI for 07 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under
Section 307/34 IPC.

2. The brief facts necessary for deciding these appeals are that complainant Veena Rani was married to accused Gyan Prakash on 24th November, 1997. She was admitted to Safdarjung Hospital on 9th May, 2002 by her husband at about 10.00 p.m. with 25 % burns. She told the doctor that she received burn injuries accidentally while she was cooking food on LPG stove and her dupatta caught fire accidentally resulting into burn injuries. Her MLC Ex. PW 3/1 shows that her pulse rate, Blood Pressure were normal her chest was clean she was oriented to time, place and persons. The injuries present on her body showed that she was having thermal burns on upper parts of the body i.e. upper exteme face, lower abdomen and some patches over the back. Police was informed of the admission by the duty constable in hospital vide DD No.4A (Ex. PW 1/1) on the night of 9th and 10th May, 2002. The investigation was given to ASI Ramesh Chand, who requested SDM to come to hospital and record statement of Smt. Veena. Statement of Smt. Veena was recorded by SDM on 10th May, 2002. Doctor's endorsement of her being fit for giving statement is Ex. PW 12/1. In her statement given to SDM (Ex. PW 2/2) she stated that on previous night around 7.00 p.m. she was at home, her jethani and mother-in-law were also at home, LPG Stove was lying on floor. She was standing near the stove and food was being cooked. Her dupatta caught fire from the LPG stove and she cried of catching fire, her mother-in-law and jethani extinguished the fire. Her husband was on duty at the time of incident. Thereafter, she was brought to hospital by her husband. She had been living happily with her family and was not being harassed for dowry, everybody in the family loved her. The incident was an accident and she had no doubt on anyone. She was in full senses and gave the statement without any pressure.

3. Father of complainant Roshan Lal came to see her on 10th May, 2002 itself. On 11th May, 2002, her father made an application Ex. PW5/1 to SDM wherein he stated that her daughter Veena was being mistreated by her inlaws. His son-in-law Gyan Prakash was having no business or work and due to this reason his family members used to throw him out of the house and on this attitude of family of his son-in-law, he had to bring his daughter to his own house sometime for four months and sometime for six months. His daughter was having one son, who was also living with him for about last three years. Due to unemployment of his son-in-law he got his daughter employed in a private firm as a labour, so that she could maintain herself. During this period he had also been sending his daughter to in-laws house with the help of inter-mediators. Mother-in-law of his daughter told him that he should get his son-in-law Gyan Prakash settled by opening a clothier shop for him.  Since he (father-in-law) was not a rich person this was not possible for him. On 9th May, 2002 around 7.00 p.m. girl's two jeths (brothers-in-law) viz. Narender and Vijay, two jethanis (sisters-in-law) viz. Om Prabha and Nirmal and mother-in-law viz. Jeevani Devi @ Jamuna Devi and her husband Gyan Prakash poured kerosene oil on his daughter and set her on fire. He was not informed of the incident. However, he got information on 10th May, 2002 at 10.00 a.m. from some acquaintance that Veena had met with an accident. So, when he went to know well being of his daughter at her in-laws' house there her father-in-law Pandit Prabhati Lal told him that Veena was in burns ward of the Safdarjung Hospital. When he reached Safdarjung Hospital he learnt that SDM had already recorded his daughter's statement. His daughter told him that she made statement to SDM as per the wishes of her in-laws since her in-laws had threatened her that they would kill her and her son and that she would be divorced. By his application Ex. PW5/1 he requested SDM that another statement of his daughter Veena should be recorded.

4. After the application made by father of complainant, SDM again recorded a statement of the complainant Venna (Ex. PW 2/1). In this statement complainant stated that her husband Gyan Prakash used to do a private job and she herself was doing a private job. She was having a child around 3? years old. For about a month after her marriage she was kept by her in-laws properly thereafter her in-laws started harassing her on small things. She remained at her parents house for 8-9 months thereafter. She was again called by her in laws after a compromise and she remained at her in-laws for about two months thereafter. After two months she was against harassed for dowry. She used to be told that she had no brother and she had brought so less dowry. She again went to her parents' house and lived there for about 8-9 months and again came back to her in-laws house after a compromise and she was living at her in-laws house since 8th December, 2001. About 15 days before the incident she had a quarrel with her Jeth and mother-in-law. Her in-laws had purchased a Maruti Car on the day of Holi Festival and they told her that in case she wanted to remain alive she should bring 2? Lac rupees or a clothier shop be opened for her husband in Chandni Chowk. She refused to accede to these demands telling her that her father had no money. On this she was told to pack up and go from the house. This quarrel continued till the days of the incident. On the night of Wednesday again a similar quarrel took place and her in-laws gave her beatings and all went for sleeping. On Thursday morning she got up and cooked meals and got ready for going to office. She was told by her in-laws that in case she wanted her safety, she should bring 2? Lac from her parents or she should call her father. She however, went to her office/job and after doing her job came back home. When she came back from office, all members of the family viz. both her jeths, jethanis and mother-in-law were sitting in the house. Her in-laws asked her why she had not brought her parents. When she went to her room, she found that her goods were lying packed. Her mother-in-law and jethani abused her and told her that she should pick up her goods and go away. When she refused they bolted the main gate from inside and her jeth said that she should be beaten. Jethani said that she should be burnt and cremated. In the meantime her mother-in-law brought kerosene oil in a tin and poured kerosene oil on her. When she cried then her elder jethani lit fire and set her ablaze. She cried for being saved then all of them went away from there. A bucket full of water was lying there, she picked up the bucket, poured water on herself the fire got extinguished. She asked them to take her to hospital, on this they started beating her. She kept lying in the house for about two hours and they told her that they would take her to hospital only if she would not testify against them otherwise her son and father would be killed. When she agreed to this, she was removed to hospital. She was also threatened on the way to hospital and even beaten. She made her earlier statement under pressure. Her earlier statement was not correct. Since her parents had met her in the hospital now she was under no fear and had made the statement without pressure. Her mother-in-law her jeths viz. Narender and Vijay, her husband Gyan Prakash her jethanis Om Prabha and Nirmal had burnt her.

5. The accused persons were put to trial under Section 406/498/307/34 IPC. Smt. Veena appeared as
PW2 and testified against the accused persons more vehemently, making improvements even over her second statement given to the SDM. Her father and mother also testified against the accused persons and based on the statements, the appellants were convicted.

6. The learned Trial Court observed that the two contradictory statements made by Veena before SDM have been explained and the testimony of the complainant given in the Court was trustworthy and cannot be looked upon with suspicion. The Trial Court also observed that had the complainant been having nice time with her in-laws and been loved and respected as stated in the first statement, she would not have turned a somersault and implicated everyone of her family merely because her father had come to the hospital and met her. The Trial Court observed that earlier statement made to the SDM was under a threat and therefore could not be used to erase the credibility of complainant's testimony in the Court. The Trial Court also observed that had the incident been an accident only, the appellant would have not concealed the incident from the father of the complainant and would have immediately informed the father of the complainant. The fact that father of the complainant was not informed about the incident by the in-laws/appellants proves guilty mind of the appellants. The Trial Court brushed aside the contradictions in the ocular testimony of complainant and the medical evidence observing the same being inconsequential holding that the doctor who examined her had not taken the case of the complainant seriously and considered it as a case of accident and not a case of burning. Trial Court also brushed aside the contradiction in the stand taken by the complainant about the incident in her maintenance petition and in the Court on the ground that there must have been communication gap. There were other contradictions in the statement of complainant made in the Court and the earlier statement but all these were considered as immaterial by the Trial Court.

