Change.org|Start an Online Petition »

Interim Order on Transfer of Case by Bombay High Court

The case against the Judge was file under CrPC 407 and was contended that unfair and impartial trail cannot be conducted in the Hon’ble Court.

sjs APPLN-272.2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.272 OF 2012

Amol R. Kurhe …. Applicant

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra
& Ors. …. Respondents

Applicant in-person present.
Ms U.V. Kejriwal, APP, for the State.

CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J.

DATED: APRIL 03, 2012
P.C:

1. Notice to the respondents, returnable on 8-5-2012. The learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State.

2. The grievance of the applicant that he is being required by the Family Court at Akola to come frequently almost every alternate day should be noted by the learned Judge and the learned Judge may give reasonable time to enable the applicant to appear before the Court so that the matter can be finished in minimum number of adjournments.

 
(R.C. CHAVAN, J.)

 

http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/criminal/2012/APPLN27212030412.pdf

‘Sita followed Ram, why can’t WIFE?’—–TOI

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday invoked the Ramayana to try and persuade a woman to join her husband at his posting in Port Blair, while in another case the court succeeded in convincing the wife that marriagewas more important than her computer training.

Hearing an appeal by the husband against the family court’s dismissal of his divorce plea, a division bench of Justices P B Majmudar and Anoop Mohta asked the wife why she could not join her husband. “You should go to him. When Sita could join Ram in vanvas, then why can’t you go?” asked Justice Majmudar.

The bench was hearing a case by Ajay Singh, a senior officer with the Shipping Corporation of India, challenging a family court’s January 7, 2012 order dismissing his divorce plea but granting his wife’s plea for maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month. Ajay had moved the family court for divorce on the grounds that his wife Anjali had deserted him.

The couple married in April 1999 and had a daughter in May 2000. Ajay was posted to Port Blairon April 17, 2006. But Anjali refused to join him and in May filed a petition for maintenance and told the family court that Ajay was ill-treating her. Ajay subsequently filed for divorce.

In the high court, Anjali’s advocate said, “There are reasons why she does not want to live with him.” The judges called the couple to their chamber but could not reach a settlement as Anjali remained adamant.

In the second case, the judges were successful in convincing a Pune couple to remain united when the appeal against a family court order came up for hearing. The family court had dismissed husband Suresh’s plea for divorce on grounds of cruelty because his wife Smita Joshi was not willing to have sex with him. Smita in turn appealed to double the maintenance amount.

Suresh had told the family court that Smita “would threaten that she would shout loudly and gather all the family members”. Smita said her mother-in-law was opposed to their sleeping together.

At a previous hearing, the high court had told the couple to stay together for a week. On Tuesday, Smita told the judges that she is happy and Ajay “has entered the bedroom”. Justice Majmudar riposted, “Obviously, only he will enter the bedroom. He’s your husband.” The judges directed the couple to continue their “probation” for further four weeks,

“Try to win the hearts of each other during the summer period. Go outside Pune city. Go to Mahabaleshwar,” said Justice Majmudar. But then Ajay had a complaint. “She’s out of home all day,” he said. Smita’s advocate told the court that she was undergoing computer training. “Leave computer training aside. This training is more important than computer training,” said Justice Majmudar.

हायकोर्ट म्हणते, पत्नी सीतेप्रमाणे असावी!—Lokmat

प्रभू रामचंद्रांसोबत १४ वर्षे वनवास काढणार्‍या सीतेप्रमाणे पत्नी असावी, असे मत उच्च न्यायालयाने आज व्यक्त केले.
सीता प्रभू रामासोबत ज्याप्रमाणे वनवासात राहण्यास तयार झाली. तसेच पत्नीने देखील पतीचे काम ज्या ठिकाणी असेल तेथे त्याच्यासोबत राहण्यास संमती दर्शवावी, असेही निरीक्षण न्यायालयाने नोंदविले आहे.
शिपवर काम करत असलेल्या कोलकत्ता येथील एका पतीने पत्नी आपल्या कामाच्या ठिकाणी राहण्यास येत नसल्याच्या मुद्दयावर घटस्फोट मिळावा यासाठी अपील दाखल केले आहे. मुंबईतील मुलीसोबत २00५ मध्ये लग्न झाल्यावर पती पाच वर्षे कामानिमित्त शिपवरच होता.
त्यावेळी पत्नी मुंबईतच राहत होती. त्यानंतर पतीची बदली अंदमान येथे झाली. त्यावेळी पतीने पतीला अपल्यासोबत राहण्यास बोलावले. त्यास पत्नीने नकार दिल्याने या मुद्दयावर पतीने घटस्फोटासाठी कौटुंबिक न्यायालयात अर्ज केला. न्यायलायाने तो फेटाळला. त्याला पतीने उच्च न्यायालयात आव्हान दिले आहे. त्यावरील सुनावणीत वरील मत न्यायालयाने व्यक्त केले.

