Information to general Public.

Join us to

Stop 50% children of India being forced to live in Fatherless society.

Stop flood of false complaints for money, of sexual harassment etc. by bad women, due to wrong suggested Law proposals by Ministry of Women and child development India.

Stop increasing posts and money, for which you have to say one sided and biased (hence wrong) things, by reserving posts for women rights activists only. 

Do you know?

• As per Government records statistics, one in 6 persons in Delhi is likely to be named as accused in Dowry (498a) Law in Delhi, in some years. This is not an easy Law, arrest without investigation, non bailable.  Almost any matrimonial dispute, Dowry (498a) Law is invoked on relatives.
• One third of children in many countries are now being harmed by living in Fatherless families. These countries also had joint families some times back. Knowledgeable persons are saying soon half of Indian children will suffer by living in Fatherless society, unless someone stops highly funded radical feminists.
• New Laws made or in proposal stage are made in such a way that a woman doing false allegations gets more money.  This fills press with these false complaints. For example new Law from Oct 2006 (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, DV Law in short). In this a women gets money for the mental trouble she says she had faced, thus virtually all matrimonial disputes, now wife asks money from husbands friends or relatives , for mental trouble that she says, there is no limit on the amount she can ask, based on the earnings of the husbands relatives. What further encourages false complaints is that she do not have to sign at any place, so if caught lying with solid proofs, she can easily say the person signing on her behalf misunderstood etc.  The Law clearly says that a man can not put his point of View in certain stages of the DV Law, for the allegation against him. 
• As per the DV Law (from Oct 2006), a wife or live in women can ask entry for living in any house she ever lived in the past (section 17), and then through all men out of the house (Section 19). Even if the house owner is husband’s friend or relative, he can be thrown out of his own house. Thankfully Supreme Court is saying (Batra Vs Batra Judgment) this will lead to choes.. is absurd, so the fight is going on in press etc.
• New Law proposal to further control press, so that they get one sided views only, says if a complaint by a women is found false the same can not be told to press, but if found true can be told to press, and any money given to women for alleged act of sexual harassment at workplace can be told to press. (Sexual Harassment at Workplace Law proposal 2006, 2007, SH Law proposal in short). Complaints found false can not be told to press.
•  SH ( 2006, 2007) Law proposal, further says at some places no man can be allowed in some of the committees that decide if sexual harassment at workplace happened, if yes how much the man’s monthly salary should be given to the women. Even normal women can rarely be part of this committee, as she had to first prove that she is a women’s rights activist. The definition of women rights activists is not given.
• The question one should ask the Law drafters of Ministry of women and child development is why not any man can be equal part of judges. Will lure of money result in entrapments and false complaints. Presently these complaints are taken seriously, with so many false complaints, will the true complaints also be seen with suspicion.
• Also why do we think that radical feminists, who control Law drafting process, by using Ministry of women and child development as puppet, know better the Supreme Court of India, who has given detailed guidelines about how the Sexual harassment at Workplace Law should be in Vishaka Judgment?
• Is giving 2 lakhs Rupees by Govt. to women who allege rape, going to increase entrapments for money. Especially with some feminists even demanding that rape has nothing to do with sex, and all sexual harassments etc. should be called Rape and treated under Rape Law. 
• Feminists Govt. jobs come with the condition that you have to work for women, have to be women rights activists. So if you dare to tell the truth, then you are likely to lose the Govt. Job for Example Orissa State commission for Women Chairperson, said men are being harassed by Dowry Law etc. , she has to lose the Job over this. To get more money for NGO or promotions, you have to say one sided things to press etc.
• Contact about 100 helplines from our non funded NGOs, all over India. Attend weekly meetings in various cities of India to help families being destroyed by these wrong Laws.

For more see www.ghrs.in  Ph : Sandeep 9971117829(President)  , Niladari 9811052770 (Secratery)

PIL pros and Cons

PIL ( Public Interest Litigation) is good to get some fringe benefits.

In democracy no one including Judges or parliaments can go against press as 70% people votes can be influenced by Press .

Also understand that we have been hearing frequently about Judicial activism, and so once a Law is made by WCD ( Ministry of women and child development) and passed by Parliament, courts can not totally change that, if public opinion is OK, they can slightly modify it , or delay the same for some time. 

A good Womens rights and mens rights activists steps

Stage 1:

Faces threat of 498a ( Dowry), complaint under DV Law etc.

A person (  women or man ) faces direct threat of 498a ( Dowry) Law etc. due to some matrimonial conflict in relatives or with wife.

Seeing the helplessness talk to relative, neighbours etc., still thinking that probably theirs is a one type exception case. She or he is brainwashed like others because the press is filled with wife and women side one sided false stories( as Laws are drafted to encourage this) , and gender related articles are directly or indirectly written by Govt. paid feminists, who are paid to show one sided picture only for the sake of their Jobs.

Says we want justice, thinks to search for alternatives, gets to know about good women rights and mens rights organizations, through friends, press, or internet search.

Joins email group of SIF, calls helplines for self help or come to weekly meetings.

Stage 2:

Upset and wants to focus on victim help.

She or he wants quick solutions, wants justice for self and for others, is upset   when the yahoo email group talks less about helping new victims but more about how to get the Laws changed . Himself helps others over email .

