"what if there is bus strike,
in that case company arranges alternative commute for employees to come in company. "
Sandipani ji,
In the present circumstances the only "alternative" is the choice of another country where there is no such possibility.
regards
From India, Delhi
174in that case company arranges alternative commute for employees to come in company. "
Sandipani ji,
In the present circumstances the only "alternative" is the choice of another country where there is no such possibility.
regards
From India, Delhi
The problems with the section 498A of IPC are as under:
1. It rewards frauds and cheats for using the law.
2. It makes the accuser the prosecutor, the judge
and the jury all rolled into one.
3. It makes all the families subject to destruction
on the whims and fancies of criminals
(girl and her families who want to get rich).
4. It has no safeguards for the innocent.
5. It facilitates elder and child abuse by the
accusers without any fear of punishment.
6. It lays down no automatic punishments for the
UN-scrupulous accuser(s), even after it is
proved that the accused persons were innocent
and the complaints were fraudulent.
7. It enables violation of the privacy, sanctity
and the dignity of the innocent families, and
throws the very existence of Indian families to
the vultures in the police force, criminals in
the society and at the mercy of the lawyers and
the inefficiencies of the court system in India.
8. It provides monetary inducements for corruption,
falsehoods, revenge, blackmail and extortion;
therefore an invitation to the increasing crimes
in India.
9. It is a monster and menace, created by the
law; and does not belong in any civilised and
democratic society as it smells like fascism.
10. The guilty who make frivolous and scandalous
complaints or start false prosecutions get off
Scott free at the cost and expense of the public
exchequer
Only fascist dictatorships and enemies of the society create
laws that destroys the very society they claim to protect..
From United States, Philadelphia
1. It rewards frauds and cheats for using the law.
2. It makes the accuser the prosecutor, the judge
and the jury all rolled into one.
3. It makes all the families subject to destruction
on the whims and fancies of criminals
(girl and her families who want to get rich).
4. It has no safeguards for the innocent.
5. It facilitates elder and child abuse by the
accusers without any fear of punishment.
6. It lays down no automatic punishments for the
UN-scrupulous accuser(s), even after it is
proved that the accused persons were innocent
and the complaints were fraudulent.
7. It enables violation of the privacy, sanctity
and the dignity of the innocent families, and
throws the very existence of Indian families to
the vultures in the police force, criminals in
the society and at the mercy of the lawyers and
the inefficiencies of the court system in India.
8. It provides monetary inducements for corruption,
falsehoods, revenge, blackmail and extortion;
therefore an invitation to the increasing crimes
in India.
9. It is a monster and menace, created by the
law; and does not belong in any civilised and
democratic society as it smells like fascism.
10. The guilty who make frivolous and scandalous
complaints or start false prosecutions get off
Scott free at the cost and expense of the public
exchequer
Only fascist dictatorships and enemies of the society create
laws that destroys the very society they claim to protect..
From United States, Philadelphia
"Sir,
What is IPC 498a ?
Thanks,
Ramaya"
Dear Ramaya,
Here is section 498A IPC:
INDIAN PENAL CODE
CHAPTER XXA : OF CRUELTY BY HUSBAND OR RELATIVES OF HUSBAND
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 purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-
(a) any wilful 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.]
I t is cognizable, non-balable and non compoundable. Cognizable means if it is complained to police, they have no option but to register a case u/s 154 Cr.P.C. Non bailable means police can not grant bail and only court can grant bail if satisfied. Non compoundable means once registered the complainant and accused can not compromise and the case will have to reach its logical conclusion, conviction or aquital.
Study shows that the rate of conviction is less than 2%. So there is rampant misuse of this law. Here are some judgments which show:
IS 498A IPC A BALANCED LAW?
Right to life and liberty of every citizen is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But this life and liberty can be curtailed if they hinder others’ life and liberty. For that due process of law is necessary. Due process includes reasonable force. The net purpose of due process, therefore, is to restore equilibrium when there is imbalance in any locus of the society. While civil law determines what is right and what is wrong, the criminal law imposes penalty to deter.