नवर्‍यांनो, सावधान !———-LOKMAT

नवर्‍यांनो, सावधान !

यकोला पोसता येत नसेल तर लग्नच करू नका’ हा मुंबई उच्च न्यायालयाने पुरुषवर्गाला दिलेला आदेश देशातील स्त्रियांसाठी उत्साहवर्धक तर पुरुषांसाठी चिंतावर्धक आहे. लग्न करायचे तर किमान ते टिकेपर्यंत बायकोचा सांभाळ करायचा, ते तुटले तर तिला पोटगीदाखल पैसा पुरवायचा आणि तो पुरविता येत नसेल तर गरिबी वा तसे कोणतेही कारण त्यासाठी पुढे करायचे नाही असा या आदेशाचा तीन पदरी सांगावा आहे. तात्पर्य, आताच्या सगळ्य़ा नवर्‍यांना व पुढे नवरे होऊ इच्छिणार्‍या सार्‍या तरुणांना आपली ऐपत वाढविण्याची, टिकविण्याची व प्रसंगी ती वाटून घेण्याची तयारी यापुढे करावी लागणार आहे. कुठल्याशा वाहिनीवर मालिका दिग्दर्शित करणार्‍या इसमाने त्याच्या पत्नीला लग्नानंतर दहा वर्षांनी घटस्फोट द्यायचे ठरविले तेव्हा तिने त्याला दहा लाखांचा मोबदला मागितला. त्यातून उभ्या झालेल्या खटल्याचा निकाल देताना न्यायालयाने हा दणदणीतआदेश सार्‍या पुरुषवर्गाला दिला. गेली सात वर्षे ते दोघे एकमेकांपासून फारकत घेऊन दूर राहत होते. या काळात कौटुंबिक न्यायालयाने दिलेल्या निर्णयानुसार त्या नवर्‍याने बायकोला दरमहा सहा हजार रुपये खर्चादाखल द्यायचे होते. काही काळ ते दिल्यानंतर त्या बहाद्दराने तो रतीब थांबविला. परिणामी त्याच्याकडे पावणेदोन लाखांची थकबाकी राहिली. या थकबाकीचे कारण न्यायालयाला सांगताना त्या नवर्‍याने आपण गरीब असून आपल्याला पूर्वीएवढे उत्पन्न मिळत नाही असा स्वत:चा बचाव केला. तो फेटाळून लावताना ‘गरीब असणे हे पोटगी न देण्याचे कारण ठरू शकत नाही’ असे न्यायालयाने त्याला बजावले वर ‘गरीबच होता तर लग्न केलेच कशाला’ असेही त्याला सुनावले. लग्न केलेल्या व करणार्‍या कोणत्याही पुरुषाला आपण बायकोचा सांभाळ करू शकत नाही असे म्हणण्याचाअधिकार नसल्याचेही यावेळी न्यायालयाने जाहीर केले. न्या. पी.बी. मुजुमदार व न्या.अनुप मोहता यांच्या बेंचने दिलेला हा निर्णय एकाचवेळी विवाहित स्त्रीला संरक्षण देणारा, पत्नीची आर्थिक जबाबदारी टाळू पाहणार्‍या नवर्‍यांना दम देणारा आणि लग्नात व लग्नानंतरही स्त्रीला आर्थिक स्थैर्य मिळवून देणारा आहे. मुंबईचे खंडपीठ स्त्रियांना सबलीकरणाचा हात देणारा हा निर्णय देत असतानाच त्या न्यायालयाच्या औरंगाबाद खंडपीठाने ‘नवर्‍याला सोडून परपुरुषासोबत राहणार्‍या (लिव्ह इन रिलेशनशिप) स्त्रीला त्या पुरुषाच्या मृत्यूनंतर पोटगी देण्याची जबाबदारी पुन्हा नवर्‍यावरच येते’असा निर्णय देऊन स्त्रियांची बाजू आणखी भक्कम केली आहे. न्या. ए. व्ही. निरगुडे यांच्या या निकालाने ४९ वर्षे वयाच्या नवर्‍याचा, आपल्याला सोडून परपुरुषाबरोबर रहायला गेलेल्या बायकोला पोटगी न देण्याचा दावा फेटाळून लावला आहे. ‘परपुरुषासोबतचा तिचा सहवास कोणत्याही कारणाने संपला असेल आणि आपण निराधार असल्याचे ती सिद्धकरीत असेल तर तिचा पोटगीचा हक्क कायम राहतो’ असे या न्यायालयाने म्हटले आहे.. औरंगाबादचे खंडपीठ आणि मुंबईचे उच्च न्यायालय यांनी एकाचवेळी दिलेले हे दोन निकाल स्त्रीशक्ती वर्धमान करणारे आणि पुरुषांना लग्नाआधी, लग्नानंतर व ते संपुष्टात आल्यानंतरही कायम सावधान रहायला सांगणारे आहेत. या निर्णयावर महाराष्ट्रातील महिलांच्या संघटनांच्या प्रतिक्रिया अजून प्रगट झाल्या नसल्या तरी त्या केवढय़ा आनंदाच्या असतील हे वेगळे सांगण्याची गरज नाही.

