Monday, 30 September 2013

Dowry harassment: Maintenance case filed against ex-minister's son

In a significant development in the sensational dowry harassment case of Barsa Swony Choudhury (23) in which a former minister of Odisha and his family members were arrested earlier this year, a maintenance case has been filed in the Balasore family court against the woman's husband Rajashree Mohanty.
Rajashree, his father, former minister and BJD MLA from Basta Raghunath Mohanty and mother Pritilata Mohanty are now on condition bail. They were arrested following the dowry torture allegation by Barsa, a resident of Bhoisahi here, in Balasore town police station on March 14.
Barsa’s counsel Amar Ballav Nanda confirmed that a maintenance case seeking Rs 60,000 per month towards her study and other expenditures had been filed. The petition was lodged on the basis of the claims made by the Mohanty family while obtaining the conditional bail from the court of District and Sessions judge of Balasore.
“They had submitted a pay slip of a private company where Rajashree claimed to have been working and it was mentioned that he was drawing Rs 1,65,000 per month. Besides, they denied to have demanded dowry citing that Rajashree was earning Rs 10 lakh more per annum from his hotel business and landed properties, apart from his salary. Basing on the claims, we have demanded Rs 60,000 per month towards maintenance,” Nanda said adding that the case has been registered.
Meanwhile, Barsa has been shifted to Bhubaneswar and studying MBA in HR and Finance in a private management college there. Her father Kishore Kumar Choudhury hoped the court would decide in their favour while granting the amount as per the legal provisions which would definitely help for her higher studies.
Barsa said after the case was registered she has been staying along with her parents and depending on her father's income. "I require more money for my higher studies. That's why I have filed the maintenance case and the money I expect to get will meet my study expenses," she added.
While after the incident, Raghunath had to lose his ministerial berth and the vice-president post of BJD, the ruling party too lost miserably in the recently concluded Jaleswar NAC election. Incidentally, Raghunath was projecting his son as the party’s candidate from Jaleswar constituency in 2014 Assembly polls.
Earlier, Barsa had moved the High Court, seeking cancellation of bail granted to her husband Rajashree and father-in-law by the lower courts. In her petition, she had alleged that Raghunath and Rajashree had violated the conditions imposed on them by the lower courts while granting bail.
Rajashree however could not be contacted for comment. His counsel Niranjan Panda told media persons that Rajashree lost his job after his arrest and he had no such hotel business. "When he earns nothing, how can he pay such a huge amount? However, we are yet to receive the notice. We would fight the case accordingly," he added.

Wednesday, 25 September 2013

At Rs 150cr, alimony claim more than SC money

New Delhi, Sept. 25: A woman has sought Rs 150 crore in alimony from her estranged husband, prompting the Supreme Court to observe the amount was way larger than its annual budget of Rs 82 crore.
“We will examine the matter at a later stage. The amount anyway is more than even our Supreme Court’s annual budget,” Chief Justice of India P. Sathasivam said, as he referred the dispute between an Indore couple to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.
The lawyers for the couple requested that their clients’ names be withheld because mediation was under way and there was a possibility of rapprochement.
The couple have fallen out after 10 years of marriage. The husband, a businessman, is seeking a divorce on grounds of an irretrievable breakdown of marriage but his wife does not want one.
This is possibly the first time a woman has sought in court such a huge amount for a full and final settlement of a maintenance suit. Generally, the amount varies between Rs 50 lakh and Rs 1 crore. In case of richer families, it ranges between Rs 5 crore and Rs 10 crore. The amount is far higher when the super-rich are involved but such cases are usually settled out of court.
The claims are decided on the basis of the husband’s income, the wife’s earning capabilities and the requirements of children.
In the case before the Supreme Court, the wife has claimed her husband has assets worth Rs 400 crore. But the husband has put it at a far lower Rs 67 lakh.
His counsel told the top court: “Your lordship, I cannot pay such a huge amount. I don’t have such money as I am neither a Tata nor a Birla.”
While the husband’s divorce suit was pending in an Indore court, the wife filed an FIR against him for allegedly assaulting her outside the court premises. Fearing arrest, he filed an anticipatory bail plea but a sessions court rejected it. After Madhya Pradesh High Court too rejected his appeal, he moved the apex court.
The husband has also filed a petition seeking transfer of the matrimonial dispute and criminal case against him to Delhi. But the apex court referred the matrimonial dispute to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, after which the couple agreed to mediation.
In mediation, advocates try to convince couples to reconcile differences. If they succeed, the cases are quashed by court. In her maintenance suit, the wife claimed that her husband has stakes in several companies and put the value of his immovable assets at Rs 400 crore. But his neglect of her and their minor daughter in the past few years forced them to shift to her parental home in 2009, she said.
Replying to the transfer suit filed by her husband, the wife said: “The present cost of the immovable properties of the applicant (husband) is more than Rs 400 crore.
“Apart from these, the applicant has already purchased shares of other companies worth crores of rupees. The applicant and the members of his family are in the habit of enjoying high standard of life. The applicant had imported an Audi car… from Germany in the year 2005 and presently he has been utilising this Audi and other costly cars….
“The annual fees of the school of the minor daughter is Rs 150,000 and other annual expenses of the school at about Rs 50,000 are being incurred.
“The non-applicant is not doing any job/profession and she does not have source of income. Looking to the life standard of the applicant and looking to his movable and immovable properties, it is necessary to award in lumpsum a sum of Rs 100 crore by way of permanent alimony/maintenance of the non-applicant herself and in lumpsum a sum of Rs 50 crore by way of permanent maintenance of her minor daughter, which the applicant is fully competent to pay.
“Apart from these, it is also necessary to award to the nonapplicant the articles, jewellery etc., given to the nonapplicant by her mother, father, mother-in-law; father-in-law and the relatives at the time of her marriage.”