Section 498A was inserted in The Indian Penal Code in 1984 with a view to protect women against dowry harassment. From the very beginning of this law there is reaction from the society including legal luminaries that this law could be misused and there would be severe deleterious effect in the society. But before going to its deleterious effect let us consider if the volume of complaints have gone down as may be seen in The Crime in India statistics. The volume is continuously going up which means that there is no deterrence effect of section 498A of IPC. This is now 2006. This very fact itself needs that the law is to be amended to curb the rising graph.
Coming to the judicial observations and remarks we find that continuously their lordships are showing anguish over the law. Here are some recent judicial observations.
Way back in 1990 Punjab and Haryana High court observed in Jasbir Kaur vs. State of Haryana, (1990)2 Rec Cri R 243 case as:
“It is known that an estranged wife will go to any extent to rope in as many relatives of the husband as possible in a desperate effort to salvage whatever remains of an estranged marriage.”
In Kanaraj vs. State of Punjab,2000 CriLJ 2993 the apex court observed as:
“for the fault of the husband the in-laws or other relatives cannot in all cases be held to be involved. The acts attributed to such persons have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and they cannot be held responsible by mere conjectures and implications. The tendency to rope in relations of the husband as accused has to be curbed”
In the case of State Vs. Srikanth, 2002 CriLJ 3605 te Karnataka High Court observed as:
“Roping in of the whole of the family including brothers and sister-in-laws has to be depreciated unless there is a specific material against these persons, it is down right on the part of the police to include the whole of the family as accused.”
In Mohd. Hoshan vs. State of A.P. 2002 CriLJ 4124 case the Apex Court observed as:
“Whether one spouse has been guilt of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact. The impact of complaints, accusation or taunts on a person amounting to cruelty depends on various factors like the sensitivity of the victim concerned, the social background, the environment, education etc. Further, mental cruelty varies from person to person depending on the intensity of the sensitivity, degree of courage and endurance to withstand such cruelty. Each case has to be decided on its own facts whether mental cruelty is made out.”
Delhi High Court in Savitri Devi vs. Ramesh Chand, 2003 CriLJ 2759 case observed as;
“These provisions were though made with good intentions but the implementation has left a very bad taste and the move has been counter productive. There is a growing tendency amongst the women which is further perpetuated by their parents and relatives to rope in each and every relative including minors and even school going kids nearer or distant relatives and in some cases against every person of the family of the husband whether living away or in other town or abroad and married, unmarried sisters, sisters- in-laws, unmarried brothers, married uncles and in some cases grand parents or as many as 10 o 15 or even more relatives of the husbsnd.”
Punjab and haryana High Court in Bhupinder Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2003 CriLJ 3394 case observed as:
“ From the reading of the FIR, it is evident that there is no specific allegation of any act against petitioners Nos.2 and 3,which constitute offence under s.498-A I.P.C. I am satisfied that these two persons have been falsely implicated in the present case, who were minors at the time of marriage and even at the time of lodging the present FIR. Neither of these two persons was alleged to have been entrusted with any dowry article nor they alleged to have ever demanded any dowry article. No specific allegation of demand of dowry, harassment and beating given to the complainant by the two accused has been made. The allegations made are vague and general. Moreover, it cannot be ignored that every member of the family of the husband has been implicated in the case. The initiation of criminal proceedings against them in the present case is clearly an abuse f the process of law.”
Jharkhand High Court in Arjun Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, 2004 CriLJ 2989 case observed as:
“In the instant case, it appears that that the criminal case has been filed,which is manifestly intended with mala fide and ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. In this connection reliance may be placed upon AIR 1992 SC 604: (1992CriLJ 527).”
And in a relatively recent case, Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and others,JT 2005(6) SC 266 observed as:
“The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contented by the petitioner many instances have
come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in
all cases wipe out the ignomy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore,
is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and
intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become
necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the
Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame work. As noted above the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace.