Age no bar, for misusing Domestic Violence Act-TOI Pune Mirror

Men’s Rights Association met with senior citizens and middle-aged men, who claim daughter-in-laws and second wives harass them.

 

 

Men’s Rights Association (MRA), an NGO that helps aggrieved men, held a meeting for senior citizens at Sambhaji Park on Sunday, to discuss grievances. MRA claims the harassment of men by women transcends age and marital status. MRA, which is a year-old, is a strong critic of the misuse of the Domestic Violence Act (DVA).

MRA believes many senior citizens are made to run from pillar to post. A majority of these cases, they claim, are related to second marriages or involve a daughter-in-law with an eye on her in-law’s property.

Rajesh Nirgude

MRA’s meeting at Sambhaji Park meant for senior citizens

Makarand Ambekar (70), a Pimpri resident, said, “I approached the MRA as my daughter-in-law, the sister of a city-based film director, implicated me, my son and my wife. She claims we are harassing her mentally, but we have never stayed together. My son lived on Sinhagad Road, while we stay in Pimpri.

Now, she is demanding a share of our property, saying our grandson will inherit it. She used her influence to put us in jail. The matter is still pending in the family court and my son is struggling for justice.”

Ambegaon resident Sanjay Bendre (57), a government employee, tells his story. After the death of his first wife, he married a widow in 2004. Both had 7-year-old sons, but she began torturing her stepson as he did better than her child in school. Bendre said, “My second wife inflicted burns on my son.

When I protested, she threw me and my 91-yr-old father out of the house. She assaulted me in front of our neighbours. She also refused to return 25 tolas gold and two kgs of silver jewellery, purchased by my first wife.

She threatened to commit suicide and implicate me and filed false cases against me when I asked her to return the jewellery. The family court approved our divorce, but did not order the return of the jewellery. I am now seeking justice from the HC.”

Rajendra Chavan (55), an MSEDCL employee also had a horror story.  Chavan claims he was married in 1994, but his wife deserted him as she did not like his small house in Guruwar Peth. She divorced him, but when he tried to remarry, she spread rumours that he was not a “complete” man.

He could not remarry because of the rumour, but finally did at a mass-marriage ceremony in Hubli. His second wife allegedly concealed the fact that she could not conceive and blamed it on a hormonal problem. Chavan says, “When I asked her to see a doctor, she avoided it. When I insisted, she did, but didn’t show me reports. I was shocked to learn the truth.

The police refused to file a case of cheating. Meanwhile, my wife dragged me to court. When I tried to prove my case, she used influence and forced seven lawyers not to represent me. My file containing case documents was also misplaced. I have been forced to pay her an allowance since 2004.”

MRA is the brainchild of Atit Rajpara, a software engineer. He says, “It’s a welcome sign that, brushing aside the fear of defamation, senior citizens and middle-aged men contact us.”