Original NEWS Source:- http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130926/jsp/nation/story_17392857.jsp#.UkPQX9Kmhci

Wife, paramour held for man's murder

BANGALORE: A 29-year-old woman and her paramour were arrested for allegedly murdering her husband by pushing the man, who didn't know swimming, into a river.

Roopavathi, a resident of Siddahoshalli in Madanayakanahalli, off Tumkur Road, Bangalore Rural district, got her paramour, Ravi, to push her husband Suresh into the Hemavathi river.

She then filed a missing person complaint. But she cracked under interrogation and confessed to the crime.

Roopavathi and Suresh, a daily wage worker, fell in love and married eight years ago. The couple stayed at Madanayakanahalli. Later, she had an affair with her husband's close friend Ravi, a carpenter.

Roopavathi recently decided to live with Ravi and plotted Suresh's murder. She persuaded Suresh to come to a temple on the banks of the Hemavathi in Hollesarasipura taluk of Hassan district.

Suresh took Ravi with him on a motorcycle at his wife's insistence to the temple on September 11. Ravi pushed him into deep water and Suresh drowned.

Two days later, Roopavathi lodged a missing person complaint. On September 14, the body was recovered downstream in Mandya district.

Investigation revealed that Roopavathi had made several calls to Ravi's phone on September 11. When police confronted them with the evidence, the duo admitted to the murder.

Original NEWS Source:- http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Wife-paramour-held-for-mans-murder/articleshow/23064878.cms

Advocate arrested on rape charge, released on bail

Sept. 25 (PTI) -- A lawyer arrested for allegedly raping 
two women on different occasions has been granted bail by a
Delhi court which asked him not to influence any of the
complainants in the case.
     Additional Sessions Judge V K Khanna enlarged the lawyer on
bail on furnishing of a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one
surety of the like amount.
     The court also asked him to furnish the same bail bond in
the other rape case lodged against him.
     While releasing the advocate on bail, the court said that
he should "not in any manner influence the complainants or try
to meet them, otherwise it will go against him".
     The accused assured the court that he will abide by its
directions and also cooperate in the case.
     The lawyer was arrested on September 16 after a 19-year-old
girl lodged a complaint at New Friends Colony Police Station
here alleging that she had been raped by him on the false
pretext of marrying her.
     During the hearing, the court had asked the complainant if
she wanted to marry the accused. The girl replied that she will
not enter into wedlock with the lawyer as she had been "cheated"
by him.
     In another case, a 27-year-old woman had alleged that the
lawyer had established physical relations with her since 2011
during the pendency of a divorce case in which he was
representing her.
     The 19-year-girl had told the police that in March when the
accused called her to his flat in south Delhi, the other woman
(the second complainant) was also present there.
     She said that as they both felt cheated, they decided to
file complaints with the police

Tuesday, 24 September 2013

Passport can't be revoked for criminal charges: Delhi high court

NEW DELHI: Even if a criminal case is pending against a person the passport office can't as a rule revoke his passport, Delhi high court has clarified. The court said a passport can be impounded only in "appropriate cases" where cogent reasons have to be given in writing by the RPO.

Accepting the plea of a man, facing trial in a matrimonial case lodged by his wife, Justice V K Jain directed the passport authority to release his passport which was revoked on the ground of criminal charges against him. The court, however, directed him not to leave the country without its permission and also asked him to attend the ongoing criminal proceedings.
Allowing Manish Kumar Mittal's plea against the passport authority, Justice Jain noted, "The order passed by the Regional Passport Officer directing the petitioner (Mittal) to surrender his passport as well as the order passed by the appellate authority are, hereby, set aside. The respondents (authorities) are directed to release the passport of the petitioner to him forthwith."
The court also asked the RPO to pass an order within eight weeks after giving an opportunity to Mittal to make his stand clear under provisions of the Passports Act. In order to ensure that Mittal, on getting passport from the RPO, does not flee the country and continues to attend the criminal trial pending against him, the court directed that till a fresh order under the Passport Act is passed, he shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court in which the criminal trial against him is pending.
In his plea, Mittal said that an FIR was registered against him in Dwarka police station following his wife's complaint in 2006. However, on his father-in-law's plea for cancellation of his passport, the RPO had passed an order directing him to surrender his passport without hearing him nor taking into account the fact that the trial court never asked him to surrender his travel document.

Woman to vacate mother-in-law’s house

NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court has restrained a woman, estranged from her husband, from taking possession of her mother-in-law's house located in south Delhi.
Accepting the plea of 54-year-old widow Kavita Chaudhri, Justice Jayanth Nath passed a decree in her favour as she claimed that the house in question was gifted to her by her father. The court restrained the daughter-in-law from taking possession of the house, saying, "daughter-in-law has no right to continue to reside in the suit property or to disturb the possession of the plaintiff's (Chaudhri) property in South Extension.

Does your Wife or Ex-Wife Have a Golden Uterus Complex? 15 Characteristics of the Golden Uterus

