Every Sufferer Is A Saviour..

Friday, 31 January 2014


Aazad Sufferer's Joke on Biased Law:

Girl to her BF:Darling after marriage I am going to give you a valuable gift that will long for at least 4-5 years.
BF: With surprise! What gift you are going to give me Honey?
Girl to her BF: 498A .....stupid!

Judge to wife petitioner: Tell me how you have controlled your husband?
Wife petitioner to judge : My Lord, By 498A , DVA,406 and 125 crpc..

498A Wife to Her Lawyer: See I don't have Time do fast.
Her Lawyer: Why? Next Bakra is waiting.....

Policeman to 498A Wife: I got a complaint from your husband.
Wife: Which husband third one or fourth one.

 SIL to his FIL after Kanyadan : Don't cry. Sir., I will take care of your daughter.
 FIL TO SIL: Son, I am crying because now you will cry for ever.

More jokes have to come (stay tuned) ............

The shortest example of Fight against False Stridhan:

Wife: The Gateway of India is My Stridhan --------
Husband: ok. I believe you  but Go and bring the Dad who had built the Gateway of India for you.
Judge: Order--Order (The court is Adjourned Now)

After 20 years,

Wife: Gateway Of India is My Stridhan.
Husband: Go and bring the person who had built.....

Judge: Abe 20 saalon se bas yahi sunte aa raha hun.
Batao Gateway of India Kiske baap ne banwaya?
Agar maine aapne Baap ko bol diya hota toh Ab Tak Gateway of India Mera Hota.

________________The case is still pending________________

Morale: Results come only when  petitioners Pray is True.


Q: Who is the perfect husband? 
A: One who keeps his mouth shut and his checkbook open!

Q: How hard is it to lose a wife? 
A: Nowadays its almost impossible!

Q: Did you hear about the scientist whose wife had twins? 
A: He baptized one and kept the other as a control.

Q: What kind of institution is Marriage? 
A: One where a man loses his Bachelor's Degree and the woman gets her Masters.

Q: What kind of rings do men need for marriage 
A1: Engagement Ring 
A2: Wedding Ring 
A3: Suffe-Ring 
A4: Endu-Ring

Q: Whats the definition of a happy marriage? 
A: One where the husband gives and the wife takes.

Son: How much does it cost to get married, Dad? 
Father: I don't know son, I'm still paying for it.

Son: Is it true? Dad, I heard that in India, a man doesn't know his wife until he marries. 
Father: That happens everywhere, son, everywhere!

Q: Whats the difference between marrying a Mama's Boy and a Daddy's Girl? A: One makes biscuits like his mother and the other makes dough like her father!

Q: What is the ideal marriage? 
A: One between a deaf man and a blind woman

source: http://www.jokes4us.com/peoplejokes/marriagejokes.html

Wednesday, 29 January 2014

List of divorce Cases where husband got the ultimate freedom from their cruel wives...

November 21, 2013 | Rebecca Samervel , TNN
MUMBAI: A 37-year-old Dadar-based businessman was granted divorce on grounds of "cruelty" as his wife stole and hypothecated almost 200gm of his family's gold jewellery. A city court observed that her conduct had caused damage to the trust factor in the relationship. "Love, faith and trust are the founding pillars for strengthening marital relations," it said. "The respondent (wife) had taken away the gold ornaments without permission of the petitioner (husband) and...

June 2, 2012 | A Subramani , TNN
CHENNAI: Distress and social humiliation heaped on a husband by his wife by filing a false complaint and getting him arrested would amount to cruelty, which is a valid ground for divorce, the Madras high court has said. A division bench comprising Justice Elipe Dharma Rao and Justice M Venugopal, passing orders on an appeal filed by a man, said: "The mental cruelty will continue to hurt a person throughout and any amount of healing words or healing touch would not wipe out...