Gradually understands that it is impractical to help 10,000 new cases in Delhi alone every year, what to talk about full India . So understands the requirements of Law change .

( Those who do not even understand the Law change requirements drop out soon ).

Different persons take different Routes.

Some of the active activists take the friendship club route, and this is has shown results at least for the time being. Man is a social animal, he is willing to do things to be a part of group, to have good times and friends in a group. So they come to meetings , dharnas, to give company to friends, talk about sorrows, happiness, general talks, legal cases etc., like a Golf group or card group.  

A significant % of lets say selfish type or those who do not understand the gravity of the situation, either do not come after 1^st meeting, or come to some meetings to discuss legal points, till cases are going on.

Some realize that they have to tell their stories to press for social benefit, these give their stories to press, and at websites.They  come to some meetings and dharna’s , later they think that the gain by these dharna’s or seminars is less compared to the time they have to spend . So they reduce their interactions with the group.

Some think I no longer  have a case pending, I want to contribute to this cause, they find the meetings too cases centric, so sometimes stop coming to meetings, but are active to some extent in emails etc.

 At some stage most people start Giving Good Ideas, thinking someone will have time to implement them but tille jun 2008 this do not happen. People may get Ideas from this, that can hellp 1 year later as they remain in subconscious mind. Sometimes the person giving ideas is fed up, that no one is doing the actual job, then he implements the Idea and that helps a lot for the cause.

Gradually learning stuff.

Careful about : If you start seeing yahoogroup emails in office, your office time will be spent, so office will suffer, causing harm in the long run . Try to check SIF emails after office hours only.

Step 3:

Wars were faught with spears, then arroys, then artilary, now in democracy it is faught with pen. Some move to next level and start writing Blogs . They usually take some of the regular Jobs of Dharna organizations , participations, etc.

Step 4:

Enough of blogging, I have good things to say, points to be made, press and officials that matter are not listening significantly . Lets register or Join Organizations, help in making web site .

Organize Dharna’s , write press releases , interact with officials and press to learn about their thinking .  Gain from experience.  Try to network with other all India organizations . For example Vihan is mentioned as GHRS hero , as he does a quality Job of faxing to Media for Dharna , seminars in Delhi NCR . Become 1 job specialists.

The step 4 is dangerous also as once you spent significant time on the cause of Good womens and mens rights, your job start to suffer .

Tip : How one person do this is , fix time for this job, lets say 1 day a week and 1 hour daily max.  Keeping job , who knows, can let you be more productive for the cause in the long run .

Step 5 :

The warier have matured to such levels that he can write interesting articles, do surveys etc. of such a level that the articles get published in Press. Has developed a sustained network of persons, like Govt. officials, or religious leaders, press etc. Understands radical feminists theories and plans and keeps track of these, through .

Memorandum: Highlight The Effects Of Ill Conceived Legislation On Ordinary Citizens . Asking for discussions, review and changes .

To The Hon'ble  Law Minister,

Law Ministry

Govt Of India

Sir,

We are a group of registered NGO's, working to alleviate the suffering inflicted on vulnerable sections of society, viz senior citizens and innocent families,  and protecting basic human rights for men, by ill conceived and clumsily drafted legislations, promoted as a law to protect women.

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Law), effective from Oct 2006, which the Supreme Court of India has termed as clumsily drafted, has several provisions that are wrong, goes against commonsense and tramples fundamental rights such as equal protection under the law, due process and the right to own property. This is to bring to your notice these wrongs, and we ask for a review for changes, or scraping of this Law to help society.

This memorandum is the result of the press conference held on the 19th of April at the Press Club Of India, attended by several NGOs working to protect vulnerable sections of society from the tyranny of such laws.

Under section 17 of the DV Law, a women can seek entry into any house she ever lived in the past 10 years, whether she has any claim or right to it or not. Under section 19 she can throw any man, who was in a domestic relationship with her, out of his own house.  This law is worded in a fashion that the house could be of senior citizens or retirees, a mans friends or relatives, etc. Senior citizens work all their lives to save and live in a house of their own to live their golden years with dignity. This is an outright injustice to force to them to abandon their homes or force them to live with their daughters-in-law due to the provisions made under this clumsily drafted law.

This law offers unscrupulous women and their greedy relatives, the incentive to legally grab property and hold the owners to ransom or subject them to extortion.

A Delhi High Court Judge in his detailed article titled "DV Law a recipe for
disaster?" in practical Lawyer Journal, has said DV Law has no parallel in
legal history.

The Supreme Court, in Batra vs Batra, 15/12/06 said:

"the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with
the husband's father, husband's paternal grand parents, his maternal
parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces etc.... all these
houses will be shared households.... Such a view would lead to chaos and
would be absurd.

It is well settled that any interpretation, which leads to absurdity, should
not be accepted.

23. No doubt, the definition of 'shared household' in Section 2(s) of the
Act is not very happily worded, and appears to be the result of clumsy
drafting, but we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and
which does not lead to chaos in society."

We have sent signature campaign letters to various departments, to protect the Batra Vs Batra Judgment of Supreme Court. We seek your support help our senior citizens by protecting this judgment.

While questioning the need for this law when other laws exist with sufficient provisions
in to protect women, we seek the following:

·        WCD (Ministry of women and child development) review committees consist of all women committees with radical and extreme views. We seek that representatives of Regd. NGO's like MASI (Mothers and sisters Initiative) and Gender Human Rights Society be included on this committee. This is to ensure that there is balance and sanity in the review of this law.