Are you frustrated with your wife or ex-wife’s attitude of “I AM THE MOTHER; YOU ARE IRRELEVANT” when it comes to raising your shared children? Does she have an over-inflated sense of self because she’s a mother? Does she believe the mere act of giving birth entitles her to special privileges and gives her absolute, unilateral power over you and the children? If so, your wife/ex-wife/mother of your children may be a golden uterus (GU) and suffer from golden uterus complex (GUC).
Golden uterus may seem like a snide term. It is. In some ways, the term is a backlash against a certain kind of woman/mother who believes she is the end-all-be-all just because she procreated, or rather, just because she procreated with you before anyone else had children with you.
You see, GUs only revere their own uteruses and motherhood. They’re dismissive of other mothers and their children; especially if they’re second or third wives. They take pride in the fact that they were the first wives; while ignoring the reality that they were such bad wives that their husbands divorced them.
Golden uteruses, despite the sense of superiority and entitlement they derive from the title “mother,” are typically lousy parents if not downright abusive parents. GUs are often the high-conflict, abusive personality-disordered parental alienators. They are the women who expect others, including their own children, to sacrifice everything at the altars they erect to themselves. Golden uteruses lay golden eggs (children) and milk their motherhood, the children and you for all you’re worth.
Here are some characteristics of the golden uterus mom:
1. GU and child are one and the same. The golden uterus child isn’t allowed to have his or her own feelings and opinions. If mommy is sad, then child must be sad. If mommy is mad, then child must be mad. If mommy hates daddy and his new wife; then child must hate daddy and his new wife. If mommy has been “wronged;” then child has been wronged.
The golden uterus believes that her best interests and the child’s best interests are synonymous. There is no “you” and “I.” The golden uterus and child are “we.” It’s a crippling symbiosis for the child in that the golden uterus feeds off of her own child to feel important, powerful and special.
2. GU and child are a two-fer. If you want to have your child in your life after you separate or divorce, the GU believes she’s a part of some twisted package deal. A golden uterus doesn’t understand (or refuses to acknowledge) that you can love  and have an independent relationship with the children without her in the middle of it. GUs will try to impose themselves into your individual relationships with the children and any new romantic relationships. However, if GU dates and remarries, it’s none of your damn business.
The GU is allowed to move on with her life. You’re expected to remain on ice, poised to mobilize whenever she demands something. When the GU child wants or needs something, you’re expected to drop everything to do the GU’s child’s bidding.
3. Disobedience is abuse to the golden uterus. If the children, father/husband/ex-husband doesn’t heed her demands, the GU perceives it as abuse. If you don’t parent the same way the GU parents (or mis-parents); you’re a bad parent. If you challenge the GU’s decisions, she’ll punish you by denying you access to the kids or taking you to court. “A GU believes that because she gave birth, she has exclusive rights to all decision-making related to said child, no matter what anyone else (including the courts or the father) say” (anonymous source).
This applies to the children, too. If they disobey mom or have the temerity to have their own feelings and opinions (you know, what childhood experts call healthy childhood development) that differ from the GU’s feelings and opinions, it’s an act of high treason. There are consequences for this. The children of GUs learn very early in life what side their bread is buttered. This is what makes PAS possible.
4. GU exceptionalism. Even though humans have been procreating since human history began, the GU believes her pregnancy and childbirth are the most special pregnancy and childbirth ever. Most women will tell you that their pregnancy and the birth of their child was one of the most special events in their lives. They don’t expect it to be the most special event in everyone else’s lives.
Furthermore, should you remarry and have children with your new wife, the GU believes that she and the child(ren) you share with her should take precedence over your current relationship and any new offspring. The GU believes she should always come first and, by association with her, the child you share.
For example, let’s say the child you share is an adult, but you’re still obligated to pay your ex, an adult, spousal support. You  remarry and have a child with a medical issue. The GU believes her spousal support should be your first priority instead of paying for the second child’s medical expenses. Twistedly enough, many family courts would support this pathological entitlement and adult dependency. As a retired judge-mediator recently told one of my clients during his divorce settlement: “You have two children. One is 16 and the other is 54 and you’re responsible for both of them because you choose to live in a patriarchal state.” This was a female judge, by the way.
5. Boundaries are for everyone else; boundaries don’t apply to the GU. No boundaries. Bupkis. You must respect the GU’s boundaries, but you’re not allowed to have any boundaries. If you have healthy boundaries, the GU will accuse you of being controlling, withholding, abusive, unresponsive and, naturally, a bad dad.
6. All other child caregivers are irrelevant. Fathers are walking ATMs. A father’s role is to financially and emotionally support the mother (i.e., be her emotional punching bag/doormat and listen to her complain about how hard it is to be a mother). That’s it. Fathers get no real input into how the children are raised.
Step-mothers are less than non-entities. They are to act as servants to the children during visitation and are less than handmaidens to the golden uterus. Step-mothers/girlfriends are intruders and are treated as such. Extended paternal family members are to act as a subservient support system to the GU, that is, if she allows them to have any access to the kids. Extended paternal family members are also expected to side with the GU over their own flesh and blood and to dispense cash for the GU’s children’s “needs.”
7. Once you have sex with a GU, she owns you for life. The golden uterus believes that if she gave birth to your children, you are “connected for life.” She should always come first (even if you’ve both remarried) and YOU OWE HER until death you do part.
This also applies to the children. GUs wield guilt over their children with staggering virtuosity. “I am your mother. I carried you for 9 months. No one will ever love you like I do. No one will ever break our bond. No one will ever come between us. I CARRIED you in my WOMB for NINE months. YOU can NEVER do that for me.
When the children become adults, the GU still believes she should come first in her adult children’s lives and take precedence over their spouses and children. A GU’s children owe her because she is their mother. This is just so sick and twisted. Unlike an ex-husband who can break free of this death grip; many GU kids are indoctrinated into the GU’s warped belief system and it’s extremely difficult for them to break free. If they reject the GU’s distorted belief system and abuses, they’re treated like public enemy number one and may even be disowned by the GU, which wouldn’t necessarily be such a bad thing. Nevertheless, it’s terrifying for many children and adult children to contemplate.