November 19, 2013 | Shibu Thomas , TNN
MUMBAI: Accusing a man of having illicit relations with his sister and sister-in-law is mental cruelty and grounds for divorce, ruled the Bombay high court. A division bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Revati Dere held that the woman had made it impossible for her estranged husband to live with her and conformed the divorce granted to the couple, who are now grandparents. Mulund residents Rajesh and Shanti Shah...
February 23, 2013 | Dhananjay Mahapatra , TNN
NEW DELHI: In a first, the Supreme Court on Friday permitted settling of cases under Section 498A of IPC lodged by a woman against her husband and in-laws for alleged cruelty in her matrimonial home. Though it was enacted to protect women from harassment and cruelty, there has been judicial recognition of the fact that on several occasions, false complaints under Section 498A were filed to teach the husband and his relatives a lesson as these cases were...
December 21, 2013 | P Vasanth Kumar , TNN
Bangalore: In an interesting case, the Karnataka high court has passed an order dissolving the marriage of a film producer citing that he has sufficiently proved the cruelty meted out to him by his wife, who was one upon a time was his 'dream girl '. "The making of unreasonable and unjustifiable demand for a separate house and a sum of Rs 20,00,000 in lump and Rs 20,000 as maintenance per month, the lodging of complaints on...
December 14, 2013 | TNN
BANGALORE: In an interesting case, the Karnataka high court has passed an order dissolving the marriage of a film producer citing that he has sufficiently proved the cruelty meted out to him by his wife. "The making of unreasonable and unjustifiable demand for a separate house and a sum of Rs 20,00,000 in lump and Rs 20,000 as maintenance per month, the lodging of complaints on important dates, the dates or the previous day, on which the younger brothers of her husabnd...
October 14, 2013 | TNN
NEW DELHI: Holding that physical intimacy is an essential aspect of marriage, the Delhi high court has said that a wife's continuous refusal to have such a relationship with her husband can be ground for divorce. Dismissing a woman's plea challenging the family court's decree of divorce to her husband, a bench of justices S Ravindra Bhat and Najmi Waziri upheld the lower court's February findings in favour of the husband. Taking note that though the couple started living together again...
March 29, 2007 | Dhananjay Mahapatra , TNN
NEW DELHI: In a path-breaking decision, Supreme Court has defined what connotes 'mental cruelty' ? the ground that has been frequently cited as the reason for those seeking divorce but which had so far lacked a precise definition. The court on Monday laid down elaborate criteria of what would constitute "mental cruelty". However, it said that the behaviour patterns so mentioned must persist over a period of time to warrant the conclusion that the marriage between the parties had...
November 5, 2008 | Swati Deshpande , TNN
MUMBAI: Getting a divorce is usually a messy job, especially if it is a contested affair. The commonly cited grounds are mental cruelty, because of the wide sweep of the definition as upheld even by the Supreme Court. In a landmark judgment in recent times, the apex court had held that mental cruelty can cover acts such as a wife not cooking for her husband or consenting to sexual intercourse, but such acts of rebellion must be on a regular basis and not one-off. But can a...
January 8, 2013 | Mahir Haneef , TNN
KOCHI: On Monday, justices Pius C Kuriakose and C K Abdul Rehim of the Kerala high court made the significant ruling that a man's refusal to have children amounted to cruelty and was sufficient cause for granting divorce to his wife. The Thiruvananthapuram family court had granted divorce to Florence George but had refused to concede the larger underlying crime. In her petition to the family court, Florence had stated, "The petitioner (Florence) is very much fond of children and expressed desire to become a mother.
November 23, 2012 | TNN
CHENNAI: Levelling false allegations and filing false cases against a spouse is indeed cruelty and a valid ground for divorce, the Madras high court has said. Justice S Vimala, reiterating this established legal position, passed an order to this effect last week in a case where a woman had accused her husband of extramarital affair, suspecting her character, demanding dowry and subjecting her to cruelty. During cross-examination in a trial court, however, the woman admitted that the allegations were false.
November 22, 2012 | A Subramani , TNN
CHENNAI: Levelling false charges and filing false charges against a spouse is indeed cruelty and it is a valid ground for divorce, the Madras high court has said. Justice S Vimala, reiterating this established legal position, passed an order this effect in a case wherein the wife had accused the husband of extra-marital affair, of suspecting her character, of demanding dowry and of subjecting her to cruelty. During cross-examination in a trial court, however, the wife admitted that the allegations were false.
July 6, 2012 | Dhananjay Mahapatra , TNN