·        Removal of maintenance from the purview of the Domestic Violence law. Maintenance is covered under two different laws, viz HMA and 125Cr.PC.

·        Service providers in DV (Domestic Violence) LAW should be neutral persons
and made accountable for their actions to ensure justice for the greater good of society. Restricting service providers to women's group's activists and organizations is like asking the wolf to guard the sheep. These groups are not above temptation to extortion, blackmail and corruption. Besides, who will monitor their actions and penalize them for abuses? Judges and officials should be neutral. They should be insulated from pressure and intimidation under the garb of gender sensitization.

·        Complainant should replace the phrase, "aggrieved women" in this law, in order to make it gender neutral.

·        MASI (Mothers and sisters Initiative) is a Regd. NGO consisting solely of women. MASI also provides free guidance and support especially to women
victims of dowry (498a) Law, protection of women from Domestic violence Law
2005 (effective from Oct 2006).

We look forward to working with you on creating a safer and just society. Please support us in this effort.

Thanking you,

Yours Sincerely,

Sandeep Bhartia (9971117829)

President
www.ghrs.in
Gender Human Rights Society (Regd. NGO)

*Some Supporting Organizations:

Indraprashta Senior citizens Society (Regd.) NGO

Mothers and Sisters Initiative (MASI) (Regd. NGO)

http://www.savefamily.org ( Delhi )

http://www.498a.org ( NRI )

http://www.saveindianfamily.org(Bangalore)
http://www.asha-kiran.org

http://mynation.net
http://www.protectindianfamily.org ( Bombay ) 

www.sahanaindia.org (Hyderabad )

www.forgottenwomen.org 

http://www.siftimes.com

Copy To:  Prime minister.

                  UPA Chair person.

                  Leader of Opposition.

                  Minister Women and Child development.

                  Law commission.

Some big problems with PWDVA (Protection of women from domestic violence act) called DV (domestic violence) LAW in short.

Point 1: 

************************************************

Service providers in DV (Domestic Violence) LAW should be neutral persons for correct justice and good for society. Restricting service providers to women rights activist's organizations is unfair. 

Judges and officials should be neutral. There should not be a force on them, to give one sided views, as part of the job requirement. To put a force by Law, that if you do not say one sided views, then after 3 years you will be removed from the list of service providers, and so will not get Govt. money, is wrong, this is to encourage, distorted picture and reports, by money. 

Rule 11 (1), of 2006 Rules of DV Law should be changed. Condition for service providers i.e., "With the objective of protecting the rights and interests of women "should be removed. Social service neutral organizations should be service providers, and protection officers. 

50% of service providers and protection officers should be men, and 50% women, men are

equal part of family. Protection officers should not be appointed by WCD

(Ministry of women and child development) but appointed by judiciary, to encourage impartiality.

The DV Law is drafted such that in almost all matrimonial disputes women will file DV LAW.

So more then 10,000 posts of service providers and protection officers will be created,

which is a big number. Also service providers and protection officers will be under pressure to

say one sided things to the press, the more one sided and biased or false things a protection

officer or service provider says the better chances of more Govt. money. For example a vocal

service provider person saying wrong one sided, biased things to press, will have more

chances of becoming a protection officer. This give untrue picture to society, and so service

providers condition to be an organization (Rule 11 (1), of 2006 Rules of DV Law)

"With the objective of protecting the rights and interests of women "should be removed.

In form VI of rules 2006 of DV LAW, point 4, "number of persons employed for providing such

service "should be changed to "number of persons with details of how they are involved " .

Social service organizations usually do not get high Govt. funding to employ person, persons

work without money for social service. So the word "employed "should be removed. Usually

only WCD (Ministry of women and child development) funded feminists organizations have

the money to "employ" persons of sufficient expertise. By this clause to focus on number of

employed person, feminists want that only WCD (Ministry of women and child development)

funded organizations should qualify as service providers. This is to increase posts for getting

which you have to say one sided things only, hence distorted and false things.

Also very Important, press has to now come to these posts practically reserved for persons

who are willing to say one sided things (should we call this lies ) for getting jobs, to get news. 

 As Law ensures that they only get paid to get complaints by women in gender difference of

opinion cases, in which DV will almost always be filed. This is a common trick being used by

radical feminists to control press world over.  

Point 2: 

*******************************

A 3 member committee is made by WCD (Ministry of women and child development) to look 

into the domestic violence LAW and other things; committee may consider Supreme Court 

judgment (15/12/2006 S.R Batra V Tarun Batra.) about Domestic Violence LAW. 

This is all women committee consisting or radical feminists. Please put a few representatives

 of family saving organizations also part of the committee, or few neutral men. 

Family Laws affect men and normal women also. Present maintenance Laws give extra 

amount for renting a house to wife, this is correct Law. To through people out of their own 

legally earned houses by Law is wrong. Husbands do not get any share in wife's ancestral 

property; this point should also be noted. 

Point 3: 

***********************************

Before there was 1 maintenance LAW, then in 2001 125CrPC was modified. So maintenance 

cases are being filed by wife at 2 places, and try to get the maintenance judgment that is higher. 