This is a perversion of parenthood. These are often the women who get pregnant so that they’ll have “someone who’ll love [me] unconditionally.” They fail to understand that it’s the parentwho’s supposed to meet the child’s love and safety needs and not the other way around.
8. GUs like to take kissy duck face make-out photos with their children. Facebook addicted GUs like to post kissy-duck face-make-out photos with their child(ren). It’s rather like manic, digital age pietas. “Look at meeee and my child who loves meeee! See! We’re so close we’re more like best friennnnnds!” Boundaries, shmoundaries.
These photos are similar in nature to the photos drunken college girls take of themselves with their arms wrapped around each other and their faces pressed together. Whenever I see a photo of a mother with her child in a lip lock-bear hug with a Joker smile, I think: ENMESHED GU.
9. Golden uterus mothers are feeeeeeelers. The golden uterus believes that her emotions are reason enough for any action, no matter how despicable. In fact, the GU’s feelings often trump what’s really in the child’s best interests.
For example, “I’m angry with your father” means the children are denied access to their father. Cutting the other parent out of a child’s life is rarely in the child’s best interests. However, the GU is feeeeeeling angry, wronged, ignored, disrespected, challenged, etc., so that becomes her justification to attack and/or punish others—even if her actions violate a court order.
10. Once the GU gives birth, her “job” is done. “GUs believe that simply birthing a child is all they’re responsible for as a contribution to the parenting, raising and welfare of their child. From the moment the child emerges from her hallowed trough, it is solely on the father to provide all for both her and the child” (anonymous source).
Once a GU gives birth, she has her own little foot soldier to weaponize and use as a control device over the child’s father and family. This is when many of these women choose not to return to work. By giving birth, the GU essentially has her husband over a barrel. She knows it and she uses it.
11. Children are possessions; not their own persons. “The GU views the child as her possession. The GU will take all the kudos for birthing a child, but none of the responsibility. If someone tries to point out the discrepancies, the GU will will heave out emotional garbage to cover up their horrible parenting. The GU only views the child in context to herself.  Everything is about her” (anonymous source).
12. The GU uses motherhood as an excuse. “Becoming a ‘mother’ is the GU’s excuse for EVERYTHING. She can’t work because ‘mothers don’t work.’ My husband HAS to give her all of his money because she’s the mother of his ONLY child. She lost all identity as a woman and used becoming a mother as her free ride in life” (anonymous source).
Even after their children are in school full-time, GUs still use the kids and being a mother as an excuse not to work outside the home and often not to work inside the home. “You have no idea how stressful it is being a mom.” Um, the kids are in school all day. What do you do with your time? “You always minimize all the hard work I do. YOU HAVE NO IDEA.” Um, the breakfast dishes are still in the sink when I get home from work in the evening. The laundry is piled up and the kids haven’t done their homework. What did you do all day? “HOW DARE YOU DISRESPECT ME. I’m THE MOTHER OF YOUR CHILDREN!”
13. GUs are self-appointed parenting experts. Despite the fact that her parenting behaviors should be used as an example in  How NOT to Parent 101, “the golden uterus believes that having birthed a child makes them better and more knowledgeable than others; e.g., the “Well you don’t have kids so how would you know anything?” woman (anonymous source). If you should dare challenge the GU’s parenting skills and superior authority, see number 3 above.
14. Motherhood is a title and a power trip. “The golden uterus views mothering as a title rather than a relationship and a set of behaviors. Mothering requires selflessness at times. It requires sacrifice at times. It requires paying attention to the child and putting your time and energy into meeting their needs, which also requires seeing the child as a unique and separate individual from yourself, not a mirror of your own thoughts, feelings, and needs. A golden uterus mother fails at mothering and instead uses her title to extort things from others ‘in the name of the child.’ Essentially, they use their offspring as a way to get their own needs met” (anonymous source).
15. The GU is never wrong. “The golden uterus seems to expect that they get a total free pass on accountability for their own behavior. I have often told my husband that his ex lives on a one way street paved in double standards. Her own bad behavior is to be overlooked. Yet she will attempt to crucify him for any and all perceived weaknesses or ‘failures.’ She is judge and jury and quick to condemn my husband (and me, for that matter) yet she can do no wrong” (anonymous source).
What can you do if the mother of your children has a golden uterus complex?
There’s nothing you can do to change her. Nothing. She’s highly unlikely to see the light and morph into a reasonable human being and good mother. Your goal, as with all high-conflict abusive types, should be containment. You accomplish containment through establishing iron-clad boundaries. Learn to say no and then practice deafening your ears to the caterwauling.
Don’t let her use your children as an extortion mechanism. Don’t allow the children to view you as a human ATM machine. In other words, don’t reward your children’s bad behavior with money, gifts, trips and other goodies, otherwise, they will view you the same way that their mother does. I know many fathers are desperate for time with their children and use toys and expensive entertainment as bait. Trust me, this is not the relationship you want with your children. It’s a quick path to time with them, but it’s an unhealthy and impermanent one.
Decide exactly how much bad behavior you’re willing to to tolerate from your ex and what offenses you want to pursue in court. Forget about co-parenting with a GU; it’s next to impossible. You will be less frustrated if you try to parallel parent. A GU will undermine you at nearly every turn. Expect it and plan for it.
Don’t put your current wife/girlfriend in the middle and don’t tolerate your ex or your children disrespecting her. Demand respect for yourself and your loved ones. If your ex and the kids violate these boundaries, find appropriate consequences for their violations.
Finally, don’t drink the golden uterus’ kool-aid. The fact that you once had a relationship with her/share a child does not bind you together for life. Just because she wants this to be the truth doesn’t make it so. Just because your ex has chosen to define herself by a failed relationship and 36 hours in a delivery room doesn’t mean you have to do the same. GUs are legends in their own minds and their own worst enemies. Minimize contact and try to foster healthy boundaries, values and senses of self in your children during the time you have them and hope it sticks.
Shrink4Men Coaching and Consulting Services:
Dr Tara J. Palmatier provides confidential, fee-for-service, consultation/coaching services to help both men and women work through their relationship issues via telephone and/or Skype chat. Her practice combines practical advice, support, reality testing and goal-oriented outcomes. Please visit the Shrink4Men Services page for professional inquiries.