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court termed an advertisement inserted in a newspaper by an estranged wife accusing her husband of being a womanizer and drunkard as an act inflicting extreme mental cruelty on him and granted him divorce to end the 33-year-old marriage which had gone sour for the last 16 years. Shocked by the woman's conduct in inflicting trauma on the husband and tarnishing his reputation, a bench of Justices Deepak Verma and Dipak Misra said it was a fit case for grant of divorce for causing mental cruelty and reversed two concurrent judgments of Bombay high court which had refused the husband's plea for permanent separation on the ground that his marriage had broken down irrevocably.
March 25, 2012 | Abhinav Garg , TNN
NEW DELHI: Sex-starved marriages leading to divorce are becoming an "epidemic", the Delhi high court has observed, while granting divorce to a husband, maintaining that denial of sex by his wife amounted to mental cruelty. The man argued that in the five months he and his wife stayed as a couple after marriage, they had sex only 10-15 times. Dismissing the wife's plea against divorce, Justice Kailash Gambhir noted in his order earlier this week: "Although it is difficult to exactly lay down as to how many times any healthy couple should have sexual intercourse in a particular period of time as it is not a mechanical but a mutual act, there cannot be any two ways about the fact that marriage without sex will be an insipid relation.
October 26, 2011 | Shibu Thomas , TNN
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has granted divorce to a man who was subjected to barbs about infidelity by his wife due to his late working hours. "The (unsubstantiated) allegations are certainly serious and the husband is bound to undergo mental pain, agony and suffering," said a division bench of Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice R Y Ganoo while dissolving the couple's 24-year-old marriage on grounds of cruelty. "We are inclined to observe that the unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the wife in the written statement as well as in her evidence and also evidence of her father amounted to mental cruelty as the wife has failed to prove those allegations by examining appropriate witnesses ," said the judges.
July 17, 2011 | TNN
MUMBAI: A sessions court on Saturday granted bail to film producer Gaurang Doshi, convicted on charges of cruelty to his wife. The bail was granted on a surety of Rs 1 lakh. Doshi's estranged wife Madhuri had accused him and his parents of torturing her physically and mentally for when she resisted dowry demands. On July 5, Doshi, producer of the 2002 Amitabh Bachchan-starrer Aankhen, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
March 25, 2011 | Abhinav Garg , TNN
NEW DELHI: A husband, who cited denial of sex as one of the grounds for seeking divorce, has been granted separation by the Delhi High Court . Justice Kailash Gambhir took note of the fact that the wife left the husband in 2005 and "did not return to fulfill any of her matrimonial obligations" while allowing a decree for separation filed by the husband Rampal (name changed). "Had there been any intention of the wife to resume cohabitation with the husband then at least she would have come forward to contest the divorce petition...
February 12, 2011 | TNN
NEW DELHI: In a bizarre case of incompatibility of a couple, a man had moved a trial court seeking divorce on the ground that he was upset over the fact that his wife used to wear short clothes though he disapproved of it. Married in 2007, the couple started having fights soon after they went for their honeymoon . Additional Sessions Judge Manmohan Sharma finally put an end to the couple's agony by granting them a divorce on the ground of...
September 16, 2010 | Dhananjay Mahapatra , TNN
NEW DELHI: The other woman in a husband's life could universally be the major source of marital discord but the wife cannot accuse the girlfiend of causing mental cruelty to her under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code , the Supreme Court has ruled. No case under Section 498A could be slapped against the other woman -- "be it the husband's girlfriend or concubine" -- even if it was found that she lived with him after estrangement with his wife, it said.
April 12, 2010 | PTI
MUMBAI: In an interesting case, the Bombay High Court confirmed the dissolution of a marriage, but allowed the husband to continue to live in the flat which is in wife's name. Both Sharad and Meena (names changed) are in their sixties. They got married in April 1969, and have two grownup sons. However, differences arose in the later years, and Meena left her husband and shifted to Delhi in 1980. The flat in which they lived in suburban Juhu had been purchased in Meena's name.
January 3, 2010 | TNN
MUMBAI: Wives beware. Repeated attempts or threats of committing suicide are not going to pay off and the husband, instead of giving in to demands, will walk away with a divorce. In a judgment that would provide the threatened spouse some relief, the Bombay high court upheld a family court ruling that repeated attempts to commit suicide constituted mental cruelty and was a laid ground for divorce. A bench of justices Sharad Bobde and S J Kathawala late last year held that "It was not possible for a couple to peacefully carry on with their married life if one partner repeatedly threatened to commit suicide in public and within the home.
January 2, 2010 | PTI
MUMBAI: Repeated attempts to commit suicide as well the threats to commit suicide could amount to "cruelty", and it can very well be a ground for seeking divorce, the Bombay High Court has held. The family court in Pune granted divorce to Varsha and Prakash (both names changed) on the application made by Prakash in 2002, against which Varsha had filed appeal. Both had been living separately for the last seventeen years. Prakash's application for divorce was on the ground that his wife was temperamental, she frequently fought with him, and threatened to commit suicide.