With DV LAW people are now fighting 3 maintenance cases; the wife can take the maintenance 

amount highest in these. This is as expected adding to the multiple proceedings in which parties 

may already be spending out their time, energy and resources. This is against basic common 

sense, just because feminists LAW makers at WCD want to give more options to the wife. 

This way she will get the highest maintenance from these 3 cases. This way, she has more 

options to lie in one court, and if that is caught, she can always correct the lie caught in other 

case, while keeping the lies not caught in 1st case. She now has 3 chances, apart from the 

chances to put pressure of arrest to see in advance the man's proofs at state commission 

for women, crime against women cells. Also this increases the probability to get a relative 

or friends contact by wife's family, in any of these places, this can harm the husband, due to 

barbaric, biased Laws against husbands. 

Also DV Law was made to enable the women to get maintenance from other males also like 

old father-in-law. We have come across case where a retired couple was asked to give 

maintenance to daughter in Law, just 3 days after they received the notice of complaint, 

3 days requirement is as per the DV LAW. Sometimes it can be difficult to even get the 

copy of the tick mark complaint in 3 days for respondent.  

Section 20(3) should be removed; this says "The magistrate shall have the power to order 

an appropriate lump-sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and 

circumstances of the case may be ". Forcing a man to pay a lump sum maintenance is wrong, 

all maintenance Laws should clarify that lump-sum maintenance can be given only if the 

respondent asks for the same, and both parties agree for that. 

*************************************

Point 4: 

If a woman gives a complaint in writing telling about any instance in details, catching a lie in 

this is sometimes possible. Many husbands thus are able to save themselves in courts from 

false complaints, due to this. So feminists in DV Law have ensured that the women do not have 

to tell the incident details, just filling a tick mark type form is sufficient(Form 1, rule 2006) , form 

contains tick marks for whether emotional violence took happened, verbal violence happened etc.

 , to further safeguard women doing false complaints and to encourage false complaints, in the 

DV Law women do not have to sign on any complaint( even tick mark forms ! ) , this is 

done so that she can later refuse and say I did not sign these tick mark columns also, the 

person who signed misunderstood. DV Law then goes far to ensure that the person signing 

false can not be legally punished for signing false complaints under DV LAW (e.g. section 35).  

Protection officer or anyone else can sign, on her behalf. Also protection officer or someone 

else just have to tick mark the form, without giving actual incidence details. Without any sign 

by complainant women, all DV Law provisions can be invoked, e.g. it is sufficient to through 

every man out of the costliest house, a women ever lived in (section 19), get monetary 

compensation apart from maintenance for trouble faced mental, verbal, emotional etc. 

types (section 22), or get maintenance from any man, (judgments for maintenance e.g. 

from retired father-in-law, apart from husband or live in partners have already come), 

(section 20) etc..  This is done to encourage misuse and false complaints, so the women 

can later say I did not sign the tick mark form. Even for ex party orders she do not have to 

sign affidavit in tick mark form 3, her parents can sign saying as per there understanding 

the form filled is correct. This is done to ensure that after getting ex party orders in all barbaric 

DV Law provisions, the women can later still say, my father or mother misunderstood, and 

father or mother can say that this was based on his or her best understanding. In case this 

form3 affidavit is signed, the magistrate is asked by LAW to pass orders under all sections 

of DV Law, if the application prima facie discloses (i.e. says) that there is a chance of some 

verbal violence happening. So judge is kind of made helpless in DV Law, as per LAW, judge 

has to pass orders just on the basis of complaint. Just as dowry LAW (498a) made police 

helpless, they have to arrest whether the case is false or true without investigation, and non 

bailable, DV Law makes Judges helpless. 

I think to hide this fact from the parliament members that the women or any of her relatives 

do not have to sign at any place, elaborate arrangements have been made in the DV Law, e.g. 

Rule 6(4) is deliberately added out of place to confuse the person reading the Law, to give an 

impression that affidavit is required. This full rule 6 about the application to the magistrate is 

deliberately silent about any sign on the application, and then to avoid the possibility of anyone 

getting curious, if any sign by women is required, the Rule 6(4) suddenly mentions an affidavit. 

Then very next Rule 7 again repeats this sentence. By this repetition a successful attempt was 

deliberately made to hide the facts of LAW of no requirement of sign, and no specific details 

required as forms are of tick marks type, from anyone reading the LAW a few times only , like 

press or parliament members.  

********************

Point 5 :

Section 23 example:  Asking Magistrate to pass ex party orders, if "an application prima facie 

discloses … that there is likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of domestic 

violence, he may grant an ex prate order on the basis of the affidavit "can be heavily misused. 

For example, back from office, men of the joint house can find an order, under section19, that 

they are not allowed to enter the house. As some lady in house have complained, that there 

is a chance that verbal violence can take place by them towards her. Even if the order is not 

ex parte, men can not do anything, to avoid being thrown out of house.  Or under section 17 , 

( which can be followed by section 19 ) , a friend of husband can find a order for allowing the 

wife of his friend, along with any of her friends or relatives,  to enter his house, just because 

10 years back he allowed them to live in his house, for some days. The number of days 

required to invoke DV Law is not clarified in Law. Next the friend can get an order section 19, 

not allowing him to enter his own house. Clearly these 2 provisions were made to entice women,

 by saying you can live in the costliest house of husband's friend or relative, provided you 

break your marriage. I think, to confuse the reader of LAW, related section 17 and 19 were 

kept separate and section 18 was inserted between these sections.  