Monday, 23 September 2013

Woman, paramour kill husband for objecting to extra-marital affair; arrested

A woman was arrested along with her paramour and his friend for allegedly killing her husband in Loni area in Ghaziabad for objecting to her extra-marital affair, police said on Monday. Afsana along with her lover Naseem, a resident of New Mustfabad, suffocated her husband, Akhbar, to death on the night of July 15 after he came drunk home and picked up a fight, police said. The decomposed body of Akhbar was found wrapped in a bedsheet in Balaram colony on July 22 and the trio was arrested by the Loni police on Sunday evening. Akhbar's brother had registered a case of murder at Loni police station. "Afsana didn't like Akhbar's constant objection to her extra-marital affair. Furious over this, she on July 15 called her paramour Naseem and his friend Sageer to her house and hatched a plot to kill her husband. "The trio suffocated Akhbar to death and dumped his body at an isolated place in Balram colony," said a senior police officer.

Original NEWS Source:- http://ibnlive.in.com/news/woman-paramour-kill-husband-for-objecting-to-extramarital-affair-arrested/411969-3-242.html?utm_source=ref_article

Wednesday, 18 September 2013

Open dance bars to check crime against women: Esha Deol

Raigarh: Actress Esha Deol has suggested opening of dance bars in India on the lines of Bangkok to curb rising crime against women. Talking to reporters here in Chhattisgarh last evening, the Bollywood actress said such a move will not only satisfy men but also ensure safety of women. Dance bars should be opened in India on the lines of Bangkok to prevent sexual harassment of women, Esha said. The 31-year-old 'Dhoom' star, who is a trained Odissi dancer, was here in North Chhattisgarh to perform in the ongoing 'Chakradhar' cultural festival.

Welcoming the death sentence awarded to four convicts in the Delhi gangrape case, she said, "the minor accused in the case should also be given capital punishment." Urging women to become self-reliant, she suggested them to forcefully counter eve-teasing or molestation attempts. Ruling out retirement from films, Esha, who tied the knot with a businessman last year, said she will neither join politics like her father Dharmendra and mother Hema Malini nor campaign for any political party in the coming elections. Expressing concern over increasing influence of the West on Bollywood, she said owing to less presentation of Indian dances in Hindi movies, people are taking more interest to train their children in Salsa and Samba (western dance forms).

Original NEWS Source:- http://ibnlive.in.com/news/open-dance-bars-to-check-crime-against-women-esha-deol/422929-8-66.html?utm_source=ref_article

Tuesday, 17 September 2013

In a first, HC orders joint custody of child

In a first, HC orders joint custody of child
B R Srinivas with his son
For the first time in Karnataka High Court's history, a division bench has divided the custody of a child between his estranged parents for six months each in a year.

On September 12, the division bench of Justice NK Patil and Justice B Manohar ordered that the custody of the 11-year-old boy would be with the father from January 1 to June 30 and with the mother from July 1 to December 31. The order also said that the child's education and other expenditure will be borne in equal proportion by both. Each parent will have visitation rights during weekends while the other parent has custody.

The minor child shall also be allowed to use the telephone and video conferencing to speak with either parent while in custody of the other, the order said.

BR Srinivas and Vinaya KM married in 1997. The husband filed a case for custody of the child in 2003 alleging that his wife had not returned from her parents' home after child birth. In 2004, the wife filed for divorce. After years of fighting it out in the family court, the case reached the HC in 2011. The divorce case is still being heard by a family court.

During several hearings in HC, the couple traded many charges against each other. Visitation rights were given to the father while the custody was with the mother. Srinivas, however, alleged that his wife was creating hurdles for him to meet his son. These hurdles included getting the child admitted in a school that was 20 kilometres from home, emotionally threatening the child and getting him into various courses so that he is not free on weekends to meet the father. The mother's side alleged that the father beat the child and exposed him to bad habits. The claims went to alarming heights. It was alleged that the mother was angry because the son had started liking the upma and kajoo burfee prepared by the father.

Advocate AK Mohan Krishna, who specialises in family matters, but is unconnected to this case, said, "There is no hard and fast rule as to which of the parents should get the custody of a minor child. But the Supreme Court has time and again stressed that the 'paramount interest of the child' has to be considered. But in majority of cases, the custody of a minor child is given to the woman and the man gets the visitation rights and pays for maintenance. When both parents are on equal footing, they fight tooth and nail to deny the other not just custody, but also visitation rights. Finally, it is on a case-to-case basis that things are decided. Though not unheard of, giving equal custody rights to both parents could be the way forward."

Is cohabiting a bad idea?