But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not an assassin's
weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual "wolf" appears. There is no
question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters
relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth,
punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any pre-conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner
that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is
speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It
is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their
effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally
undisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases,
the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.”
These are only a few observations of their lordships from scores which conclusively prove that:
1. A woman (not necessarily every woman) can be much more cruel than a man (not necessarily ever man).
2. While intending to protect the life of a person, s.498A of IPC jeopardizes around a dozen innocent persons no matter whether they are children or old. Hence, the provision is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. Instead of restoring equilibrium, the provision aggravates disequilibria. Hence, it is not only imbalanced but also there is a failure of guarantee of right to life under Article 21 of the constitution of India.
4. For the reasons stated under conclusions 3 and 4 above the provision is not only imbalanced but also ultravires.
Because of these maladies the provision needs to be amended at the earliest to protect the life and liberty of lacs of innocent people including children and old. Prior to that the learned and honorable courts may consider imposition of heavy penalty as done in case of vexatious PILs. Such PILs are only vexatious but in the matter of 498A the cases may be false, malafide, malicious and revengeful.
What Supreme court says in Sushil Kumar Sharma case is here:
18. The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contented by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignomy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame work. As noted above the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not an assassin's weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual "wolf" appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any pre-conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally undisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.
So now you get a glimpse of 498A IPC
regards
From India, Delhi
What is IPC 498a ?
Thanks,
Ramaya"
Dear Ramaya,
Here is section 498A IPC:
INDIAN PENAL CODE
CHAPTER XXA : OF CRUELTY BY HUSBAND OR RELATIVES OF HUSBAND
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 purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-
(a) any wilful 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.]
I t is cognizable, non-balable and non compoundable. Cognizable means if it is complained to police, they have no option but to register a case u/s 154 Cr.P.C. Non bailable means police can not grant bail and only court can grant bail if satisfied. Non compoundable means once registered the complainant and accused can not compromise and the case will have to reach its logical conclusion, conviction or aquital.
Study shows that the rate of conviction is less than 2%. So there is rampant misuse of this law. Here are some judgments which show:
IS 498A IPC A BALANCED LAW?
Right to life and liberty of every citizen is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But this life and liberty can be curtailed if they hinder others’ life and liberty. For that due process of law is necessary. Due process includes reasonable force. The net purpose of due process, therefore, is to restore equilibrium when there is imbalance in any locus of the society. While civil law determines what is right and what is wrong, the criminal law imposes penalty to deter.
Section 498A was inserted in The Indian Penal Code in 1984 with a view to protect women against dowry harassment. From the very beginning of this law there is reaction from the society including legal luminaries that this law could be misused and there would be severe deleterious effect in the society. But before going to its deleterious effect let us consider if the volume of complaints have gone down as may be seen in The Crime in India statistics. The volume is continuously going up which means that there is no deterrence effect of section 498A of IPC. This is now 2006. This very fact itself needs that the law is to be amended to curb the rising graph.
Coming to the judicial observations and remarks we find that continuously their lordships are showing anguish over the law. Here are some recent judicial observations.
Way back in 1990 Punjab and Haryana High court observed in Jasbir Kaur vs. State of Haryana, (1990)2 Rec Cri R 243 case as:
“It is known that an estranged wife will go to any extent to rope in as many relatives of the husband as possible in a desperate effort to salvage whatever remains of an estranged marriage.”
In Kanaraj vs. State of Punjab,2000 CriLJ 2993 the apex court observed as:
“for the fault of the husband the in-laws or other relatives cannot in all cases be held to be involved. The acts attributed to such persons have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and they cannot be held responsible by mere conjectures and implications. The tendency to rope in relations of the husband as accused has to be curbed”
In the case of State Vs. Srikanth, 2002 CriLJ 3605 te Karnataka High Court observed as:
“Roping in of the whole of the family including brothers and sister-in-laws has to be depreciated unless there is a specific material against these persons, it is down right on the part of the police to include the whole of the family as accused.”