7. It is argued by the counsel for the appellants that the Trial Court had grossly ignored the entire sequence of the evidence and the circumstances which proved that the complainant had made false statement in the Court out of vengeance, only to see that her husband, who was not earning well and was not able to maintain her properly and the in-laws should be taught a lesson.

8. As per testimony of PW 2 complainant, made in the Court after marriage, the accused started asking her to bring 2? lac from her father or to get a shop opened for her husband. This part of the testimony is contrary to Ex. PW 5/1, a written application made by her father to SDM wherein her father had clearly stated that her son-in-law Gyan Prakash was unemployed and for this reason he was turned out by his family and he (PW 5) was forced to keep his daughter with him sometime for 04 months and sometime for 06 months and he also had to get his daughter employed as a labour in a private company. She in her statement to SDM and in court tried to make out a case as if she lived at her parents' house for 8-9 months together due to dowry demands. Her statement in Court is also contrary to her second statement made to SDM implicating her inlaws. In Ex. PW 2/1 she talked of demand of Rs. 2? lac after purchase of a car by in-laws on Holi festival of 2002 while deposing in Court she alleged of this demand from day one of her marriage. It is clear that it was not a case where the in-laws were demanding 2? lac after marriage of the girl but it was a case where the girl was married with a boy who was practically unemployed and had no source of earning. The boy must have been unable to earn livelihood and for this reason he was being turned out from the house by his own family members. Had the in-laws been trying to extract money and been asking Rs. 2? lac from the parents of the girl, they would not have turned out their own son. Once a person grows up and attains age of majority, gets married, he has to earn for himself and his wife. His elder brothers or parents cannot be expected to sustain him and his family even after his marriage. Because of joint family system prevalent in India sometimes the parents go out of way to help such of their sons, who are not able to earn properly and do establish them in business or help them to earn livelihood but that is possible only if the parents are having enough money for this. Where the parents belong to poor or middle class and do not have enough money to extend this help, they have no alternative but to turn out such non-earning persons hoping that this would compel him to sustain himself by striving and struggling. Ex. PW 5/1 is the first admitted written account from complainant's father that Gyan Prakash was being turned out from house time and again, so that he was able to sustain himself and struggle for himself and it seems ultimately Gyan Prakash got some private job and started going on work. Complainant in order to sustain herself also got a private job with the help of her father and the couple left their son with maternal grand parents out of poverty. The initial period of their married life went like that. It has come in evidence that father of the girl was running a clothier shop in Gurgaon. It is possible that the parents of Gyan Prakash had asked father of the complainant to help Gyan Prakash in opening a clothier shop when he was unemployed however, there was no dowry demand alleged by PW 5 in his application Ex. PW5/1. Had there been any persistent dowry demand as testified by PW 2, nobody stopped PW 5 from writing the same in his application made to SDM.

9. Let me consider the different statements made by the complainant in this case. In her first statement, she told SDM that she met with an accident. Presuming that this statement and the story of accident told by the complainant to the SDM was made under pressure but there was no pressure on the complainant as far as other facts are concerned. In her first statement, made to SDM she stated that her husband was on duty at the time of incident and at that time her mother-in-law and jethani were at home. One may consider that there may be pressure on her to say that she had caught fire by accident but there could be no pressure on her to mis-state about the presence of persons in the house at the time of the incident. As per her first statement, except her mother-in-law and one jethani, no one was present at home at the time of incident. However, in the second statement Ex. PW 2/1 she stated that her mother-in-law, two jeths and two jethanis were present at the time of incident and her husband was not there when incident of burning took place. Her jethani and mother-in-law bolted the outer door from inside. In her statement before the Court she went further and made her husband also present at the time of incident and stated that it was her husband who bolted the door from inside at the time of incident. It is obvious that her testimony in respect of presence of persons at the time of incident is changing from one statement to other and the effort was gradually to implicate every member of the family. This reflects the mental process of the complainant who seems to wrack vengeance against the family by implicating one after statements of the family members in successive.

10. In her testimony, she alleged that a number of times she used to be confined in a room under lock and sometimes she used to be kept hungry for two days at stretch and sometimes she used to be turned out of the house. She has not stated any such thing in Ex. PW 2/1 her second statement to SDM. Moreover, she was a working girl. She was attending her office at Gurgaon and used to commute by the conveyance provided by the company, as is admitted by her in her cross examination. She was working as a labour. If she had been confined in the room for a number of days she would not have been able to attend office and would have been terminated from service for regular absence from the office. This aspect of her testimony whether she was attending office regularly or not could not be verified by the IO because she in her statement to the SDM had not stated that she was confined by her in-laws in the room. Keeping her hungry is also not believable since she was living with her husband in a separate room, as is admitted by her in cross-examination and she was going to office daily. She herself stated that on the day of incident she had cooked meal in the morning and went to office. A lady who used to cook food herself cannot be kept hungry by others. Moreover, she had every opportunity of taking meals at her work place. Her purse recovered from the room contained Rs. 1,500/- showing she used to carry sufficient money to enable her to meet her requirements. In her statement before the SDM she stated that her husband was doing a private job, while in her testimony before Court she stated that her husband was not working anywhere. In her statement before the SDM she stated that she was being taunted by in-laws that she had no brother while in her testimony she admitted that she had a brother. In such a case nobody could have taunted her that she had no brother. In her testimony she stated that there was no telephone at her parents' house and telephone was installed only after the incident. However, her father PW 5 in his testimony stated that there was a telephone in house even before the incident and demand of Rs. 2? lac was made by mother-in-law on telephone and accused Narender and Vijay also talked on telephone. He also asserted that he was informed about the incident by some acquaintance on telephone.

11. Her testimony seen in the light of previous admitted statement shows that in order to implicate each member of the family she changed the version of incident. In her testimony in the Court she described the incident of burning her differently. She stated that her mother-in-law Jeevani Devi @ Jamuna brought Kerosene Oil and when she tried to save herself running here and there, she was held by her both jeths (brothers-in-law) and her sisters-in-law Nirmal pressed her hand  against her mouth to prevent her from raising alarm and then mother-in-law poured kerosene oil and her elder sister-in-law Om Prabha set her ablaze. Her husband had bolted the main door from inside and did not try to save her. After she was set ablaze, she rushed to tap and poured water kept in a bucket on her. She also tore her clothes and extinguished the fire, of her own efforts. Her testimony in the Court was recorded on 1st May, 2003. She was in a better position to remember the details on 11th May, 2002 i.e. soon after the incident when she described the incident to SDM in Ex. PW 2/1. The description of incident given by her in her statement to SDM on 14th May, 2002 is altogether different from the description given by her in the statement given in the Court. She has nowhere stated in her earlier statement that she had torn her clothes. She did not state that she was held by her two jeths or her mouth was gagged by her jethani Nirmal or her husband bolted the door from inside and kept watching but did not try to save. In a case of maintenance her allegations changed. Her unemployed husband suddenly started earning Rs. 8,000/- p.m. and she was set ablaze by her jethani Nimal and not Om Prabha. All these improvements and changing versions have been made by her just to see that entire family is implicated.