Famously, the film director Tim Burton lives next door to the actress who has starred in many of his films, Helena Bonham Carter. The two live in adjacent properties in London.
What’s striking about this arrangement is that the pair are married. They’ve chosen to be together, but live apart.
And according to the latest research, it’s an arrangement that more and more couples are choosing to adopt. The romantic ideal may still be two starry-eyed lovers sharing a cosy love nest, but the reality is increasingly different, with men and women in serious relationships choosing to live apart.
It all begs an interesting question: should we cohabit at all?
Is living apart the new moving in?
What’s clear is that being in a serious, monogamous relationship and living apart is the fashionable thing to do. Research suggests that the number of couples who are together but living apart has increased by 40 percent in the last decade.
Some do it simply because of circumstances, if jobs or study take each partner to a different part of the country, for example. But many do it because they want to, and because they think it gives their relationship the best chance of success.
Why do couples live apart?
The question is, why? What benefits do these couples think they get from being together - but often apart?
“Living apart is a way of keeping the relationship fresh, avoiding the common trap of couples to take each other for granted, as well as, more importantly, providing the freedom for each couple to make choices about how they spend their time,” says psychologist and novelist Voula Grand, author of Honor’s Shadow (Karnac). 
In particular, says Grand, couples in which each partner has their own living space avoid one of the chief causes of domestic disharmony. According to research, two-thirds of couples argue over chores at least once a week.
“In the early stages of a relationship, the desire to be together at all times is typical, so living together becomes the aim,” she adds. 
“However, the practicalities of living together can be demanding, especially if the two people are very different in their habits and preferences. Too much domestic bickering can be undermining, and a couple can begin to lose sight of what they love and value in each other.”
According to novelist Deborah Moggach, who herself lives apart from her partner, cohabiting couples too easily slip into unromantic habits.
“When you don’t live together you always kiss when you’re reunited and you have lots of stored up news...You dress up for each other rather than slobbing around in a tracksuit.”
Is living apart healthy for couples?
So living apart may have its advantages for couples, but is it healthy? After all, as Voula Grand admits, in the early part of a relationship most couples want to see each other as much as possible, making moving in together a natural ambition.
If you don’t have that ambition, are you unromantic? Does it suggest there’s something wrong with the relationship? If you can’t live together, should you be together at all?
Voula Grand thinks living apart can be healthy, if it’s right for you and you don’t let the relationship drift as a result. “It's perfectly possible to have a healthy relationship and live apart - provided the couple spend most of their time together,” she says.
In other words, living apart should not be shorthand for living semi-detached lives. Unless that really is what both partners want (and it seldom is), that might signal a relationship on the ropes.
Grand believes that if you do choose to live apart, you need to set some ground rules. Time together should be sacrosanct and set in stone, to head off resentment and suspicion. And you need to be careful with your time apart, too, she adds. If you spend most of your independent time clubbing with the boys, your partner's unlikely to see it as your innocent need for time alone.
Living together is still best for many
Of course, the majority of couples in serious relationships still think cohabiting is best for them and best for their relationship. Indeed, Grand says the one time living apart rarely works - or at least not in the long term - is when one party or the other doesn’t choose it.
“When couples live apart because they have no choice - for job reasons, for example -  problems can arise, as the desire to live together remains strong, and couples miss each other too much.”
It’s also true that couples live together for reasons other than the lust and yearning that typifies the early stages of most relationships. Sometimes it’s because children are involved. Often it’s because running one household of two people is far cheaper than running two households of one.
Financial considerations alone may not be a good reason to move in together, but cheaper rent and bills are certainly one advantage of cohabitation. Given that financial worries often drive couples apart, it’s not a benefit to be sniffed at.
So should you cohabit with your girlfriend? Every couple is different, but what seems clear is that when both partners are happy being 'together apart', it can work. If either of you is secretly yearning for a shared bed and shared bills, living apart can only be a temporary stage of your relationship. 

Crime and khaki: Gang of women busted

BHOPAL: Infamous for their criminal past, an all-woman gang of burglars from Pardhi community was busted by police on Sunday. Interestingly, their mastermind being a constable, who was terminated from his service.

The women, eight in number, along with five men were arrested by officials of MP Nagar police station in connection with a theft that took place at Biyani Pump and Pipe in MP Nagar on August 5. The police have recovered goods worth Rs 3 lakh stolen from the shop.

Functioning in an organized manner, the kingpin, Dhirendra, along with his son, Manoj and "manager" Quayyum would set a target for these women and provide them with two auto-rickshaws to commit crimes. The modus operandi was break-ins without damaging shutter's locks. The gang would then hide the stolen goods at Quayyum's warehouse in Karond Bypass area.

The police busted the gang after scrutinizing CCTV footage procured from the shop. The footage showed the women entering the shop without breaking shutter's lock.

The gang admitted to committing burglaries at Hanumanganj, Chhola Mandir and Manalwara in old city. Police also suspect their involvement in similar cases of robberies.

The women have been identified as Rocket, Sheela, Urmila, Tameena, Mewa, Sharmila, Pinky and Smita, all residents of Nishatpura. The auto-rickshaw drivers have been identified as Rahul Jaat and Rahul Rao.

Dhirendra was terminated three years ago after which he formed the gang of Pardhi women burglars.

Original NEWS Source:- http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/Crime-and-khaki-Gang-of-women-busted/articleshow/22619746.cms?intenttarget=no

Divorce case: Woman pays Rs 50,000 for ‘wasting time’

MUMBAI: A city family court has directed a woman to pay Rs 50,000 after she filed a petition withdrawing the consent terms agreed upon before a judge mediator in her divorce battle. Allowing the woman's plea to withdraw the terms, the judge, however, observed, "Repatriation from mediation settlement casually is nothing but wastage of time, skill and energy of all concerned and, therefore, warrants saddling of exemplary cost."

Lamenting the state of affairs, the judge said, "Mediation settlement must not be resiled casually... unless there is force or coercion. Mediation must not be taken for granted. It is an alternate dispute resolution mode recognized and executable by law."

The woman and her husband have been estranged for a year and have an 11-year-old son. The order copy states that the couple was referred to a mediator with their consent, and had even resolved some of their problems. The terms for divorce by mutual consent were agreed upon after individual and joint mediation sessions were held with the parties.

On July 7, the couple signed the consent forms and the mediator judge informed the referral court. Both parties had dealt with a number of issues, including separate residence, lump sum alimony, permanent custody and access to their son. However, a month-and-a-half after signing the terms, the woman filed a petition in court seeking to withdraw the consent terms. The husband objected to this, saying it had been filed with the intention of forcing him to pay her more.

Going through the consent terms, the judge, citing an instance, observed that the woman had agreed to pay for the repair of the house, if any. "But now, the petitioner (woman) wants to deviate and claim repair charges. This is nothing but stretching the matter in an unfair manner," the judge said. The court further held that if the woman was not allowed to withdraw from the mediation settlement, the couple would have to obtain the divorce by mutual consent, as agreed. "I do not want to force mutual consent divorce upon the petitioner and that is the only reason I am allowing her to withdraw from the consent terms," the court said.

The woman's advocate S H Shyamani has said she will challenge the order before the HC. "She is a working woman and the amount is too high," he said.