In Mohd. Hoshan vs. State of A.P. 2002 CriLJ 4124 case the Apex Court observed as:
“Whether one spouse has been guilt of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact. The impact of complaints, accusation or taunts on a person amounting to cruelty depends on various factors like the sensitivity of the victim concerned, the social background, the environment, education etc. Further, mental cruelty varies from person to person depending on the intensity of the sensitivity, degree of courage and endurance to withstand such cruelty. Each case has to be decided on its own facts whether mental cruelty is made out.”
Delhi High Court in Savitri Devi vs. Ramesh Chand, 2003 CriLJ 2759 case observed as;
“These provisions were though made with good intentions but the implementation has left a very bad taste and the move has been counter productive. There is a growing tendency amongst the women which is further perpetuated by their parents and relatives to rope in each and every relative including minors and even school going kids nearer or distant relatives and in some cases against every person of the family of the husband whether living away or in other town or abroad and married, unmarried sisters, sisters- in-laws, unmarried brothers, married uncles and in some cases grand parents or as many as 10 o 15 or even more relatives of the husbsnd.”
Punjab and haryana High Court in Bhupinder Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2003 CriLJ 3394 case observed as:
“ From the reading of the FIR, it is evident that there is no specific allegation of any act against petitioners Nos.2 and 3,which constitute offence under s.498-A I.P.C. I am satisfied that these two persons have been falsely implicated in the present case, who were minors at the time of marriage and even at the time of lodging the present FIR. Neither of these two persons was alleged to have been entrusted with any dowry article nor they alleged to have ever demanded any dowry article. No specific allegation of demand of dowry, harassment and beating given to the complainant by the two accused has been made. The allegations made are vague and general. Moreover, it cannot be ignored that every member of the family of the husband has been implicated in the case. The initiation of criminal proceedings against them in the present case is clearly an abuse f the process of law.”
Jharkhand High Court in Arjun Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, 2004 CriLJ 2989 case observed as:
“In the instant case, it appears that that the criminal case has been filed,which is manifestly intended with mala fide and ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. In this connection reliance may be placed upon AIR 1992 SC 604: (1992CriLJ 527).”
And in a relatively recent case, Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and others,JT 2005(6) SC 266 observed as:
“The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contented by the petitioner many instances have
come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in
all cases wipe out the ignomy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore,
is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and
intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become
necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the
Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame work. As noted above the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace.
But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not an assassin's
weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual "wolf" appears. There is no
question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters
relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth,
punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any pre-conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner
that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is
speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It
is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their
effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally
undisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases,
the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.”
These are only a few observations of their lordships from scores which conclusively prove that:
1. A woman (not necessarily every woman) can be much more cruel than a man (not necessarily ever man).
2. While intending to protect the life of a person, s.498A of IPC jeopardizes around a dozen innocent persons no matter whether they are children or old. Hence, the provision is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. Instead of restoring equilibrium, the provision aggravates disequilibria. Hence, it is not only imbalanced but also there is a failure of guarantee of right to life under Article 21 of the constitution of India.
4. For the reasons stated under conclusions 3 and 4 above the provision is not only imbalanced but also ultravires.
Because of these maladies the provision needs to be amended at the earliest to protect the life and liberty of lacs of innocent people including children and old. Prior to that the learned and honorable courts may consider imposition of heavy penalty as done in case of vexatious PILs. Such PILs are only vexatious but in the matter of 498A the cases may be false, malafide, malicious and revengeful.
What Supreme court says in Sushil Kumar Sharma case is here:
18. The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contented by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignomy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame work. As noted above the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not an assassin's weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual "wolf" appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any pre-conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally undisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.