12. It is her own case that a container of 05 litres of kerosene oil was poured on her. 05 litres of kerosene oil is an enormous quantity of oil and if this quantity is poured on a person and fire is lit, he/she will immediately turn into a fire ball. Presuming that the complainant had extinguished the fire immediately by pouring a bucket full of water on herself and by tearing her clothes, in that case the unburnt kerosene oil would remain on clothes and she would have been profusely smelling of kerosene oil. Not only her clothes but her entire body would have been drenched with kerosene oil and her clothes would have been drenched with kerosene oil and water. It is not her case that when she was removed to hospital her clothes were changed or she was washed off and bathed, rather her allegations are that she was continuously beaten for two hours before having been removed to the hospital and she kept lying there for two hours in kerosene oil and water. It cannot be believed that on seeing a patient in such a condition, doctor would have closed his eyes and would not record the condition in the MLC. There is no mention of smell of kerosene oil coming from her body in MLC, there is no mention of traces of kerosene oil on her clothes, there is no mention of her clothes being torn, there is no injury on any part of her body except the burn injuries in the MLC. A woman, who had been continuously beaten for about two hours definitely would receive some injury on some part of the body but no injury of the nature was found on her body as per MLC. The oral testimony of Smt. Veena/complainant is totally in contradiction with the medical testimony.

13. It is rightly said that men may lie but circumstances do not. Her lies have been nailed down by the
circumstances. There is no seizure of torn clothes soaked with kerosene oil or water, there is no seizure of kerosene oil container by the IO moreover, there is no mention of kerosene oil smell either from body or from clothes and there is no mention of torn clothes by the doctor in the MLC. All these circumstances show that the entire story put forward by the complainant was a cooked up story and no kerosene oil was poured on her.

14. If two of her jeths had caught her so that she could be doused with kerosene oil and one jethani had gagged her mouth as alleged by her, nothing would have stopped them from burning her completely so that she did not survive. It only seems that none of the persons except mother-in-law and one jethani were even present when incident of burning took place and the incident seems to be an accidental burning and that is why she received only 25% burns at upper part of her body near neck. The nature of injuries confirms to her first version that her dupatta caught fire, fire travelled through dupatta to her upper portion. Since dupatta is normally worn by ladies around neck and keeps hanging the burns in this case seen to be due to presence of dupatta on the upper portion i.e. on neck and back that fire had travelled through dupatta on the upper parts of clothes worn by her.

15. Trial Court has heavily relied upon a presumption against the accused persons that parents of the girl were not informed. This is also belied by the witnesses. PW 13 (Raghbir Prashad) is brother-in-law of the complainant (sister's husband). He learnt about the incident on 9th May, 2002 i.e. on the day when the incident happened from his father-in-law who informed him on telephone about the incident. However, he did not visit Veena at the hospital and met Veena at her residence only after 5-7 days of the incident. This witness has not been cross examined by the APP on any point. He is a prosecution witness. This testimony cannot be brushed aside. This shows that father of girl was informed on 9th May, 2002 itself, that is why he could inform PW 13 on telephone on 9th May, 2002 but since the incident was not so serious and the burns were received accidentally and complainant was not in any danger of life, it was not taken seriously by this witness and he did not even visit his sister-in-law at the hospital and met her only when she came back home after 5 days. The non-serious nature of the incident is also reflected from the testimony of Smt. Kanta PW 6, who is mother of the complainant. She stated that she was informed about the incident by her husband, who made her a telephone call in the morning of Saturday i.e. 11th May, 2002 and thereafter she went to hospital. Had the incident been serious her husband would have informed her at least on 10th May, 2002 when she claimed that he learnt about the incident and she also would have visited her on the same day along with her husband.

16. PW 2 testified in the Court that after getting her bandaged, none of her in-laws looked after her and all left the hospital. Her testimony is belied by the testimony of her own father. Her father stated that when he reached hospital on 10th May, 2002 her mother-in-law, brother-in-laws etc. all met him in the hospital. Similar is the testimony of her mother, who visited her on 11th May, 2002. It shows that PW 2 was out to speak patent lies in the Court.

17. There is another important factor in this case which shows that the case of dowry demand and breach of trust under Section 406 IPC was falsely foisted on the accused persons. PW 11 Sushma Rawat, SI CAW Cell, who investigated the case testified that she had visited the house along with the complainant and all her jewellery, dowry articles etc. were found in the room in which she was residing when she was living with her in-laws. It was her room and there was an almirah in the room and the key of the almirah was in the purse of the complainant. The purse was also lying in the same room and her entire jewellery and Rs. 1500 were found in the almirah. That shows that complainant and her husband were living separate in one room and her entire dowry articles and istridhan was in her own custody and none of the other in-laws had any kind of greed to take away her jewellery or her articles neither her goods were lying packed. The story of demand of Rs. 2? lac seems to be an invention made by the complainant and her father just to make a false case against the accused persons. Her father in his testimony stated that mother-in-law and brothers-inlaw demanded Rs. 2? lac from her on telephone much prior to the incident. Had it been so PW 5 in his written application Ex. PW 5/1 would have mentioned about this demand because in this application he has mentioned everything possible against the accused persons. A demand of Rs. 2? lac seem to be invented in consultation before making statement to the SDM and that is why when subsequent statement was recorded by the SDM of complainant, her father and mother this demand was included in the statement while prior to that in Ex. PW 5/1 there is no mention of demand of Rs. 2.5 lac neither it is mentioned that boy wanted a shop for him to be established in Chandni Chowk, what mentioned is the abject poverty of the boy and his inability to earn.

18. I consider that the story of the complainant that she was threatened by her husband and in-laws for making statement to doctor and SDM about her accidental burning is palpably false. Her husband was not even at home when the incident took place. Her husband used to go for his job and perhaps come back home after the arrival of his wife. He was working as a labour. The son of parties was living at Gurgaon with father of the girl. Her husband was not a criminal neither it is alleged that he had any criminal background. A poor man who was starving for his survival and had to work as a labour from morning till evening for livelihood, could not have given threats to kill his own son and father-in-law. This story of threat seems to have been developed later on by the complainant in consultation with father. The question would arise why the complainant would falsely implicate her in-laws. It is undisputed that complainant was not happy with her matrimonial life. Her husband was an idle man, who earlier was not doing any job. Complainant had to live at her parents' house for 8-9 months together because of poverty of her husband. Complainant's son was also being brought up by her father because of the poor financial condition of her husband. Complainant herself had to take a job as a labour. She was living with her husband while her son was living with her father in Gurgaon, miles away. It seems that after the incident her father advised her to call it a day and break this relationship once for all. But simultaneously it seems that it was decided that the in-laws must be taught a lesson for ruining the life of the complainant as she was got married to a worthless boy. May be some false representations were made at the time of the marriage about the worth of the boy. It is not uncommon that someone may decide to end the unhappy married life. It looks that the complainant made allegations of threat etc. only to turn a 'U' turn, as she and her parents had decided to call it a day for the unhappy married life of the complainant.