*******************************************************

Point 6: 

When one reads the rule 14 i.e. , "procedure to be followed by Counselors ", a person 

with commonsense will not call this a counseling procedure , it appears that this is 

deliberately wrongly called as counseling to confuse people reading the LAW, this is done to 

get another report in women favor, and to threaten the man to agree to whatever the women 

wishes, and to force the man  to give in writing by Law, that the allegation said by the women 

whether true or false , were done by him and he will not do such things in future . 

Rule 14(4): "The counselor shall conduct the counseling proceedings bearing in mind that 

the counseling shall be in the nature of getting an assurance, that the incidence of domestic 

violence shall not get repeated. " 

14(5) " The respondent shall not be allowed to plead any counter justification for the alleged 

act of domestic violence in counseling the fact that and any justification for the act of domestic 

violence by the respondent is not allowed to be a part of the counseling proceeding should 

be made known to the respondent, before the proceedings begin ".

If one person is barred by LAW procedure rule 14(5) to even say his side of story, against 

basic human rights, how we call this counseling can be understood probably by WCD Law 

makers only.

Rule 14(6): Asking respondent by LAW to give undertaking that he would refrain from 

causing such domestic violence as complained by the aggrieved person. This can be 

done before any so called counseling begins. This puts the cart before the horse. It 

proceeds on the assumption that there is no reason to doubt that the respondent has 

committed or is likely to commit domestic violence.

Repeating the same stuff in Rule 14(6) in Rule14 (3) within a few lines is not required, 

why this was done deliberately, I think is to hide (from parliament, press etc.,) the important 

points sandwiched between these two points etc., why this repetition is done is for WCD to say. 

Rule 14(10) is made to make wishes or views of the women like a word of God for the counselor, and satisfying them is the only aim of counselor without giving any chance for the man to say his views, and for this all existing human rights or Laws should not be considered, Indian evidence act, or civil or criminal Laws not relevant, as per DV LAW. The Idea is to threaten the man through counselor, that sign whatever the women wishes or I will submit a negative report by rule 14(11). Once he signs compromise under this pressure of counselor, then rule14 (14) a women can very easily go back on the signed agreement, whereas LAW do not allow a man to go back. In such kind of biased setting against man, giving women to go back on agreement is not correct, or else man should also be given option to go back like women on signed compromise. 

*******************************

Point 7 : 

3 days after receiving notice is too short a period. It is difficult even to find out what is the wish 

of the women that the man has to grant, as per the form parts ticked under DV LAW. So a 

copy of the complaint should compulsory be sent with the notice to respondent .( In DV Law 

case the complaints copy can be tick mark form of the wishes of women and some ticked 

allegations for cosmetic treatment of form) .   

*****************************************

Point 8 : 

Word aggrieved person in LAW should be replaced by Complainant as in other Laws. Who 

know the women is doing this to get the costliest house or to get money extra then 

maintenance etc, so let's not give a false impression in LAW by saying aggrieved women. 

*****************************************

Point 9 : 

Laws should be Gender neutral. Domestic violence Law in other countries is also gender 

neutral.

********************************************

Point 10 :

This LAW is totally not required; there are already sufficient provisions in existing Laws. 

Already extra amount for renting a house equal to a house the husband is living is granted by 

Courts, so to through people including husband from his own house is wrong. 

Also maintenance Law of 2001 i.e. 125 CrPC. was made for destitutes (changed in 2001), 

so is very fast even at the cost of misuse. Within 6 months or 1 year interim maintenance 

is fixed in majority of cases. Extra amount for renting a house is also given under this 125CrPC Law. 

*************************************************

Point 11 : 

Section 20: If case of crime appropriate punishment can be there, but to encourage 

complaints by saying you will get money and compensation for alleged mental or emotional 

trouble is wrong. This only leads to false cases of entrapments. People are also responsible 

to keep themselves reasonably safe, enticement that you mix with me first, and then I will 

ask money for alleged mental trouble is wrong. Further as per rule 2006 14(10) later, "due 

regard has to be given to the wishes and sensibilities of the aggrieved person "and prohibits 

man from saying his side of story by Law even verbally, only wishes and sensibilities of 

women should not be considered, what is excepted practice in society, whether she 

entrapped the man to get monitory gains, revenge etc. is to be seen. Also the biased 

service providers and protection officers as per Law and other tick mark forms etc. 

in rules 2006, makes money extraction by section 20 a very tempting business.  

Virtually every DV complaint will ask for money for mental cruelty and money amount will go 

higher based on the income of the relative of husband. 

*************************************************

Point 12 : 

Rule 2006, Section 13: To earn money for their agents WCD has looked like, allowed that any 

legal practitioner who has appeared for the complainant in the case or any other suit or 

proceedings connected can become the counselor under DV Law for the complaint, of 

course the Lawyer of respondent can not become the DV Law counselor. Lawyer of the 

complainant should also be not given powers of DV Law counselor of submitting report to the 

judge etc. 

Rule 13(2) (ii): "Any legal practitioner who has appeared for the respondent (or complainant 

should be added) in the case or any other suit or proceedings connected therewith. "

Rule 13 (3): should be changed to 50% counselors should be man and 50% women. Men are 

also a part of family.