Original NEWS Source:- http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Divorce-case-Woman-pays-Rs-50000-for-wasting-time/articleshow/22672172.cms

HC asks Yukta, husband to explore scope for amicable solution

Bombay High Court on Monday asked former Miss World Yukta Mookhey and her estranged husband Prince Tuli to consider finding an amicable solution to their dispute. Hearing an anticipatory bail plea by Tuli, Justice Sadhana Jadhav asked the couple to appear in her chamber on September 30 with a view to exploring the scope for reconciliation. 
The two were not present in court today, although their lawyers were. In a complaint to police in July, Yukta had accused her husband of subjecting her to domestic violence. She also accused her in-laws of cruel treatment and harassment. 
Tuli moved High Court for anticipatory bail after the sessions court on August 31 rejected his plea while granting anticipatory bails to his family members. The trial court had initially observed that a case of domestic violence was not made out in the complaint. But High Court noted in a previous hearing that the sessions court did not take into consideration the fact that an offence under Section 498A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code was "a continuing offence".

Original NEWS Source:- http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/HC-asks-Yukta-husband-to-explore-scope-for-amicable-solution/articleshow/22646799.cms

Senior citizens can now reclaim ‘gifted’ property from children

There is good news for those senior citizens who have been left in the lurch by their children at the dusk of their lives. For, now senior citizens can reclaim the property they 'gifted' or transferred in the name of their children if their welfare and basic needs are not being looked after.
All this without any delay. Rather than paying futile visits to the Court and awaiting outcome for several years, an aggrieved senior citizen can now approach the Deputy Commissioner and reclaim his property. And if a senior citizen is incapable to approach the Deputy Commissioner, any social organisation can do so on his behalf.
This is the unique benefit offered in the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which was finally notified by the Chandigarh Administration last month. All properties which stand 'gifted' or transferred by the senior citizens in the name of their children after the year 2007 can now be reclaimed by them.
Till now, the only legal remedy available with aggrieved elderly was to approach a Court and claim maintenance on account of the properties given by them. After transfer, children are the 'absolute owners' of the properties and senior citizens did not have the right to reclaim them. But now with the notification of the said Act, the children will no more remain absolute owners.
As an alternative, they can also claim maintenance on the properties they had transferred in the name of their kids. The Act has two major benefits for the elderly. First, they can get the property reserved and secondly, the entire exercise of reclaiming the property will not take long. For, the Act stipulates the Deputy Commissioner to decide such cases 'expeditiously'.
As per the Act, a Deputy Commissioner has been designated as the appropriate authority to address and redress complaints and grievances of the senior citizens. All the senior citizens will have to submit is that their basic needs are not being looked after by their children. By producing relevant documents of the property they had transferred or gifted to their children, after 2007, the senior citizens can get the transfer declared void and claim back their properties.

Undertrial found dead under mysterious circumstances at Parappana Agrahara jail

BANGALORE: A 26 year old undertrial, who was arrested on Saturday for allegedly beating up his estranged girlfriend's sister, was found dead inside the bathroom of Parappana Agrahara jail early on Sunday morning. Preliminary investigations revealed that Rajesh Mokani Bahadur, had committed suicide by tying one end of his shoelace into the metal grills of the bathroom and the other end to his neck. However, police are yet to confirm whether it is a suicide or not.
Deputy commissioner of police (DCP) southeast, TD Pawar, told TOI that they are waiting for the postmortem report. "Body has been sent to Victoria hospital for autopsy. The exact reason for death can be ascertained once the autopsy report comes," he said.
The incident came to light when a night patrolling police official came across the body around 4 am. Earlier on Saturday, Hennur police had arrested Rajesh, following a complaint made by his estranged girl friend Kavita Rai, alleging Rajesh of manhandling her elder sister Savita Rai.
Later, Hennur police had produced Rajesh before a judge during night and shifted him to Parappana Agrahara central prison. As Rajesh was brought late into the jail, officials had locked him in the admission room saying that he would be allocated a cell either on Sunday or Monday.

Friday, 13 September 2013

How the 'Men's Rights' movement successfully knocked the parliament's door

Monsoon season is described in so many romantic ways everywhere. But this monsoon was special for Men's Rights Movement. All the Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) decided to knock at the doors of parliamentarians this monsoon. A planned, energetic mission was started.
'Bell Bajao' in a different way, be it email or sms, post card campaign or meeting MPs. Why it was important? What was the emergency?
We all know how the world around us is anti-men. We all know how men are blamed for everything. Whatever be the condition 'Man' is the usual suspect always. This mentality influences the law making process too. No law maker ever thought about making laws to protect men. Men were fooled in the name of 'women'. They made laws for women and made men to suffer because of it. No men ever protested against it, rather I would say when these laws were made our parents were sitting quietly. A whole generation suffered because of that. But now some MEN stood up and said 'enough is enough'. No more anti-male laws. And the new challenge waiting them was 'Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill 2010'. 
We MRAs decided to stop it at any cost, so that gennext don't not suffer like us. All the campaigns started, the letters, the emails, SMSes and the MP out reach program. Visiting MPs door to door and asking them to stop the “talibani inhuman bill was in our daily schedule. A bill which doesn’t allow husband to protest against the divorce, a bill which gives right to women on husband’s property (ancestral ) is against the basic human right.
Reaching out to MPs started on a rainy day. Team started with umbrellas to visit MPs and making them understand how dangerous the bill is not only for the society but for the whole country. We were welcomed by most of the MPs. Some were surprised to hear about 'men’s right'. After all they had heard only about women rights till now, they had heard about how women were harassed from ages. 
Like the popular perception in the society, their perception was also that 'the men' are responsible for this harassment and suppression. It was important to teach them that men are not responsible for everything. Some MPs agreed that for the sake of women, men's basic rights are neglected. But they were scared that if they will say this in public they will be considered 'anti-women'.
 MPs agreed on misuse of laws and seriously wanted to do something about it. We were told that they are getting emails, SMSes , letters to stop the Hindu Marriage Amendment bill. MPs were surprised to see a woman (me) talking about 'men’s right', the obvious question was “lady, why you, is everything ok with you?”.
My answer was, “if the men who are the backbone of any society, civilization are not well how can I be. So men’s right is basic right.” In this course of time we were invited in parliament by a big leader of opposition party who agreed on the point that duration of marriage should be defined.
But that party didn’t say anything during discussion in parliament which is alright. Politicians change their colors very often. A party which talks about Hindus, doesn’t actually care about men, was the message we got. It was enough to open our eyes and see that things are beyond religion.
On a panic stricken day when we were told that the bill was about to pass in the parliament without discussion, we thought of meeting the honorable law minister. We went to his office and we were told that we have to wait. We said we are not going without meeting the minister. Finally, the law minister came and asked our objections on the bill.
Our first objection was, how can you stop one gender from opposing the divorce, it is unconstitutional? He replied, “if it is unconstitutional go to court, why you people are coming to me. Second objection was, duration of the marriage is not defined in it, how can a 10 day marriage be equivalent to 10 years of marriage. His reply was,“marriage is a marriage whether ten days or ten years.”
We were disappointed by the attitude and noticed that we are actually governed by 'dictators' in the name of democracy.
Then the day came when we saw parliamentarians discussing the bill. And for the first time we heard MPs talking about men’s right in the house. When an MP said, “why women are empowered by slaughtering men?”
Another MP said, “when there is so much misuse already, why a new bill?”
We made it finally, we were there in the house with a bang. People outside heard something about men's rights. The two lines by these MPs did it. And then, we all saw that the bill was neither  discussed and nor passed in the lower house.
Monsoon session ended without passing it. There can be many reasons behind it but one of the biggest reasons was 'Men’s rights have knocked the door'. We were not there to stop the law, this fight is not against one stupid law. It is about MISANDRY which is so deep rooted that it will take a long time to end. The collective effort will make a difference one day.
(Ms. Jyoti Tiwari is a Men's Rights Activist. NCR based Jyoti Tiwari is also a frequent participant in TV debates, where she can be seen strongly advocating the need of men's rights in the socieity)
- Original NEWS Source:- http://www.merinews.com/article/how-the-mens-rights-movement-successfully-knocked-the-parliaments-door/15890033.shtml#sthash.0VIXIzTh.dpuf