19. It must be understood that god had not made any two persons same with the same ideas, qualities and it must be acknowledged that marriages do fail and there is a mismatch not only in arranged marriages but even in love marriages. The mismatch is discovered during the continuation of married life. No doubt poverty is a curse and a poor man has to suffer in the society at different fronts but I consider that despite poverty being a curse, poverty cannot be made a crime. Neither the failed marriage can be made a crime. In this case, the poverty was not only a curse for the boy but it made to be a crime since due to his poor condition he could not provide all that which he should have provided to the wife and the wife ultimately saw to it that not only he but everyone of his other family members land in jail. Every marriage that fails does not fail due to dowry demand or cruelties. The marriages do fail for several other reaons  including the reason of incompatibility of the persons. A failed marriage is not a crime however, the provisions of Section 498A are being used to convert failed marriages into a crime and the people are using this as tool to extract as much monetary benefit as possible. In many cases, where FIRs are filed under Section 498A IPC, petitions are being filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIRs after settlements between the parties and the allegations made of cruelties etc. are withdrawn the moment a lump sum payment is received. Involving each of the family members of the husband is another arm in the armory of the complainants of failed marriages. Not only close relatives but distant relatives and even neighbours are being implicated under Section 498A and other provisions of IPC in cases of failed marriages. The Courts must be very cautious during trials of such offences. In all these cases in the name of investigation, except recording statement of complainant and her few relatives nothing is done by police. The police does not verify any circumstantial evidence nor collect any other evidence about the claims made by the complainant. No evidence about giving of dowry or resources of the complainant's family claiming spending of huge amounts is collected by the police. This all is resulting into gross misuse of the provisions of law. The investigating agency in all such cases must collect all circumstantial and other evidence in respect of claims made by the complainant and similarly Courts should always be careful in considering the credibility and truthfulness of the statement of the complainant and relatives.

20. From the entire documents and the testimony of the witnesses I come to the conclusion that it is an unfortunate case where the complainant by making false statement implicated the entire family in offences of under Section 307 and 498A IPC. The Trial Court was not cautious enough to even look to admitted documents on record before convicting the family on mere statement of an estranged wife. Trial Courts should guard themselves from being swayed by emotions. They should consider entire circumstances and should carefully analyze the entire evidence. Poverty should not be allowed to become a crime. Neither failed marriage be permitted to be a crime.

21 I allow these four appeals. All the persons/appellants are acquitted of Section 498A and Section 307 IPC.

22. The appellants, namely, Gyan Prakash in Crl. Appeal No. 787/2004 and Smt. Jeevani Devi @ Jamuna Devi in Crl. Appeal No. 749/2004 are directed to be released forthwith.

A copy of the judgment be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar.

What is 498a

People don’t know what Section 498A of the IPC is nor do they know what to do when a 498A case is registered against them. For starters, 498A is a criminal offence that came into existence to combat domestic violence and protect women from dowry harassment.
The history of this law runs as follows. In the 1980s, the incidences of 'dowry deaths' were steadily rising in India. A dowry death is the murder of a young woman; committed by the in-laws, when she was unable to fulfill their coercive demands for money, articles or property, categorized as dowry. Organizations across the country pressurized and urged the government to provide legislative protection to women against domestic violence and dowry. The objective was to allow the state to intervene rapidly and prevent the murders of young girls who were unable to meet the dowry demands of their in-laws. As a result of the intense campaigning and lobbying, significant amendments were made in the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Evidence Act and the Dowry Prohibition Act, with the intention of protecting women from marital violence, abuse and dowry demands. The most important amendment came in the form of the introduction of Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The text of the law is given below:
Indian Penal Code - Section 498A, IPC
Introduced in the Penal Code by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act of 1983 (Act No. 46 of 1983)
498A. HUSBAND OR RELATIVE OF HUSBAND OF A WOMAN SUBJECTING HER TO CRUELTY:
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means
(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman;
or
(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
Analysis of the section shows that this law deals with four types of cruelty:
• Any conduct that is likely to drive a woman to suicide,
• Any conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the life, limb or health of the woman,
• Harassment with the purpose of forcing the woman or her relatives to give some property,
or
• Harassment because the woman or her relatives are either unable to yield to the demand for more money or do not give some share of the property.
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, is a criminal offence. It is a cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence.
Unfortunately, the formulation of this law left a host of loopholes for exploitation and abuse.
20+ years later, if a family has an estranged `Bahu’ (daughter in law) in their family, the entire family can be jailed under Section 498A of the IPC, based on a complaint in the police station. The
objective of the ‘Bahu’ and her parents is to subject the family to an ordeal designed to break their will and ensure that they give in to whatever demands put forward.
This law exposes families who belong to the middle and upper middle classes of society and NRIs, as these segments of society are vulnerable to legalized extortion by corrupt agencies of the government.
There is no way to avoid a 498A from being filed, unless the family is very well connected or somehow manage to make her realize that it is not in her long term interest to change a domestic dispute into a criminal offence.
A typical case will go on for 3 to 7 years.
From the people you talk to and from the online portals you visit, you will learn that this is a criminal law to combat domestic violence and dowry harassment etc, etc, etc. I’ll ignore this and cut to the chase.
In its present form, 498a is an extortion racket
In legal terms, 498A is an offence, which is:
• Cognizable: Offences are divided into cognizable and non-cognizable. By law, the police are duty bound to register and investigate a cognizable offence. 498A is a cognizable offence.
• Non-Bailable: There are two kinds of offences, bailable and non-bailable. 498A is non bailable. This means that the magistrate has the power to refuse bail and remand a person to judicial or police custody.
• Non-Compoundable: A non-compoundable case, e.g. Rape, 498A etc, cannot be withdrawn by the petitioner. The exception is in the state of Andhra Pradesh, where 498A was made compoundable.
In actual terms, 498A is an offence, which is:
• Cognizable: The police will register a 498A case since it is required by law, but they don’t investigate but go on to arrest people because of the money to be made in bribes from both sides in a 498A case.
• Non-Bailable: Since bail is at the discretion of the magistrate, all sorts of games will be played to have families locked up while negotiations go on to settle the case. This may happen in cases where the magistrates are allegedly corrupt or, the public prosecutor and the cops are in cahoots.
• Non-Compoundable: Though 498A is non compoundable, the courts are allowing the withdrawal of the case when the parties agree to reconcile or settle case. In real terms, if you pay up, the case goes away. If you don’t you’ll get stuck with a criminal case that will go on for years.
The other characteristics of this extortion racket are:
• It is a law that fosters corruption and enables govt agencies like the police to violate Fundamental Rights.
• It plays a role in gender based vote bank politics.
• It denies justice to the real victims of dowry harassment.
• It exposes innocent families to the evils of the corrupt Indian criminal justice system.
• This is a law poisoning the lower judiciary by exposing it to corruption.
• Above all, this is a gamble bound to fail if the accused choose to fight back.
Motives And Instigators:
Let’s start with the motives and instigators:
• Money: The greatest of motivators. A 498A can lead to great terms for a fat cash settlement, or help her dad or sibling in their ventures, etc, etc.
• Vengeance: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. She will have her revenge and the family will collectively bear the brunt of it. The 498A Wives have a soft corner for their mothers -in law and sisters –in law. They may very well see the inside of a prison.
• Guilt: She’s done something wrong, may have committed adultery and got caught in the act. She wants to cover it up with a dowry harassment case to garner sympathy and to provide cover for her guilt. It also puts her in a good position to negotiate a fat settlement and gain custody of kids, if kids are involved. 498A will be filed when paternity is in question. Don’t count on DNA evidence, as the courts do not/ or are reluctant to allow it. Indian law is still ruled by the evidence act from 1872.
• She Is Just Not Into Her Husband: She may not like her husband and 498A is a convenient tool to get out of the marriage.
• She Is A Control Freak: She wants to control her husband in every possible way. She may also want her husband to not support his parents and siblings in any fashion regardless of his ability to do so. She may want her husband to throw his parents out of their house. Her goal is to gain control of all aspects of his life, including finances and to break the bonds and responsibilities that tie him to his family. Her failure to do so will result in a 498A.
• To Marry The Boyfriend: This is a new trend whereby she will file a 498A just to force her husband into settling the divorce with a chunk of cash and then go on to marry her boyfriend. They will use the cash to set up their “Chota Sa Ghar”, or their “Premiyon Ka Mahal” if the settlement is large enough.
498A is the perfect tool for extortion and/or to wreak vengeance on a family. The main ingredients that go into making it an extortion racket are:
• The involvement of the corrupt, untrained, Indian police force in a domestic dispute.
• The involvement of the overburdened and unregulated lower courts and the convoluted and lengthy Indian justice delivery system.
• The non-enforcement of penalties (Section 182) for filing frivolous cases or for perjury.
• Political/police influence from the other side. If this is a factor in your case, I kid you not; you are in for an ordeal that will require extra doses of fortitude, courage and patience to overcome.
All these factors will be used to leverage money out of a family or subject ther family to the kind of harassment that can only be defined as torture. It is no wonder that the Supreme Court (Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India Writ petition(C) no.141 of 2005) has condemned 498A as “Legal Terrorism”, though ruling 498A constitutional.