So now you get a glimpse of 498A IPC
regards
From India, Delhi
"The problems with the section 498A of IPC are as under:
1. It rewards frauds and cheats for using the law.
2. It makes the accuser the prosecutor, the judge
and the jury all rolled into one.
3. It makes all the families subject to destruction
on the whims and fancies of criminals
(girl and her families who want to get rich).
4. It has no safeguards for the innocent.
5. It facilitates elder and child abuse by the
accusers without any fear of punishment.
6. It lays down no automatic punishments for the
UN-scrupulous accuser(s), even after it is
proved that the accused persons were innocent
and the complaints were fraudulent.
7. It enables violation of the privacy, sanctity
and the dignity of the innocent families, and
throws the very existence of Indian families to
the vultures in the police force, criminals in
the society and at the mercy of the lawyers and
the inefficiencies of the court system in India.
8. It provides monetary inducements for corruption,
falsehoods, revenge, blackmail and extortion;
therefore an invitation to the increasing crimes
in India.
9. It is a monster and menace, created by the
law; and does not belong in any civilised and
democratic society as it smells like fascism.
10. The guilty who make frivolous and scandalous
complaints or start false prosecutions get off
Scott free at the cost and expense of the public
exchequer
Only fascist dictatorships and enemies of the society create
laws that destroys the very society they claim to protect.. "
Most welcome Lalwani ji. Your presence adds momentum here.
regards
From India, Delhi
1. It rewards frauds and cheats for using the law.
2. It makes the accuser the prosecutor, the judge
and the jury all rolled into one.
3. It makes all the families subject to destruction
on the whims and fancies of criminals
(girl and her families who want to get rich).
4. It has no safeguards for the innocent.
5. It facilitates elder and child abuse by the
accusers without any fear of punishment.
6. It lays down no automatic punishments for the
UN-scrupulous accuser(s), even after it is
proved that the accused persons were innocent
and the complaints were fraudulent.
7. It enables violation of the privacy, sanctity
and the dignity of the innocent families, and
throws the very existence of Indian families to
the vultures in the police force, criminals in
the society and at the mercy of the lawyers and
the inefficiencies of the court system in India.
8. It provides monetary inducements for corruption,
falsehoods, revenge, blackmail and extortion;
therefore an invitation to the increasing crimes
in India.
9. It is a monster and menace, created by the
law; and does not belong in any civilised and
democratic society as it smells like fascism.
10. The guilty who make frivolous and scandalous
complaints or start false prosecutions get off
Scott free at the cost and expense of the public
exchequer
Only fascist dictatorships and enemies of the society create
laws that destroys the very society they claim to protect.. "
Most welcome Lalwani ji. Your presence adds momentum here.
regards
From India, Delhi
Dear Brothers & Sisters,
I am happy to participate in this HOT issue. After seeing both versions of Tripti and Gaurav, I agree and understand that it is a clear case of misuse of DV Act.
It is something like blaming bed for se*.
The HR professional particularly in IT,ITES and BPO understand the misuse of 498a, DV act is new in the market but we all are aware of possible misuse of the same.
Awareness of law, training, mentoring and councilling of employees will be very essential to address the issue.The marital discord is becoming a big issue for corporates now a days.I know many organizations have lost many productive people and if not people then those people have lost their productivity.
I shall not take the name of the organizations but whenever they are being approched by their employees incase of any 498a (now DV will also come) case they help them in getting anticipatory bail.They even guide employees like who is the better lawyer.
As far as WIPRO is concerned there are lot of cases there.Their HR department is legally sound on the issue.
The real problem is the law and mindset of the people and media.I do not think women especially in urban area are ABLA they do not need one-law like DV Act.
I am not sure what will happen in future but if Tripti is not procecuted for false complaint and dragging Premji in this case, I am sure this trend will increase and tomorrow we might see Mr.Murthy in the court for not providing Se* allowance to their employees. :P
I can only laugh on this case but their is lot of learning envolved for the media, men, women , employer,employees,enterpreneurs,HR professionals,law-makers, NGO's and parliamentarians...., I hope we all will learn from this....