RISE IN DIVORCES HC stresses on ‘art of living’ in family life-Bombay HC

Mumbai: Instead of live-ins, the institution of marriage should be preserved in India, the Bombay high court said on Wednesday, adding that “there should be art of living in family life so that relationships can be saved”.
A division bench of justice P B Majmudar and justice Anoop Mohta was hearing cross appeals filed by Kalachowki residents Anil (50) and Shraddha Mane (38). Shraddha challenged the family court’s January 19,
2012, order granting divorce to Anil on ground of cruelty and desertion and directing him to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 7,500. She urged for restitution of conjugal rights. Anil challenged the maintenance part, saying he was willing to pay for their daughter but not Shraddha as she is a computer engineer and could earn for herself.
The judges rued that rising divorces were eroding the institution of marriage. “Going by the rate of the cases we are getting, marriage as an institution will be abolished in 10-15 years. The tolerance level of people has gone down,” said justice Majmudar.
The judges said if traditional marriage is abolished, live-ins will get a boost. “Live-in relationships should not mean the traditional marriage system in India is given the go-by. Marriage is instituted so that man and woman can live in civilized society. Or else, it will be rule of the jungle,” said justice Majmudar. The judges asked Anil’s advocate if there was hope of a settlement and were informed that Anil was unwilling. He said Shraddha had questioned Anil’s paternity and made allegations against his family members. The judges said parties should take care before making reckless allegations. “Sometimes even if there is scope of a settlement, because of the nature of allegations, it does not succeed,’’ said justice Majmudar.
Anil and Shraddha married on March 26, 2001. It was Anil’s second marriage. Their daughter was born on January 12, 2002. Anil, an ONGC engineer, said Shraddha disliked his mentally challenged brother and wanted to stay separately. He said she left home on August 22, 2003, and went with their 10-year-old daughter to live at her parents’ place. Shraddha alleged ill-treatment and said she filed a dowry complaint. She said she feared for her and daughter’s safety from Anil’s brother.
(Names changed to protect identity)

Marriage law favours fairer sex! Men’s right is left alone- DNA

Lack of gender equal law is forcing married men to commit suicide. Activists feel anti-men laws are being misused by women and men become victims. Speak Up explores

Speak Up

How can the court consider a wife’s allegation true without evidence? There is no provision under the law for men to defend themselves if they are accused of any crime against women. There are so many anti-men laws under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The husband and his family are guilty till they prove their innocence. The IPC- 498A section under the Dowry Act, 1961, is one such draconian law. If a terrorist like Ajmal Kasab is considered innocent till he is not proven guilty in the court of law, why can’t men who are accused by women be treated in the same way till all the evidence is not presented? How can the court consider a wife’s allegation true till proper investigation does not take place? Just based on an FIR filed by a woman, a husband and his family can be arrested. The entire burden is shifted on the accused and the court supports women without looking at the facts. Rajesh Vakharia, Founder Member, Save India Family If women misuse the law then courts can take severe action The law has to protect women’s rights and you cannot have a gender equal law. So much gender disparity and discrimination exists in our society. We have to take into consideration who has suffered the most. Where women are deprived and are at disadvantage in this men dominated society, there is a need to protect their rights. With reservation for women, we can achieve substantial gender equality. If women misuse the law then the courts can take action against them. In case of a child’s custody in a divorce case, the child needs a mother’s care and the court takes that into consideration. Ramesh Awasti, Co-founder, MASUM When domestic violence arises, couples should consult a counsellor. There is reason as to why the law supports women. This is because since ages the fairer sex has suffered and still faces the brunt, except that the situation is some what better now. Ours is still a male dominant society and women get exploited. They need the support of the law till gender inequality exists in our society. Surely the equations are changing and men have to prove their innocence which is becoming very uncomfortable for them. I feel that when domestic violence arises, couples should consult a counsellor before approaching the court for divorce. Parul Khona, marriage counsellor The attitude adopted by courts towards women weighs high against men The law should be balanced. Men too have emotions but cannot express themselves like women do. For men, family is most important of all. If there are troubles in the family, he reaches a high level of frustration and may end his life. Even long judicial procedure and concerned attitude towards women adopted by the courts weighs against men. Balasaheb Patil, president, Purush Bachao Hakka Samiti If wife asks for divorce then the husband has to pay her alimony for lifetime The suicide rate among married men is increasing, especially since 1995, which is when the Anti-Dowry Act came into existence. The laws that were introduced to support women in order to bring gender equality by the government are being misused. The government must seriously look into this matter. Whenever women file cases against men, they become culprits by default, which is a biased outlook. Under the law, if a man gets married to a woman, he has to take care of all her needs for the rest of her life. If wife asks for a divorce then the husband has to pay her alimony for a lifetime whether they are married for just one day or two years. I am surprised that we have a women welfare ministry but there is no such provision for men. Atit Rajpara, President, Men’s Rights Association     http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?edorsup=Sup&ed_code=820040&ed_page=4&boxid=26816370&id=14215&ed_date=04%2F10%2F2012