498A Of The Indian penal code?

498A IPC

What Is Section 498A Of The Indian penal code?

settling of matrimonial laws through 498a

settling of personal scores through 498a

Useful Citations of Maintenance

Few useful Citations of Maintenance


In Amita Vs Raj Kumar, 2005, Case No. 151/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon'ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioner has failed to show any sufficient cause for her residing separately with the respondent. The view of the fact that the petitioner has been unable to establish one of the conditions required to be shown by her to be entitled under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the Hon'ble Court is of the opinion that the other questions arising in the matter, viz. whether she is able to support herself and whether the respondent has sufficient means to support her need not be considered.

In Aleamma Mathew Vs C.M. Mathew, 2004, Case No. 80/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon'ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that bare reading of section 125 Cr.P.C. shows that a person who is able to maintain onself is not entitled to maintenance under this provision. It is an admitted case of the parties that the petitione no. 1 is employed in the private establishment and is earning about Rs. 9000/- per month. Since petitioner no. 1 is able to maintain herself, she is not entitled to the maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C.

In Kavita Vs. Gurdit Singh,2005, Case No. 76/03,Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon'ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioners have to furnish evidence to show that the respondent is actually running several business. Thus the petitioners have not able to prove an essential requirement of the provision.

In Geeta Vs Rakesh, 2005, Case No. 703/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon'ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioner has been unable to show that she is residing separately from the respondent due to sufficient cause or that the respondent has refused to maintain her.

In Sudershan Lal V/s Smt. Deepak @ Reema Khurana, 1985 Cr. L.J. (NOC) 52 and Paramjit Kaur V/s Surinder Singh, 1992(2) Criminal Court Judgments 171 (Pb. & Har.)– it was held that the wife can claim only one maintenance. Though there are different forums open to her to claim maintenance, yet there cannot be parallel running of different maintenance orders, for one and the same. Only one of them is enforceable and others remain just decelerate in dormancy or consumed. It is for the wife to choose as to which of the two orders she wants to enforce.

In Neeta Vs Vijay Kumar, 2005, Case No. 259/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon'ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that based on submissions of the petitioners the petitioners have failed to prove their averments, having not led any evidence in support of their case.

In Kiran Vs Amar Singh, 2005, Case No. 52/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon'ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioner no. 1 does not wish to reside with her husband. She has also not been able to assign any cause, much less a sufficient cause for not wanting to stay together at the matrimonial house. The respondent on the other hand, is willing to keep and maintain her. The respondent is, therefore, not guilty of having neglected or refused to keep and maintain the petitioner no. 1. As the petitioner no. 1 left the society of the respondent and refused to join his company, she is not entitled to the relief of maintenance allowance.

In Namita Rani Bose V/s Dipak Kumar Bose, 1982 (2) H.L.R. 58 (AII.) – it was observed that the phrase “unable to maintain herself” means unable to earn a livelihood. This obviously means that the earning is such that the wife can maintain herself without depending upon others. But merely because she is earns a paltry sum by engaging herself in some profession, which may not even be sufficient to give one meal a day, it cannot be said that she is unable to maintain herself with the income she earns. The income should be such which is sufficient for an ordinary person to be maintained out of it.

In Zubedai V/s Abdul Khader, 1978 Cr. L. J. 1460 (Bombay) – it states that, Karnataka High Court has taken a contrary view in case of Zubedai holding the petitioner must positively aver in her petition that she is unable to maintain herself in addition to the facts that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and he has neglected to maintain her.

In Sudershan Lal V/s Smt. Deepak @ Reema Khurana, 1985 Cr. L.J. (NOC) 52 and Paramjit Kaur V/s Surinder Singh, 1992(2) Criminal Court Judgments 171 (Pb. & Har.)– it was held that the wife can claim only one maintenance. Though there are different forums open to her to claim maintenance, yet there cannot be parallel running of different maintenance orders, for one and the same. Only one of them is enforceable and others remain just decelerate in dormancy or consumed. It is for the wife to choose as to which of the two orders she wants to enforce.

consumer notice for RTI deficiency in service by the Public Authourity

                                                            //By  Speed Post//
        

                                                                                                            Date:
                                                            
                                                                                                            From: RTI Applicant


To,
The XYZ Office
Represented by its Public Information Officer
O/o XYZ,
Place.


Sir,
                    Subject: NOTICE U/s 28A of  THE Consumer Protection Act 1986


An application was filed seeking some information (Appendix – A). Faced with the refusal to divulge the said information on the part of the Public Information Officer.

I have given time more than necessary, but the Public Information Officer did not act, it is a deemed refusal on the part of the Public Information Officer and thus have grossly violated RTI Act 2005.

I hereby give this notice to you to provide the information within  10  days from the receipt of this. Failing which, I shall file a complaint in a consumer forum against you and recover the damages entailed. You will be held responsible for entire risks as to the costs and consequences thereof.

Therefore, please take notice and ensure compliance.