**************************************************************

Point 13 :

Section 27: The trick of radical feminists is to club all types of wishes of a woman, all types of

allegations under single Law procedure.  This prevents different procedures as would be

appropriate for different types of allegations. So they can use worst case procedures, to

encourage misuse and false cases and entrapments. Small example E.g. in this jurisdiction,

jurisdiction should normally be the place where the incident happened (for which extra money

is being asked), but to trouble witnesses, women can go and temporarily reside at a distant

place (Say her parents place), come back.  This wrong is being encouraged by this Law.

******************************************************

Point 14 :

DIR( Domestic Incident report ) is important in DV Law, as it is the first Incidence report like

FIR . The cases of ante-dating and ant-timing of DIR are quite possible . This gives easy ways

 to feminists protection officers and servise providers to change the DIR, for lets say small

money .  Even if one argues that this possibility of changing the complaint was not a delibrate

loophole left by the drafters of the Law. The potential of misuse of this is great .  At least in

FIR the procedure of page numbered register is present, also FIR copy is to be sent to

magistrate, this reduces the chances of changing the FIR later.

******************************************************

Point 15 :

The Law , specially rules 2006, virtually makes it impossible for any interaction between

2 persons , to not to be a domestic violence, at least between family members, whether

male or female.  Present culture etc. should also be seen, before making such rules.

Some points as told by Supreme Court Lawyer Mr. Tiwari and others: This law is encouraging

mushrooming tendency of allegation without any proofs.  Separate section for penalty should

be added in case of complaint found false. Minimum 2 years punishment and 10,000 fines

should be there.

The Law should be implemented from the date of notification and on fresh cause of action,

not previous actions. For example previously it was OK for a husband to ask wife, if she is

interested in taking a break from her job for small kids and that in his opinion it is the better

thing to do, but such a statement can be made a crime as per the DV Law. So asking

husband to pay extra apart from maintenance for this statement of the past due to the

potential mental trouble due to the past statement is wrong. At the time the statement

was made it was not usually considered a crime as per Law.

Point 16 :

Presently what is happening is that women staying abroad are filing DV, and then they

never come to court. To prevent these types of cases, women should be present in court

on every date, to prove allegations.

Without clinching evidence or evidence cross-examinations, relief should not be granted.

Status of the respondent at the date of filing and judgment, should be considered,

sometimes due to litigations husbands have already lost jobs etc. , sending them to jail in

DV as they can not pay amounts as per past status is wrong .

Point 17 :

Domestic Violence LAW or House occupation LAW?    

                                                   By Sandeep Bhartia 9899329991

Can Supreme Court save Lakhs of homes of old persons from radical feminists LAW maker of MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT? Domestic Violence LAW or House occupation LAW?

The domestic Violence Act is designed to allow the occupation of a house by an estranged woman.

It has nothing to do with domestic violence or for providing shelter to any victim of domestic violence.

Sections 17 and 19, allow an estranged wife to occupy any of the houses she had ever stayed in.

This law says the house can be of a friend or relative or rented. It do not matter how much time back

the wife stayed in the house.

Senior citizens save a lifetime to build their homes. Under this law, they can lose it to the daughter-in-law.

What is the effect of this law on ordinary citizens and senior citizens?  

With more then 10,000 (Ten thousand) complaints of matrimonial discord in Delhi alone last year,

almost all of these complainants will now resort to this DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAW as a wedge to

extort concession in their matrimonial cases. 

Case 2 :

*Mr. and Mrs. Mahender Singh, Haryana.

Himself not well, mild vain effected, due to cases.

Daughter-in-law asking house and maintenance in DV Law (Protection of women from Domestic Violence LAW, effective from Oct 2006).

*Marriage of son happened in 2000. Daughter-in-Laws father was district attorney

(Govt. Lawyer), later promoted to Joint director in prosecution. Son was lawyer. 

Son and his wife were given a place to stay above the school, school had 5, 6

teachers and was running good. Daughter was MPhil, Bed, she was running the

school,   daughter-in-law joined in the running. The daughter-in-Law and married

daughter had difference of opinion about school control. School owned 50% by

Son and 50% by daughter.  Daughter-in-law called her brother, he threatened.

*Daughter-in-law went to her parents home, they file dowry (498a) complaint against

5 persons including daughter and her husband.  And filed attempt to murder by

burning under 307 IPC.

*With great troubles they got anticipatory bail in session court, and later regular bail

in lower court. Lost lots of health and money.

Son filed for divorce and child custody.

*False case 307(attempt to murder by burning), 498a were acquittal happened not

even compromise in the cases.

*After all this, son’s wife decides to come back. She stayed for less then 2 months,

and left immediately when cancer was diagnosed to the son. Took grandson by

force.

*For 2 years tried hard to save sons life, lots of money also spent. Daughter-in-law

never visited .

*As a last wish he wanted to meet his son, but they refused. We called them to bring

son to do last rites of father (2007), waited but they did not come.

On 12th Day of death, they came and started asking for House, money etc.  

*Filed DV Law (Protection of women from domestic Violence Law, effective from

Oct 2006), asking for living in house (that can be followed by asking to remove men

from the house), 20,000 per month maintenance from retired father-in-law in teaching

job, etc. She herself is earning as teacher.

*After getting notice in DV LAW, within 3 days, on first date maintenance of Rs 1,000

asked to be given to daughter-in-law from father-in-law.  They are paying this money.