Warm Regards,
Ram Balak
I am happy to participate in this HOT issue. After seeing both versions of Tripti and Gaurav, I agree and understand that it is a clear case of misuse of DV Act.
It is something like blaming bed for se*.
The HR professional particularly in IT,ITES and BPO understand the misuse of 498a, DV act is new in the market but we all are aware of possible misuse of the same.
Awareness of law, training, mentoring and councilling of employees will be very essential to address the issue.The marital discord is becoming a big issue for corporates now a days.I know many organizations have lost many productive people and if not people then those people have lost their productivity.
I shall not take the name of the organizations but whenever they are being approched by their employees incase of any 498a (now DV will also come) case they help them in getting anticipatory bail.They even guide employees like who is the better lawyer.
As far as WIPRO is concerned there are lot of cases there.Their HR department is legally sound on the issue.
The real problem is the law and mindset of the people and media.I do not think women especially in urban area are ABLA they do not need one-law like DV Act.
I am not sure what will happen in future but if Tripti is not procecuted for false complaint and dragging Premji in this case, I am sure this trend will increase and tomorrow we might see Mr.Murthy in the court for not providing Se* allowance to their employees. :P
I can only laugh on this case but their is lot of learning envolved for the media, men, women , employer,employees,enterpreneurs,HR professionals,law-makers, NGO's and parliamentarians...., I hope we all will learn from this....
Warm Regards,
Ram Balak
"Awareness of law, training, mentoring and councilling of employees will be very essential to address the issue.The marital discord is becoming a big issue for corporates now a days.I know many organizations have lost many productive people and if not people then those people have lost their productivity"
Dear Ram Balak ji,
Is this for empoerment or constructive empoerment? The people in the helms of affair are happy if, according to them, they are empowered no matter whether or not they are constructively empowered.
Is there any expert in this world to empower them constructively under the existing circumstances to prevent the catastrophe? Will those women who enjoy destructive empowerment will attend such programmes? These are two questions on feasibility.
regards
From India, Delhi
Dear Ram Balak ji,
Is this for empoerment or constructive empoerment? The people in the helms of affair are happy if, according to them, they are empowered no matter whether or not they are constructively empowered.
Is there any expert in this world to empower them constructively under the existing circumstances to prevent the catastrophe? Will those women who enjoy destructive empowerment will attend such programmes? These are two questions on feasibility.
regards
From India, Delhi
If you look at statistics, majority of the cases of 498A (and possibly DV cases in future) are registered against the IT professionals. For the complainant, there is absolutely no cost or consequence of lodging any false claims and complaints. The taxpayers foot the bill for prosecuting the cases, there is no accountability anywhere in this system.
I am making a very concrete proposal here to all the IT (particularly multinational) firms. They should offer legal insurance to all those who seek it. And the HR departments should advise men who are about to tie the knot, to consider availing themselves of the legal insurance provisions. Now, if any employee is hit with a false case. the legal insurance will kick in and all the costs will be borne by the insurance. Also, once there is an insurance company behind the individual, the complainant, the judges, and PP would hopefully mind their steps.
Now- here is a great opportunity for the insurance companies to tap into a whole new market.
Regards,
KK
I am making a very concrete proposal here to all the IT (particularly multinational) firms. They should offer legal insurance to all those who seek it. And the HR departments should advise men who are about to tie the knot, to consider availing themselves of the legal insurance provisions. Now, if any employee is hit with a false case. the legal insurance will kick in and all the costs will be borne by the insurance. Also, once there is an insurance company behind the individual, the complainant, the judges, and PP would hopefully mind their steps.
Now- here is a great opportunity for the insurance companies to tap into a whole new market.
Regards,
KK
Dear kk ji,
It sounds like emergency management measure and not a permanent cure. However, any insurance company is to come up with such a scheme. In any case one is to waste time, money and energy for defending himself from false cases. The defence again is a matter of probability.