 Yours sincerely,


  [Applicant]



Encl: As stated






consumer notice for RTI deficiency in service by the Public Authourity,
notice under section 28a of the consumer protection act,
notice for RTI deficiency in service, 
consumer notice for deficiency in service by the Public Authourity,
deficiency in service by the Public Authourity,

witten arguments for 3rd party and compliance of procedure

                                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                              Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01675 dated 24.12.2007
                                        Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19


Appellant : - Ms. Hema D'Souza
Respondent: - Dy. Commissioner of Police (DCP - Vigilance)

Facts:
By an application of 26.10.07 Ms. Hema D/Souza of Dwarka New Delhi applied to the PIO / DCP (Vigilance) seeking the following information: "a. Please provide date on which was ACP Shri Vijay Manchanda, was suspended.
b. Please provide copy of the certified suspension order of ACP Shri Vijay Manchanda.
c. Please provide names and designation of enquiry officers. d. Please provide the date of retirement of ACP Shri Vijay Manchanda.
e. Please provide date of revocation of suspension, if applicable.
f. Please provide a certified copy of the revocation order. g. Please advise the charges against ACP Shri Vijay Manchanda.
h. Please provide a certified copy of the charges against ACP Shri Vijay Manchanda.
i. Please provide probable date of culmination of departmental enquiry, if applicable.
j. Please provide a certified copy of the decision on culmination of the departmental enquiry proceedings. k. If exonerated, reasons u/s 4 (1) (d) RTI Act, attributed by concerned officials.
l. Certified copy of the recommendations/ note sheets, leading to exoneration.
m. Inspection of relevant files and records/ documents. n. Certified copies of documents on inspection of relevant files and records/ documents."


In his response of 7.11.07 DCP (Vigilance) refused the information sought, as follows:
"I am to inform you that the documents/ information asked by you can not be furnished to you as per section 8 (1) (j) & 11 (1) of RTI Act."
Aggrieved Ms. D'Souza moved a first appeal in which, after citing several decisions of this Commission on the application of exemption u/s 8(1) (j), she concluded with the following prayer:
"a. First Appellate Authority may please take note of the appellant's contentions, especially, in terms of the various CIC decisions cited in para 3 (c) of this appeal, before passing an order.
b. Response to queries. Inspection of all relevant enquiry files/ documents and certified copy of documents on inspection."


However, Shri R. K. Upadhyaya in his order of 6.12.07 summarily rejected this appeal stating as follows:
"There is nothing in the present appeal that may warrant interference with the orders of PIO/ Vigilance, which are strictly as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005."


This has brought Ms. D'Souza in her second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"a. Response to queries.
b. Inspection of all relevant enquiry files/ documents and certified copy of documents on inspection.
c. Imposition of penalty u/s 20 of the Act."


The appeal was heard on 17.4.2009. The following are present:
Appellant: Mr. M. D'Souza
Respondents: Mr. M. N. Tiwari, DCP (Vigilance)
Shri D'Souza submitted a letter of authority signed by appellant Ms. Hema D'Souza authorizing him to represent her in the hearing. This has been placed on record.


PIO Shri M. N. Tiwari, DCP (V) submitted that he assumed office recently and agreed that at least part of the information sought should have been supplied to appellant and, therefore, sought time to do so.
Shri D'Souza submitted written arguments in support of Ms. Hema D'Souza's appeal concluding with the following: "a. Issue standing orders of the First Appellate Authority to dispose the appeals in accordance with provisions of the RTI Act and the contentions and citations put forth by the appellant, thereby reducing the burden on CIC and forcing the appellant to undergo delay, harassment and the rigmarole of appeals.
b. Direct CPIO and First Appellate Authority to adhere to the principles of natural justice and to pass reasoned speaking order in all cases, and
c. Initiate penalty proceedings u/s 20 (1) and recommended departmental disciplinary action u/s 20 (2), in this case of violation of provisions of RTI Act by the Public Information Officer, and
d. Pass any such order that this Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."


She has, in this submission, relied on the requirement of the RTI Act u/s 7(8) (1) that in rejecting an application, reasons be provided. She has also taken recourse to the proviso to sec. 8(1)(j) with regard to disclosure of information that cannot be denied to Parliament and to the fact that w.r.t. sec. 11(1) only such information merits such reference that is under consideration for disclosure and has been treated confidential by the third party. She has further argued that the response of both CPIO and appellate authority militate against the principles of transparency and accountability and has cited the decision of the Kerala High Court in Canara Bank vs. C.I.C. - AIR 2007 Ker 225 together with the decisions of this Commission in Shri Dhananjay Tripathi vs. BHU File No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00163, dated 7th July, 2007 in Shri Dharmendra Sharma vs. Shri D. C. Srivastava, DCP, Delhi File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00535 dated 19th January, 2007 in Shri Janardan Dubey vs. MHA, File No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00086 dated 28th March, 2007 in Shri Surender Kumar vs. CFSL, File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00064 dated 18th January, 2007, in decision of Shri Mahavir Singhvi vs. MEA, File No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00010, A/2006/00027 & A/2006/00049, dated 7th July, 2006, and Shri Shahzad Ahmed vs. Shri R. P. Upadhyay, DCP Vigilance, File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00199 dated 20th September, 2006 in


                                                      DECISION NOTICE

There is little doubt that the information sought in this request is that concerning a third party namely ACP Shri Vijay Manchanda. Nevertheless, in this case the information sought regarding ACP Shri Vijay Manchanda is with regard to a public activity i.e. an official enquiry against Shri Vijay Manchanda and results arising wherefrom. The judgment of the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No.3114/2007 - Shri Bhagat Singh Vs. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors cited by appellant in her written statement is also of relevance, although it deals principally with the application of sec. 8(1) (h) Justice Bhat has also enunciated the principles of application of all exemptions u/s 8(1), which requires that the recourse to exemption of any nature needs to be fully explained:

It is a fact that we do not have a law on the protection of privacy in India. In this Commission, we have been guided by the Data Protection Act of 1998 of U.K. and the USA's Law of Torts on privacy. These lay down as follows: U.K. Data Protection Act 1998,

In the U.K's. Data Protection Act 1998, Sec.2 titled Sensitive Personal Data, defines this as personal data consisting of information as to: a. The racial or ethnic origin of the data subject. b. His political opinions
c. His religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature d. Whether he is a member of a Trade Union. e. His physical or mental health or condition. f. His sexual life.
g. The commission or alleged commission by him of any offence.
h. Any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed by him, the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings."

U.S. LAW OF TORTS.
The US Restatement of the Law, Second Torts, 652 defines the Intrusion of Privacy in the following manner:-
"One, who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another of his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person."


However, both these will relate to activity of a private nature undertaken by a private citizen whereas in this case the information sought is that of an activity of an official nature undertaken by an official. For this reason, we can understand the intention of the PIO to disclose the information sought. Hence a reference u/s 11(1). However, if the intention is in any case to seek exemption u/s 8(1) sub sec. (j), as rightly pleaded by appellant Ms. D'Souza, there needed to be no question of referral u/s 11 sub sec. (1).


In this case, therefore, we hold that the information sought merits disclosure. However, following from the fact that the information relates to a third party, who is not party to this case, which the third party may have treated as confidential, such disclosure will only be made after obtaining any objection from the third party Shri Vijay Manchanda within five days of receipt of this Decision Notice us 11 (1) of the Act. Thereafter, CPIO is allowed a further ten days to examine these objections, exercise his judgment and disclose such information, as he then finds merits disclosure, an exercise that may be completed within fifteen working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice. The appeal is thus allowed.