August 13, 2009 | TNN
CHENNAI: Claiming that she was cheated into marrying an "impotent" man, a 24-year-old woman has moved the family court here seeking divorce from him and Rs 1 crore as permanent alimony. According to the woman, her in-laws had suppressed the fact that their son suffered from some "hereditary sexual problems" and that he was physically incapable of performing his conjugal responsibilities towards his prospective wife. She claimed that she also had to quit her software job on the insistence of her in-laws.
November 7, 2008 | PTI
NEW DELHI: A woman's act of undergoing abortion to terminate a pregnancy without the consent of her spouse amounts to mental cruelty and her husband is entitled to seek divorce on this ground, the Supreme Court has ruled in an important ruling. The apex court upheld the plea of one Sudhir Kapur that he was entitled to seek divorce under the Hindu Marriages Act, as his wife Suman Kapur had undergone three abortions without his consent. Sudhir claimed that his wife resorted to the abortions as she was more interested in pursuing her career in the US rather than bringing up a family.
March 13, 2008 | Swati Deshpande , TNN
MUMBAI: It's one charge that husbands dread and many are guilty of. It's also a charge which the law doesn't allow a woman to withdraw once she has made it. However, courts had in the past taken conflicting views on this. Now, resolving the issue of whether or not a husband and wife can settle between themselves a complaint of cruelty to a wife under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, a full bench of the Bombay high court has both good and bad news, depending on which side of the accusation one is. In a landmark judgment on Wednesday, the HC bench comprising Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar, Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud and Justice J P Devadhar held that a wife certainly cannot withdraw the 498-A charge and that a court, including the lower courts and high courts, cannot allow such a serious non-bailable offence to be compounded (settled between the parties so that criminal proceedings no longer remain against the husband and/or his family members)
September 24, 2007 | Swati Deshpande , TNN
MUMBAI: Mind your language in bed and out of it. This could be the new warning mantra for warring spouses, especially those who knock on the family courts door. The Bombay High Court recently directed that language in divorce petitions had to clean and temperate, and deleted several paras of a husband's explicit rant against his wife's alleged unnatural sexual demands. The man, who cited these demands as infliction of mental cruelty, wanted out on the same grounds.
April 19, 2005 | Swati Deshpande , TNN
MUMBAI: Arun Nayar, Liz Hurley's burly, is not alone in using cruelty as a charge on which to peg a divorce petition. While the civilised divorce is on the rise, lawyers invariably dip into the dirty linen basket when one spouse refuses to oblige. And in the process both sides are sullied. Allegations such as "constant demand for money," "failing in duties as a wife" and "gravely insulting behaviour, causing mental pain and agony" are some of the phrases that contested divorce pleas are habitually strewn with.
December 6, 2004 | TNN
NEW DELHI: While deciding on matrimonial disputes, courts deal with only a man and a woman, not an ideal couple. "Cruelty in matrimonial life may be subtle or brutal. It may happen through gestures, words or silence," the Supreme Court ruled in an attempt to distinguish between the normal problems of married life and a troubled home. A report from Italy says that a married woman was granted a divorce because her bossy mother-in-law was ruining her life. "She would keep on nagging me saying that I was only interested in make-up and dieting to attract other men; I was a poor mother and didn't deserve her son, let alone a child with him. None of it was true and in the end I just couldn't take anymore," the report quoting the woman said.
November 7, 2004 | TNN
NEW DELHI: It's not always women who suffer due to cruelty and assault by their errant husbands. A husband too has been able to get divorce from his wife on grounds of assault and abuse. Before the SC granted him divorce on the charge of cruelty and assault by his wife, the man had lodged complaints with the Mahila Samiti in 1993. He suffered a fracture after his wife slapped him and pushed him against a wall. Rearing the two children himself as his wife, surprisingly, lives with her husband's parents, the man charged her with both both physical and mental cruelty.
October 26, 2004 | Swati Deshpande , TNN
MUMBAI: 498-A? That might seem like an arcane figure to the layman, but it's one that married women would do well to remember. Section 498-A, introduced into the Indian Penal Code three decades ago, gives recognition to the ugly reality of domestic violence against a wife. The section makes cruelty by a husband or his family towards a married woman a cognisable and non-bailable offence and can even result in a three-year prison term for the culprit. But the conviction rate in '498-A cases', as they are called, is barely one or two per cent, says women's activist Flavia Agnes.
Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/keyword/mental-cruelty 