*Goods were deposited at police station, list signed by daughter-in-laws father. 

Still they filed again case for goods; leading to harassment .The document was

reported by SSP and IG police.

Questions : Should the new DV Law( Domestic violence LAw ) allow maintenance,

and money for mental trouble allegations,  from a finantialy weaker party ( say old

persons ) to a financially stronger party ( working Daughter-in-law ) .

* If a old couple allowed the sons wife to live for say less then 2 months to stay in their house , should the Law force the old couple to let the daughter-in-law live in their house and through the old man out of the house, on roads .

* Should the new radical feminists Laws be made in such a way that distroys

money , health , and jobs of men and their families, by making them run around in courts againsts anti men, barbaric wrong Laws.

 Details available on request .

( Some names have been changed )

Press release at the time of conference 19th April,
2008 , Press Club of India (Delhi) .
By Gender Human Rights Society ( Regd.) www.ghrs.in

A detailed memorandum regarding the evil DV LAW (
Protection of women from Domestic Violence act , 2005,
effective from Oct 2006) will be given on the day of
press conference to Law ministry, and copy to other
relevant officials. Some of our demands about DV Law
in short are .

* Service providers and protection officers should be
neutral and not women rights activists only ( Rule
2006 ) .
* Protect Batra Vs Batra Supreme court Judgent. Do not
through old persons out of own houses by DV Law.
* Scrap DV Law, there are already sufficient legal
provisions. Or review of DV Law by including
organizations fighting for preventing misuse of bad
women Laws.
* Remove section 19 , that allows all men of
costiliest house a women lived anytime in past,  to be
thrown on roads, by saying potentiality of verbal
abuse. Presently extra maintenance for renting same
standard house is already given by 125 CrPC .
* Remove maintenace from DV Law section 20 , there are
existing maintenance Laws . People now are wasting
time in fighting 3 maintenance cases. (Meet victims at
press conference) .
* Remove section 22,  money for mental trouble
complaint leads to false complaints .
* Complainant women never have to sign in DV Law, this
encourages fasle allegations. To hide this and other
important facts from anyone reading the DV Law a few
times only, like parliament members or press,
elaborate arrangements have been made by the evil
drafters of the DV Law.  Women should sign the
complaint .
* As per rule 2006.14.5 a man is not even allowed to
speak his point of view. Remove this, infact rewrite
rule 14 .
* Plug loopholes that make it easy to illegally change
the Domestic Incident report(DIR)  in DV Law,
introduce a register to keep record of DIR.

Delhi High Court Judge R.K Gauba correctly says
Domestic Violence Law a recipe for disaster in his
detailed article in practical Lawyer. We salute his
courage to take on the radical feminists agents in
press .

Gender Laws should not be drafted by Ministry of Women
and Child Development but should be drafted by Law
ministry , in consultation with Judges( who are among
the best persons to know and suggest about Laws) , and
organizations fighting against misuse of these radical
feminists wrong Laws  should also be involved .

Giving legal rights to women , and responsibilities to
men, is not the way to do justice to them. Such
biased, unequal treatment only leads to conflict and
resentments. These Laws have caused harm to children ,
by forcing 1/3 of children in many countries to live
in fatherless society, we can learn from their
mistakes.

Should we allow wrong radical feminists laws like IPC
Section 498A( Dowry) , DV,  destroy the only source of
social security we have in India, which is the family?
Should we hope that our Government will invent a
better system than family to take care of the
countless single mothers, fatherless children and
helpless senior citizens it is creating, and if so, at
what additional cost to the society? How many more
innocent lives should we sacrifice before our
Government and law enforcement system take steps to
end legal terrorism of radical feminists new Law
proposals and promote family-friendly laws. Which
protect victims of Legal terrorism ?.

Sandeep Bhartia,
President
Ph : 9971117829



Indraprastha Senior Citizens Welfare Association
(regd.) is a well known Institution serving the cause
and welfare of its 600 Senior citizens members of East
delhi .

Members are very much apprehensive and feel agitated
on the two Laws recently passed favouring the women.
As a request Senior Citizens in the fag end of their
lives suffer for no involvement of theirs in domestic
violence .

1.Particularly the recently passed Law “Protection of
women from Domestic Violence 2005 ( effective from
october 2006) , (DV Law in short), is a cause of great
concern, old persons save during their peak period of
life to make a house, so that they may live peacefully
in their old age. It is really regrettable and also
painful that due to feminists new Laws they are being
forced to leave their own houses by their own
daughters-in-laws.
2.It appears that one of the aims of Domestic Violence
Law was to encourage the young women to break the
marriage on some flimsy grounds and get the house of
their old Parents-in-Laws .Law should be made to save
the marriage and bring peace and happiness in the
family.
This has been made possible by section 17 that allows
a women to enter costiliest house she ever lived in
past  , and then by section 19, through all men out of
the house, irrespective of who is the owner of the
house.  This way old persons houses are also in
trouble.
Honourable Supreme court correctly said in Batra Vs
Batra Judgement That
'''''this will lead to chaos ... is absurd . It is
well settled that any interpretation which leads to
absurdity should not be accepted. “...
.... wife is entitled to claim a right to residence in
a shared household and a “shared household” would only
mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the
husband, or the house which belongs to the joint
family of which the husband is a member .
     23. No doubt, the definition of 'shared
household' in Section 2(s) of the Act is not very
 happily worded, and appears to be the result of
clumsy drafting, but we have to give it an
interpretation which is sensible and which does not
lead to chaos in society
'''''
This Batra Vs Batra Supreme court Judgement of DV Law
is to be protected, to save old persons houses .
3.It has been observed and seen by many false cases
instituted against the husbands by certain
daughter-in-law, for reasons known to them, in the
pretext of section 498a ( Dowry Law) , they are
torturing their husbands and old parents-in-law. Now
in the changing scenerio of the family, old parents
have no say in the affairs of their young wards. But
still they are brought in picture at the time of
violence and tortured for no fault of theirs .
4.The misuse of 498a (Dowry Law) is well known and
becoming more and more. The world Health Organization,
in its report on India clearly stated section 498a, as
one of the major reasons for the “Increasing Abuse of
the Elderly in India”