On the plea for penalty, however, we find that both the CPIO and Appellate Authority have responded to the RTI application well in time. We have, however, taken note of the plea of Shri M. D'Souza during the appeal that he has been shabbily treated with regard to every application made to the Police Department by his wife Ms. Hema D'Souza and himself. We also find that there is no ground for so summarily rejecting the first appeal, as has been the instance in this case, demonstrating a total lack of application of mind. First Appellate Authority Shri Upadhyaya is cautioned to ensure issue of reasoned orders in disposal of first appeal in all cases brought before him as Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, lest he open his Dep't to the liability of paying compensation u/s 19 (8) (b).


Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
17.4.2009

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
17.4.2009

Accused(A1) can not be prosectued on vague allegations

                                                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                                     CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 949 OF 2003

NEELU CHOPRA & ANR.                                                         … Appellant(s)

Versus

BHARTI                                                                                   … Respondent(s)


J U D G M E N T
V.S. SIRPURKAR,J.

1. This appeal is against the judgment of the Delhi High Court whereby the petition for quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellants pending before the trial court has been dismissed.

2. The factual scenario is that the appellant Neelu Chopra and Krishan Sarup Chopra are husband and wife and the respondent Bharti is their daughter-in- law. Bharti was married in the year 1984 to one Rajesh, the son of present appellants. However, as per the version of the respondent the married life was not smooth on account of unreasonable demand of dowry and the misbehaviour on the part of husband Rajesh and his parents, the appellants herein. Ultimately, on 24.12.1993 a complaint came to be filed before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gidderbaha. The complaint was accepted in the sense that the learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 25.1.1994 took the cognizance of the offences under Sections 406, 498A read with 114 IPC. This order of cognizance was challenged by the accused persons. Rajesh is reported to have expired on 6.1.2006. The High Court, however, did not agree to quash the complaint and took a view that the complaint did show the material sufficient to proceed against the appellants. The High court, however, expressed that it would be open to the Magistrate to exempt the personal presence of the appellants.
3. Mr. M.N.Krishnamani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants painstakingly took us though the original complaint as also the allied facts relevant for the determination of the present controversy. It was pointed out by the learned senior counsel that the marriage had taken place way back in the year 1984 while the complaint was filed on 24.12.1993 i.e. after about nine years of the marriage. It was further pointed out that two daughters were born to the complainant and presently the complainant along with his daughter is residing in the same house but on the different floor. Learned senior counsel points out that those daughters are now 22 and 19 years of age. He further points out that presently the age of the first appellant is 76 years while her husband is of 80 years. Learned senior counsel, however, besides these facts, laid great stress on the fact that the complaint is absolutely vague and silent as regards the allegation against present appellants.

4. We have seen the complaint very carefully. From a bare reading of the complaint it is apparent that the problem started barely after six months of the marriage. In paragraph 3 of the complaint, it is stated that all the accused came to complainant’ s parents house at Gidderbaha and asked her parents to give the complainant more gold and other articles as dowry otherwise they would leave the complainant there and Rajesh would be married second time. In paragraph 4, the complaint is against Rajesh in the sense that the accused Rajesh asked the complainant to hand over the ornaments and clothes to his parents lest they are lost in the way. On reaching to Delhi when the ornament were asked back by the complainant, they were not returned back. When we see the complaint as a whole it is basically against the accused Rajesh. All the allegations are against Rajesh. There is undoubtedly some reference to the present appellants, but what strikes us is that there are no particulars given as to date on which the ornaments were handed over, as to the exact number of ornaments or their description and as to the date when the ornaments were asked back and were refused. Even the weight of the ornaments is not mentioned in the complaint and it is a general and vague complaint that the ornaments were sometime given in the custody of the appellants and they were not returned. What strikes us more is that even in paragraph 10 of the complaint where the complainant says that she asked for her clothes and ornaments which were given to the accused and they refused to give these back, the date is significantly absent. It seems from the order taking cognizance that the learned Magistrate has mentioned about the version of the complainant is supported by Bhagwati and Dharampal to the fact that the ornaments were entrusted to Krishan Saroop and Rajesh while clothes were entrusted to Rakhi and they refused to hand over the same. Even their statements could not be better than the vague complaint. Even about the clothes, the date on which they were handed over to Rakhee who happens to be the daughter of the present appellants and the other details are very significantly absent. It was also the version of the complainant that she was beaten in support of which she has filed a certificate from AIIMS hospital, New Delhi. However, in the complaint, it is not seen as to on which date she was beaten and by whom. It is significant to note that the matter against the Rakhee, the 4th original accused has already been dropped as she was in fact not even the resident of the same house.
5. In order to lodge a proper compliant, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein on the basis of vague and general complaint which is silent about precise acts of appellants.

6. The High Court has merely mentioned that the allegation in complaint are of retaining jewellery articles in possession of the husband and the petitioners. Now if the articles were in the possession of the husband, there is no question of the present appellants being in possession of the appellants. This is apart from the fact that it has already been expressed by us that there is no mention of the date on which said ornaments, if any, were entrusted to appellants or even date when they were demanded back and were refused to be given back by appellants or any one of them. Insofar as offence U/s 498A IPC is concerned, we do not find any material or allegation worth name against present appellants. All allegations appear to be against Rajesh.
7. This is apart from the fact that despite service of notice, the complainant neither appeared before this court nor engaged any counsel to represent her. Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside. It is, accordingly, set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance is quashed. The  complaint is quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

(V.S.SIRPURKAR)
(DEEPAK VERMA)
New Delhi,
October 7, 2009.



Accused can not be prosectued on vague allegations, 498a Accused(A1) can not be prosectued on vague allegations

RTI reply from A.P. POLICE Dept for accused rights

coming shortly


just wait for it ......





accused rights, investigation procedure,

Fight till you succeed

The fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India empower the people of India to establish a democratic institution of the people, by the people and for the people which upholds the dignity and worth of the individual. It envisages the general elevation in the character of the people and hence it becomes a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience. Its aim is the respect of individuals and idolizing of none. But under conditions prevailing now, instead of becoming a satisfying, affirmative alternative to man’s individual and collective progress, our present practicing democracy has become a means to reduce men to mediocrity in character and culture, to vulgarize man’s conception of life, their moral codes, manners and conduct and to endanger their legitimate rights.

Our democracy as seen presently totally lacks the spirit of reverence in all public acts which prevents people from doing wrong by respect for authority and for the laws, having an especial regard to those who are ordained for the protection of the underprivileged and oppressed. Democracy alone, of all the forms of government gathers the full force of man’s enlightened will which is the most natural and the most consonant with individual liberty that recognizes the individual as higher and independent power, from which the state derives its power and authority and treats him accordingly. But the democracy as is being practiced to day is making a mockery of individual liberty and the underlying power of the people and their authority.

Democracy is a great institution and being great, the chances of abuse of democracy are also great. The remedy lies in reducing the chances of abuse to the minimum and not in avoidance of democracy. That power lies with the people only. If the people do not understand their own power and if the people’s power is not recognized properly, the democratic institution will, sooner or later, destroy the liberty or civility or both. Then the people may not value virtue but become dupes of pretended patriots.