Monday, 27 January 2014

Know all about Stridhan and How to fight against false claims of wife..!!

Stridhan is a combination of two Sanskrit words ‘Stri=Woman’ and ‘Dhan=Wealth’ which put together means ‘Woman’s property’. Stridhan is a traditional property right of Hindu women accepted by Indian Hindu Society.Stridhan ensures a women’s economic independence.
Except for a few restrictions during coverture, a Hindu woman is the absolute owner of her stridhan.Any dues from her can also be recovered from her stridhan.Also, a woman who does not wish to accept stridhan cannot be forced to do so; she can choose to accept or reject the gifts given to her as part of the stridhan.Usually stridhan is passed from a mother to her daughters as per her wishes but as the sole owner of her stridhan a woman can will it away as she pleases.On her intestate death, all types of Stridhan, devolved upon her heirs in the following order:
  1. upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband,
  2. upon the heirs of the husband.
  3. upon the heirs of the father, and
  4. upon the heirs of the mother.
Under all the schools of Hindu Law payments made to a Hindu female in lump sum or periodically for her maintenance and all the arrears of such maintenance constitute stridhan. It also includes property inherited by the woman from her family or husband’s family; property received by her under a compromise, adverse possession or in lieu of maintenance as long as she doesn’t merely enjoy a restricted estate in the said property; property obtained in partition; and property bought  with savings or accumulations of stridhan or using proceeds from stridhan is stridhan. Property acquired by a woman by mechanical arts or by her own exertions during maidenhood, subsistence of marriage and during widowhood is Stridhan.
However, gifts to the husband by the woman or her relatives before,during and after the wedding are not part of her stridhan. Also the Dayabhaga School doesn’t recognize gifts of immovable property by a husband to his wife as stridhan.Also a woman’s inheritance of ancestral property forms her woman’s estate or widow’s estate and is not stridhan.
Stridhan has all the characteristics of absolute ownership of property. The stridhan being her absolute property, a woman has full rights of its alienation. This means that she can sell,gift, mortgage, lease, and exchange her property,in part or whole. This is entirely true when she is a maiden or a widow. Some restrictions are recognised on her power of alienation, if she is a married woman. For a married woman stridhan falls under two heads:
The saudayika (gifts of love and affection)- gifts  received by a woman from relations on both sides (parents and in-laws).
The non-saudayika- all other types of stridhan such as gifts from stranger, property acquired by self-exertion or the  mechanical arts.
Over the former she has full rights of disposal but over the latter she has no right of alienation without the consent of her husband during coverture. During the pendency of the marriage he has the right to it’s equal use.On the woman’s death it passes on to her heirs.
A woman’s right to her stridhan is protected under law.This comes in handy in case of  matrimonial discord as a woman can have her stridhan or its value returned to her. In the case of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, 1985 (2) SCC 370 the Supreme Court of India held that “a Hindu married woman is the absolute owner of her stridhan property and can deal with it in any manner she likes and, even if it is placed in the custody of her husband or her in-laws they would be deemed to be trustees and bound to return the same if and when demanded by her”.The position of stridhan of a Hindu married woman’s property during coverture is absolutely clear and unambiguous; she is the absolute owner of such property and can deal with it in any manner she likes-she may spend the whole of it or give it away at her own pleasure by gift or will without any reference to her husband. Ordinarily, the husband has no right or interest in it with the sole exception that in times of extreme distress, as in famine, illness or the like, the husband can utilize it but he is morally bound to restore it or its value when he is able to do so. This right is purely personal to the husband and the property so received by him in marriage cannot be proceeded against even in execution of a decree for debt, such being the nature and character of stridhan of a woman.If her husband or any other member of his family who is in possession of such property, dishonestly misappropriates or refuses to return the same, they may be liable to punishment for the offence of criminal breach of trust under sections 405 and 406 IPC. The offence of criminal breach of trust is punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years or fine or both.It is a cognizable, compoundable (up to Rs.250 only) and a non-bailable offence.
While the laws give Hindu women the means to be economically independent,due to ignorance of the law and a of  lack of knowledge on how to move the courts women frequently lose out on their Stridhan.The following  precautionary steps will ensure a woman will  keep most of her stridhan  in case of  a break down in her marriage.
  • She should make a list of the gifts and/or properties received before, during and after marriage from her family,  husband’s family, friends and other acquaintances.
  • She should keep evidence for the gifts received  such as wedding pictures. Also, ensure that the gifts and their bills are in her name and preserve these bills.
  • She should have witnesses – statements of witnesses will be important evidence – for gifts of movables (including jewellery) at the time of marriage.
  • She should maintain a separate account in her name  for her salary.
  • She should get involved in the family financial decision-making and keep a record of bank accounts and the investments made out of her stridhan.
  • She should ensure that the title to the property given to her  and those bought from her  stridhan are clear and that the investments made from these assets are in her name.
  • She should open a bank locker in her name for storing jewellery and instruments of money, property and so on.
  • It’s advisable for her parents to gift her income-generating property, rather than expensive consumer items which are difficult to account for.

Legal Evidence is required to claim stridhan:

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/03/1960
1960 AIR  862                          1960 SCR  (3) 311
R             1975 SC 706           (16)
Criminal Trial–Quashing of Proceedings -Inherent power of High   Court–When   to    be exercised–Code   of   Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), s. 561-A.
  1. Subsequently the High Court dismissed the  petition. K obtained special leave and appealed: Held   that  no case for quashing the proceedings  was made
  2. The     following  are            some
categories  of cases where the inherent  jurisdiction  could and should be exercised to quash proceedings:
(i)  where there was a legal bar against the institution  or continuance of the proceedings;
(ii)  where the allegations in the first information  report or complaint   did not make out the offence alleged; and
(iii)where  either  there was no legal evidence adduced  in support of  the charge or the evidence adduced clearly  or manifestly failed to prove the charge.
  1. In  exercising its jurisdiction under s. 561-A of  the        Code the  High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to  whether the evidence in the case is reliable or not . In the present
case  there  was  no legal bar to  the      institution  of     the proceedings or to their continuance; the allegations made in the  first  information report did constitute  the  offences alleged        and it could not be contended that on the  face  of the record the charge was unsustainable.
  1. Govind  Bhandhu
Majumdar,  A.I.R. 1924 Cal. 1018 and Ramanathan Chettiar  v. K.  Sivarama Subrahmanya Ayyar, (1924) I.L.R. 47  Mad.    722, referred to. S.P. Jaiswal v. The State, (1953) 55 Punj.  L.R. 77, distin- guished,
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 217 of 1959.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September  10,      1959 of the Punjab High           Court  in  Criminal Misc. No. 559 of 1959.
Appellant in person.
  1. M. Sikri,   Advocate-General for the State of  Punjab, Mohinder Singh Punnan, T. M. Sen and D. Gupta, for the respondent.
  2. When the appellant found that  for several months no further action was taken on the said First Information Report which was hanging like a sword over  his  head he filed a criminal complaint on  April     1, 1959,  against Mr. Sethi under ss. 204, 211 and 385  of the Indian            Penal  Code and thus took upon himself the  onus  to
  3. After hearing arguments the learned Magistrate ordered  that the appellant’s  complaint  should stand adjourned.
  4. Pending the hearing of the said petition in          the
  5. It is against this order that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave, 50 390
  1. Earnest money was accordingly paid to the vendors and it was agreed that the sale had to be  completed
  2. Some of the persons concerned in the said lands filed
  3. That is how the title of the lands in question passed to Mrs. Kaushalya Devi. The First Information Report filed by Mr. Sethi alleges that
he  and the  appellant were friends  and  that     on  January 4,1958,     the appellant dishonestly and fraudulently  advised him-to  purchase 2,000 sq. yds. of land in Khasra  Nos. 22, 23,  24 and 25 in the aforesaid village Mohammadpur  Munirka on the representation that as owner of the land in the area Mr. Sethi would get a plot of desired dimensions in the same area  developed by the Ministry under its  housing  scheme.
The  appellant also represented to Mr. Sethi,  according  to the First Information Report, that since under the scheme no person would, be allotted more than one 391 plot he would have to surrender a part of his land; that  is why  as a friend he was prepared to give to Mr.  Sethi one plot at the price at which it had been purchased.  According to Mr. Sethi the appellant dictated an application which  he was  advised  to send to the Secretary of  the Ministry  of Works  and  he accordingly sent it as  advised. The  First
  1. Sethi stated            that  he would have liked to add one clause  to  the deed to the effect that in the event of the authorities not accepting the sale for the purpose of allotment, the  amount
  2. The appellant urged before the Punjab High  Court
  3. The question which arises for our  decision in the present appeal is: Was the Punjab         High Court  in  error  in  refusing           to  exercise  its   inherent
  4. jurisdiction  under  s.561 -A of the Code in favour  of    the appellant ?
  5. It  is  well-established          that  the   inherent jurisdiction  of  the High Court can be exercised  to  quash
  6. However,  we may  indicate    some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can       and
  7. Cases may also arise where the a11egations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they      are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not  constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no  qu es-
tion of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter  merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information  Report to  decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or          not.
  1. In cases falling under this  category  the  allegations made against the accused person do constitute an
offence alleged  but  there is   either no  legal  evidence adduced  in support of the case or evidence adduced  clearly or  manifestly fails to prove the charge.  In  dealing with this  class  of cases it is important to bear  in  mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal  evidence or  where there is evidence which is manifestly and  clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where  there
is  legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may     not support    the  accusation  in question. In  exercising         its jurisdiction under s. 561-A the High Court would not  embark upon  an enquiry as to whether the evidence in       question  is
  1. That is the function of the trial  magistrate,         and ordinarily it would not be open to any party  to invoke            the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction and’  contend that  on  a  reasonable appreciation  of  the  evidence            the  accusation made against the accused would not be  sustained. Broadly stated that is the nature and scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under s. 561-A in the matter of quashing
  1. 452  of the  Code and it does appear from the judgment of  the   High Court that the learned judge elaborately considered all       the
  2. It is,  however,  clear from  the  judgment  that the learned judge  was  very            much
impressed  by  the fact that the police    had  reported   that there  was no case or at the most only a  technical  offence against  Jaiswal but the district magistrate had  interfered
  1. Besides, in    the opinion       of  the  learned judge the evidence  on  which   the prosecution relied showed that the essential ingredients  of
  2. It  is
  3. We have merely referred to the  relevant  findings recorded by
(1)  A.I.R. 1928 Bom. 184.
(2)  (1954) 56 Punjab L.R. 54.
(3)  (1924) I.L.R. 27 Mad. 722.
(4)  (1899) I.L.R. 26 Cal. 786.
(5)  A.I.R. 1924 Cal. 1018.
(6)  (1953) 55 Punjab L.R 77.
  1. His argument,  however, is that the evidence on  record  clearly and  unambiguously  shows that the allegations made  in      the First Information Report are untrue; he also contends that ” certain powerful influences have been operating against          him with  a       view  to  harm him and    debar  him  officially     and
  2. Sethi  against him”.            In this connection he has naturally placed  emphasis on  the        fact that the investigating agency has     acted   with
extraordinary  dilatoriness  in     the  matter  and  that    for several       months the police did not make the report under  s. 173 of the Code.
It  is true that though the complaint against the  appellant is  essentially    very  simple  in  its       nature   the   police authorities  did  not  make their report  for  nearly  seven
  1. months after the First Information Report was   lodged.   We have already indicated how the appellant was driven to file. a complaint on his own charging Mr. Sethi with having  filed a  false First Information Report against him, and  how           the
Report  in question was filed after the appellant moved   the High
  1. It is perhaps likely that the appellant being the senior-most  Commissioner  in the punjab  the  investigating authorities may have been cautious and circumspect in taking further      steps on the First Information Report; but  we  are
  2. Even  so  it  is
difficult to see how this conduct on the part of the  police officers  can materially assist the appellant in his  prayer that  the  proceedings which have now reached  the  criminal
  1. court should be quashed. We must, therefore, now proceed to consider the       appellant’s
  2. 20,000  as a  result  of      the  several misrepresentations alleged in the First Information  Report.
  1. Sethi any information about the pendency  of         the proceedings  before  the  Collector,  and  fraudulently         re-
  2. According  to the   appellant,   if        the correspondence            on  the  record  is  considered,  and      the
  3. We   are anxious not to express
  1. We  would, however, like to emphasise that in rejecting the appellant’s prayer          for  quashing the proceedings at this stage  we   are expressing no opinion one way or the other on the merits  of the case.
  2. The appellant has            come to this Court under Art. 136 of the  constitution against the decision  of the Punjab High Court; and the High  Court   has
  3. Under the  circumstances  of
this case we are unable to answer this question in favour of the appellant.
Appeal dismissed.