50 women stand by ex-secretary accused of sexual harassment

Less than a week after MiD DAY published a report on how a woman was physically and sexually assaulted by the ex-society secretary of her building whom she had earlier lodged a complaint against, other residents of the same building Dosti Carnation at Antop Hill are now up in arms against the complainant, and claim that her allegations are false.
In a story carried in its September 6 edition, MiD DAY had reported on 57-year-old Gita Kasturi’s allegations that the ex-secretary of the building Adil Patrawala had knocked on her door, fought with her, assaulted her physically and sexually before fleeing (‘Ex-society secretary assaults woman who accused him of stealing funds’). Kasturi had earlier accused Patrawala of embezzling society funds, after which he had to step down from his post.

In a story carried in its September 7 edition, MiD DAY had reported on 57-year-old Gita Kasturi’s allegations that the ex-secretary of the building Adil Patrawala had knocked on her door, fought with her, assaulted her physically and sexually before fleeing
In an interesting development, 50 women of the same society have shot off a signed petition to the police, alleging that the men in their building are not safe, as they could be wrongfully accused of sexual harassment at any given point of time, and thereafter be forced to deal with the trauma. MiD DAY has acquired a copy of the petition.
The FIR lodged by Kasturi, on which the MiD DAY report was based, alleged that Patrawala, on the pretext of returning some official documents to Kasturi, knocked on her door at around 8.15 am on September 5, but eventually assaulted her physically and sexually. But Pervin Vankuiwalla and Charu Gupta, two building residents who claim to have reached the spot minutes after the alleged physical and sexual molestation took place, say that the allegations are baseless.
“Patrawala was frantic, as he was being accused of sexual harassment, that too in the presence of a security guard, who was specifically called by him, as he had anticipated trouble. We have CCTV footage to prove his innocence and the same will be handed over to the police, to help them with the investigations and unearth the truth,” said Pervin.
Pervin said she found it hard to believe that Kasturi’s husband, who was sleeping in the very next room, did not react to the situation, whereas she and her family, which resides on the fourteenth floor, could hear the commotion on the first floor.
Charu Gupta, a school teacher, said that she too reached the spot minutes after hearing the commotion and could vouch for the fact that Patrawala did not subject the woman to sexual or physical harassment. “Both Pervin and I have gone personally to the police station and recorded our official statements in front of the investigating officer and will stand by it in any court of law to prove Patrawala’s innocence,” she said.
Eyewitness version
Speaking to MiD DAY, the security guard Vattipeli Yaadgiri, who had accompanied Patrawala on the day of the incident, added that what happened on the fateful morning was anything but sexual harassment.
“The lady wanted to grab some papers from Patrawala’s hand, which he resisted by holding them up. What followed was a bit of a physical scuffle between the two, and that’s it. I have given my statement to the police and have nothing to hide,” said Yaadgiri, who has been working in the society for over eight years now.
Another resident, former chairman, Vasant Deshmukh, (Rtd) Director General of Maharashtra Police, stated that he had advised Patrawala to approach the Antop Hill Police soon after the scuffle and file his version of the story, so it would be incorrect to say that he fled after the alleged incident. MiD DAY has a stamped copy from the police as well.
Senior PI Narendra Vichare of Antop Hill Police station stated that all the evidence including the CCTV footage and the testimonials given by other residents would be presented in court. “Our investigations are on to figure out if the scratches on the arms of the accused by the complainant are a result of the scuffle or are self-inflicted,” he said.
The Other Side
Sticking to her version of events, Dr Gita Kasturi, who is a lawyer by profession, categorically stated that she had ample proof to back her allegations. “I have been constantly raising the point of funds being misused by the committee members, headed by Patrawala, which finally led him to physically twist my arm and punch me in the chest. I am still recovering from a sprained back and would not like any other women to be subjected to such an ordeal,” she said. She further alleged that a majority of the signatures in the letter submitted to the police had been forcefully extracted from the members.