Obviously the passion for power is an unquenchable thirst in man. Democracy is based on the old dictum that “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” and that the power is very dangerous and that it is extremely important not to let any one or any group have too much power for too long time. Power intoxicates and it is never voluntarily surrendered. Hence no man is wise enough or good enough to be trusted with unlimited power. So opposition is essential and inevitable in a democracy. A good statesman always learns from his opponents than from his fervent supporters. But once the government is committed to the principles of silencing the voice of the opposition, it has only one way to go and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures until it becomes a source of terror to all the citizens and creates a nation where every one lives in mortal fear. The duty of the opposition is to act as a watchdog to eliminate the abuse of power and to correct the government with its positive approach and constructive criticism. If the government is to function properly it must have dissent and the true test of democracy is the freedom of expression which will hear the voice of criticism. But under the prevailing conditions in India, the ruling party in power and the party in opposition are in no way different from each other. They exchange tirade against each other instead of helping the nation to keep up good governance and to safe guard the security interest of the nation.

The supreme issues involved in a democracy are the encroachment upon the rights of many by the powerful few and the legitimization of the lust for power which corrupts absolutely. Experience constantly shows that every one who has power is impelled to abuse it and greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse which gradually erodes from the mind every human and gentle virtue. Under these circumstances, the success or failure of democracy rests on the public opinion that is being created. The destiny of democracy depends upon the soundness and integrity of public opinion. Public opinion is the people’s armour. All right things can be achieved through the irresistible power of awakened and enlightened public opinion. Even wealth has a wholesome respect for the law when public opinion is free and uncontrolled. To befool and mislead the people, to falsify public opinion is to pervert and destroy a democratic form of government.

The conditions that gave birth to Fascism cannot be overlooked. The first and the most dangerous symptom is the abandonment of equal justice to all, the placing of some groups in a preferred class of citizenship at the expense of the other groups. Under these circumstances the fraudulent and ambitious find a motive to mislead and even to corrupt the common sentiment to attain their ends if they fail in their means of obtaining power more honestly. But true democracy wages a relentless war to prevent such happenings by harnessing the power of the public, inspiring the valiant and patriot even to sacrifice to uphold the value of life.

Democracy restores to man a consciousness of his values, teaches him to listen to the dictates of reasons by removing of authority and oppression, gives him confidence to treat all other men as his fellow human beings, and to regard them as his brethren who come to assist him in need and not as enemies to fight against. Thus in a democracy the power of the rulers is “nothing else but what is only derivative transferred, and committed to them in trust from the people to the common good of them all in whom the power is yet remains fundamentally and cannot be taken away from them, without violation of their birth right.”

“Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” Democracy is a dynamic power and not a static condition. It is not absolute. It cannot be taken for granted. Its condition is freedom and its aim is truth. It is never fully won. Its essence is eternal struggle and struggle must we to preserve, protect and defend the integrity of the nation and liberty of the individual.

What if we do not fight for the fundamental principles of our rights and natural justice?
“Either some Ceaser or Napoleon will seize reins of government with a strong hand, or your republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid waste by barbarians in the Twentieth Century (now 21ST Centaury) as the Roman Empire in the Fifth- with the difference……that your Huns and Vandals will have been engendered within your own country by your own institutions” Do you want it to happen.? If not, fight for your legitimate rights and justice and the clarion call is “Arise, Awake and Stop not till the goal is reached.”



Never Give UP So easily, Fight till you succeedd,  Never Ever Give UP, Never say die, Constitutional success.

IPC - ready reckoner

IPC in brief


121- 130  = Offences affecting state or public
131- 140   = Offences affecting Army Navy & Airforce
141- 160   =  Offences affecting public tranquillity
161- 171   =  Offences relating to public servants
171A - 171 I  =  Offences relating to elections
172 - 190   =  Contempts of lawful authourity of public service
191 - 229  = False evidence against pubic justice
230 - 263 = Offences relating to coins and Govt Stamps
264 - 267 = Offences relating to weights and measures
268 - 294 = Offences affecting public health, decency, safety, conveyance and morals
295 - 298 = Offences relating to relegion
299 - 377 = Offences affecting body
378 - 462 = Offences against property
463 - 477 = Offences relating to documents and property marks
490 - 492 = Cr breach of contracts of service
493 - 498 = Offences relating to marriage
499 - 502 = Defmation
503 -  510 = Cr intimidation, insult and conveyance
511    = attempt to commit suicide

Court process language

Court process language is to understand the how our indian judicial process works in general and to understand the legal concept who have recently joined the profession.

The process of court
CIVIL  Preparing PLAINT (in duplicate) along with Verifying affidavit, valuation slip, vakalatnama, list of documents, Interim Application(IA), process, copies for the other side.

Filing of plaint before CMO (Sherestedar) – paying court fee & process

After numbering, the file will come before the court.

Hearing on IA no.1 (if any IA filed)
If IA is allowed, comply with the order. [compliance is sending IA copy to the other side by Reg. Post and filing affidavit to that effect in the court]

On every interim application there will be stages as follows IA by either of the party – objection by the other side – hearing – order on IA

Or the court will issues notice/summons to other side.

Return of notice - If other side appears they will file vakalat or they will be placed ex-parte.

If notice is not served to the other side
Steps to reissue the summons to be taken by filing process.

Written statement - If the other side appears It will be posted for Written statement of defendants

Issues – after filling of W.S the court will frame issues.

Evidence – after issues, evidence of plaintiff (PW) by way of filing affidavit and exhibiting the documents

Cross examination – Cross examination of plaintiff

Evidence – evidence of defendant by way of filing affidavit and exhibiting the documents

Cross examination – cross examination of defendant.

Argument – argument by plaintiff

Argument – argument by defendant

JUDGEMENT

CRIMINAL

FIR – complaint to police - register FIR.

INVESTIGATION – on investigation they arrest accused

Produce – accused will be produced before the Magistrate

Bail – application for bail is to be filed   (if bailable u/s 436, non bailable u/s 437 before Magistrate)

Objection – APP will file objections

Hearing – court will hear the matter

Order – Order on bail

Final Report – the police will file Final Report i.e. Charge sheet
[if the offences are triable by sessions court, the court will commit the matter to the sessions court]

HBC – court will hear the matter before charge

Charge – Charges framed by the court. Read over to the accused and ask them whether they are guilty. If the accused denies the guilt then it will be posted for trial.

Trail – court will issue summons to the Witnesses for trial

 Examination in chief -  chief examination of witnesses by APP

 Cross examination – Cross examination by Adv. for accused.

313 statement – read over by judge to the accused.

Argument – arguments by both sides

JUDGEMENT

If in FIR offences alleged are exclusively triable by Sessions Court then a separate Criminal Misc is to be filed before the Sessions court for bail.

Criminal Misc – Criminal Misc petition for bail is to be filed before sessions court along with certified copy of FIR & complaint.

Notice to PP – Court will issue notice to PP

Objections – PP will file objections

Hearing – court will hear the matter

Order – order on bail.
After filing of the charge sheet the lower court will commit the matter to Sessions court and session court will after framing the charges, fix the dates for trial and same procedure of evidence will be followed.