Recent case Laws:

Wife has sued her husband for return of her Stridhan property in specie, or in the alternatively its value which ... also the property which according to her is her Stridhan property which is in custody and possession of her husband 
present petitioners showing seizure of six items as 'stridhan' properties from the premises of the present petitioners. After about three ... investigation of the case as a major portion of 'stridhan' properties could not be recovered during earlier investigation and prayed 

Important Sections Under Income Tax Act to fight false claims: 

1. Use RTI to get the information about your FIL/MIL/BIL or whoever is claiming that he has invested such amount on the particulars that whether he/she has paid ITR for such amount during such financial year or not.

2. Your RTI letter should be addressed to PIO of Income Tax office of his jurisdiction.

3. If you get satisfactory information then write a letter
To,The Central /State Public Information Officer or Assistant Public Information Officer attaching the RTI letter with it.

4.Your petition should be well clear that you have got the information from Income tax department only and now you need an inquiry for such act.The Reason should be well written in the format and you should also write your case No. and how your In-laws are blackmailing and harassing you with false claims.You should also write that they should be sued and Tax should be recovered.

5. Following are the few important sections of Income Tax Act through which they are legally bound to answer and investigate and sue them for their illegal deeds.

U/S 68, 69, 69A & B, 69C & D and section 133(5) of Income Tax Act, 1961 are applicable

Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with cash credits proving identity of the creditor, capacity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction are the important things of this section.

Section 69, 69A & 69B of Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with unexplained investment, unexplained money & investment not fully disclosed in books of accounts.

Section 69C, of Income Tax Act, 1961deals with the unexplained expenditure, the important requirement of this section is that an expenditure has been found to have been incurred by an assessee in any financial year and the assesses fails to indicate satisfactory source of such expenditure.

Section 133(5) , of Income Tax Act, 1961 it is mandatory to file income tax return on the expenditure incurred on any function or ceremony

Compiled By (ESIS)

Saturday, 18 January 2014

Wife Can't claim Right to Residence In Mother In Law's House if that house belong to whole and sole on the name of MIL.

the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a `shared household' would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The property in question in the present case neither belongs to Amit Batra nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the husband Amit Batra is a member.