Let us think of a sure and permanent cure.
regards
From India, Delhi
It sounds like emergency management measure and not a permanent cure. However, any insurance company is to come up with such a scheme. In any case one is to waste time, money and energy for defending himself from false cases. The defence again is a matter of probability.
Let us think of a sure and permanent cure.
regards
From India, Delhi
"Hi DR. Jogeshwar,
I want to know more about DV act.
Can you please give me some link?
Regards,
Ashwini Kumar"
Thank you Ashwini Kumar ji for your intrest. I think it is yet to be posted for ezine search. You may try in the following links:
Contact Us
Legalpundits- Indiatimes. Com
M U M B A I (LegalPundits Corporate office)
506, Neelkanth, 98, Marine Drive,
Next to Registrar of Companies (ROC)
Mumbai - 400 002,
India
Telephone: 91-22-22044591, 56349742/3
Fax: 91-22-22839527
G U R G A O N (Indiatimes Corporate Office)
I World, Times Internet Limited,
Opp. Golf Course, Sector Road
Sector 56,
Gurgaon - 122002,
India
Telephone: - 91- 124- 4187000
Mr. Harinder Singh 09871289000
B A N G A L O R E
Mr. M. Gnanaguruswamy 09886057942
C H E N N A I
Mr. S. Vijaykanth 09884008383
D E L H I
Ms. Saloni 09899152454
Mr. Ravi Narula 098911 72377 / 098180 33772 , (011) 25418179 / 25173140
J A I P U R:
Mr. Anand Maheshwari (141) 2622576, 09414250421
K O L K A T A
Mr. Jay Taparia 0-98303-77564 , (033) 22436785/6348
N O I D A
Mr. Kulmani (0120) 5310900 / 2547353
P U N E
Mr. Sanjeev Pawar (020) 26363532 , 26363115
For details regarding membership, email at :
For acquiring answers to any legal queries, email at :
Send us your valuable feedback, suggestions comments, email at :
To unsubscribe to Legalpundits Newsletters/Updates, email at :
regards
From India, Delhi
I want to know more about DV act.
Can you please give me some link?
Regards,
Ashwini Kumar"
Thank you Ashwini Kumar ji for your intrest. I think it is yet to be posted for ezine search. You may try in the following links:
Contact Us
Legalpundits- Indiatimes. Com
M U M B A I (LegalPundits Corporate office)
506, Neelkanth, 98, Marine Drive,
Next to Registrar of Companies (ROC)
Mumbai - 400 002,
India
Telephone: 91-22-22044591, 56349742/3
Fax: 91-22-22839527
G U R G A O N (Indiatimes Corporate Office)
I World, Times Internet Limited,
Opp. Golf Course, Sector Road
Sector 56,
Gurgaon - 122002,
India
Telephone: - 91- 124- 4187000
Mr. Harinder Singh 09871289000
B A N G A L O R E
Mr. M. Gnanaguruswamy 09886057942
C H E N N A I
Mr. S. Vijaykanth 09884008383
D E L H I
Ms. Saloni 09899152454
Mr. Ravi Narula 098911 72377 / 098180 33772 , (011) 25418179 / 25173140
J A I P U R:
Mr. Anand Maheshwari (141) 2622576, 09414250421
K O L K A T A
Mr. Jay Taparia 0-98303-77564 , (033) 22436785/6348
N O I D A
Mr. Kulmani (0120) 5310900 / 2547353
P U N E
Mr. Sanjeev Pawar (020) 26363532 , 26363115
For details regarding membership, email at :
For acquiring answers to any legal queries, email at :
Send us your valuable feedback, suggestions comments, email at :
To unsubscribe to Legalpundits Newsletters/Updates, email at :
regards
From India, Delhi
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
1.Be a Better Boss and not a Bitter Boss.doc
Big-golf-hole_5 51.jpg