Read the full case Law:,

Supreme Court of India
S.R. Batra And Anr vs Smt. Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006
Author: M Katju
Bench: S Sinha, Mark, E Katju
Appeal (civil) 5837 of 2006
S.R. Batra and Anr.
Smt. Taruna Batra
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/12/2006
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju
Leave granted.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 17.1.2005 in C.M.M. No. 1367 of 2004 and C.MM. No. 1420 of 2004.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The facts of the case are that respondent Smt. Taruna Batra was married to Amit Batra, son of the appellants, on 14.4.2000.
After the marriage respondent Taruna Batra started living with her husband Amit Batra in the house of the appellant no.2 in the second floor. It is not disputed that the said house which is at B-135, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi belongs to the appellant no.2 and not to her son Amit Batra.
Amit Batra filed a divorce petition against his wife Taruna Batra, and it is alleged that as a counter blast to the divorce petition Smt. Taruna Batra filed an F.I.R. under Sections 406/498A/506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and got her father-in-law, mother-in-law, her husband and married sister-in-law arrested by the police and they were granted bail only after three days.
It is admitted that Smt. Taruna Batra had shifted to her parent's residence because of the dispute with her husband. She alleged that later on when she tried to enter the house of the appellant no.2 which is at property No. B-135, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi she found the main entrance locked and hence she filed Suit No. 87/2003 for a mandatory injunction to enable her to enter the house. The case of the appellants was that before any order could be passed by the trial Judge on the suit filed by their daughter-in- law, Smt. Taruna Batra, along with her parents forcibly broke open the locks of the house at Ashok Vihar belonging to appellant No. 2, the mother- in-law of Smt. Taruna Batra. The appellants alleged that they have been terrorized by their daughter-in-law and for some time they had to stay in their office.
It is stated by the appellants that their son Amit Batra, husband of the respondent, had shifted to his own flat at Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad before the above litigation between the parties had started.
The learned trial Judge decided both the applications for temporary injunction filed in suit no.87/2003 by the parties by his order on 4.3.2003. He held that the petitioner was in possession of the second floor of the property and he granted a temporary injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the possession of Smt. Taruna Batra, respondent herein.
Against the aforesaid order the appellants filed an appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi who by his order dated 17.9.2004 held that Smt. Taruna Batra was not residing in the second floor of the premises in question. He also held that her husband Amit Batra was not living in the suit property and the matrimonial home could not be said to be a place where only wife was residing. He also held that Smt. Taruna Batra had no right to the properties other than that of her husband. Hence, he allowed the appeal and dismissed the temporary injunction application.
Aggrieved, Smt. Taruna Batra filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution which was disposed of by the impugned judgment. Hence, these appeals.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court in the impugned judgment held that the second floor of the property in question was the matrimonial home of Smt. Taruna Batra. He further held that even if her husband Amit Batra had shifted to Ghaziabad that would not make Ghaziabad the matrimonial home of Smt. Taruna Batra. The Learned Judge was of the view that mere change of the residence by the husband would not shift the matrimonial home from Ashok Vihar, particularly when the husband had filed a divorce petition against his wife. On this reasoning, the learned Judge of the High Court held that Smt. Taruna Batra was entitled to continue to reside in the second floor of B-135, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi as that is her matrimonial home.
With respect, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court.
As held by this Court in B.R. Mehta v. Atma Devi and Ors., [1987] 4 SCC 183, whereas in England the rights of the spouses to the matrimonial home are governed by the Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967, no such right exists in India.
In the same decision it was observed "it may be that with change of situation and complex problems arising it is high time to give the wife or the husband a right of occupation in a truly matrimonial home, in case of the marriage breaking up or in case of strained relationship between the husband and the wife."
In our opinion, the above observation is merely an expression of hope and it does not lay down any law. It is only the legislature which can create a law and not the Court. The courts do not legislate, and whatever may be the personal view of a Judge, he cannot create or amend the law, and must maintain judicial restraint.
There is no such law in India, like the British Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967, and in any case, the rights which may be available under any law can only be as against the husband and not against the father-in-law or mother- in-law.
Here, the house in question belongs to the mother-in-law of Smt. Taruna Batra and it does not belong to her husband Amit Batra. Hence, Smt. Taruna Batra cannot claim any right to live in the said house.
Appellant No. 2, the mother-in-law of Smt. Taruna Batra has stated that she had taken a loan for acquiring the house and it is not a joint family property. We see no reason to disbelieve this statement.
Learned counsel for the respondent then relied upon the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. He stated that in view of the said Act respondent Smt. Taruna Batra cannot be dispossessed from the second floor of the property in question.
It may be noticed that the finding of the learned Senior Civil Judge that in fact Smt. Taruna Batra was not residing in the premises in question is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Hence, Smt. Taruna Batra cannot claim any injunction restraining the appellants from dispossessing her from the property in question for the simple reason that she was not in possession at all of the said property and hence the question of dispossession does not arise.
Apart from the above, we are of the opinion that the house in question cannot be said to be a `shared household' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
Section 2(s) states:
"`shared household` means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household".
Learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Taruna Batra has relied upon Sections 17 and 19(1) of the aforesaid Act, which state:
"17. (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.
(2) The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law.
19. (1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order--
(a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household;
(b) directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household;
(c) restraining the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides;
(d) restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing off the shared household or encumbering the same;
(e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except with the leave of the Magistrate; or
(f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require:
Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman".
Learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Taruna Batgra stated that the definition of shared household includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship. He contended that since admittedly the respondent had lived in the property in question in the past, hence the said property is her shared household.
We cannot agree with this submission.
If the aforesaid submission is accepted, then it will mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past that property becomes a shared household. It is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with the husband's father, husband's paternal grand parents, his maternal parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces etc. If the interpretation canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted, all these houses of the husband's relatives will be shared households and the wife can well insist in living in the all these houses of her husband's relatives merely because she had stayed with her husband for some time in those houses in the past. Such a view would lead to chaos and would be absurd.
It is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted.
Learned counsel for the respondent Smt Taruna Batra has relied upon Section 19(1)(f) of the Act and claimed that she should be given an alternative accommodation. In our opinion, the claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the husband's in-laws or other relatives.
As regards Section 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a `shared household' would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The property in question in the present case neither belongs to Amit Batra nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the husband Amit Batra is a member. It is the exclusive property of appellant No. 2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called a `shared household'.
No doubt, the definition of `shared household' in Section 2(s) of the Act is not very happily worded, and appears to be the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and which does not lead to chaos in society.
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the order of Senior Civil Judge dismissing the injunction application of Smt. Taruna Batra is upheld. No costs.
Contempt Petition (C) No. 38/2006
In view of the judgment given above, the contempt petition stands dismissed.