Hence we appeal to the Govt. of India and Law makers
to keep in mind the welfare and peace of the old
persons who can close their eyes any moment. Let them
at least die in peace. We also request the supreme
court to not let implementation of these draconian
Laws, which are against basic human rights, and which
may bring the upheaval in the minds and shatter the
society .


H. Bhisham Pal
President
Indraprashta Senior Citizen Welfare Association .
53 I.P Extn, Delhi 110092
Phone : 22246807

Indraprashtha Seniour citizens welfare association, working for senior citizens . Activities include .......

Note for the press conference“Senior citizens and women against radical feminists New LAWs .”

We would Like to bring to your kind notice the torture of old persons by 2 radical feminists Laws.

1. Particularly the recently passed Law “Protection of Women from Domestic Violence 2005 ( effective from Oct 2006 ), ( DV Law in Short )  is a cause of great concern . 

Old Persons Save full life to make a house so that they live peacefully in old age .  It is painful that due to feminists new Laws they are being forced to leave their own houses by daughter-in-laws.  It is shameful that the Law makers are causing so much pain in old age .

* Looks as if one of the aims of DV Law was to give incentive to women to break marriage, by saying, break marriage and you can enter the costiliest house of husbands friend or relatives by section 17 and through all men out of the costliest house by section 19 . Supreme court correctly said

””””””””””this will lead to chaos ... is absurd . It is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted. “...

22. As regards Section 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a 'shared household' would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member.

23. No doubt, the definition of 'shared household' in Section 2(s) of the Act is not very happily worded, and appears to be the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and which does not lead to chaos in society

””””””””””””””””””

This Batra Vs Batra Supreme court Judgement of DV Law is to be protected, to save old persons houses , so that DV Law is not applicable to houses of old persons .

It is sad that the Organizations like Lawyers collective are asking for review of this Supreme court Judgment . As you will understand anyone saying that DV Law should be applicable to houses of Old person, will be considered anti old persons and parents. 

Torturing husbands parents by DV Law provisions is wrong . Even working women are asking house and compensation, and maintenance from retired father-in-law . Law makers should plug such wrongs in the DV Law.  Or better scrap the Law. There are sufficient provisions in the existing Laws .

2. Also the misuse of 498a ( Dowry ) law is well known.

The World Health Organization, in its report on India clearly cited Section 498A as one of the major reasons for the “Increasing Abuse of the Elderly in India”.

Many parents and sisters and brothers  are heart-broken to see their sons and brothers lose their youth, their health, their jobs, all their earnings, and sometimes even their lives, as they are mercilessly tortured by their estranged wives, aided by lawyers, police and the judiciary. Some women and old couples have ended their lives unable to bear the humiliation of being accused and arrested, and the trauma of making endless trips around the courts .

This Law should be made bailable . In case of matrimonial conflict, divorce and maintenance is OK. But sending husbands relatives to Jail is not good .

Govt. of India should save society from the radical feminists new Law proposals.  More then 1/3 of children in many countries are harmed by living in fatherless society . Lets not let these new Law proposals harm our children and society also in same way .

Press release 19th April, 2008 , Press Club of India (Delhi) .

By Gender Human Rights Society ( Regd.) NGO . www.ghrs.in

A detailed memorandum regarding the evil DV LAW ( Protection of women from Domestic Violence act , 2005, effective from Oct 2006) will be given on the day of press conference to Law ministry, and copy to other relevant officials. Some of our demands about DV Law in short are . 

* Service providers and protection officers should be neutral and not women rights activists only ( Rule 2006 ) .

* Protect Batra Vs Batra Supreme court Judgent. Do not through old persons out of own houses by DV Law.

* Scrap DV Law, there are already sufficient legal provisions. Or review of DV Law by including organizations fighting for preventing misuse of bad women Laws.

* Remove section 19 , that allows all men of costiliest house a women lived anytime in past,  to be thrown on roads, by saying potentiality of verbal abuse. 

* Remove maintenace from DV Law section 20 , there are existing maintenance Laws . People now are wasting time in fighting 3 maintenance cases. (Meet victims at press conference) .

* Remove section 22,  money for mental trouble complaint leads to false complaints .

* Complainant women never have to sign in DV Law, this encourages fasle allegations. To hide this and other important facts from anyone reading the DV Law a few times only, like parliament members or press, elaborate arrangements have been made by the evil drafters of the DV Law.  Women should sign the complaint .

* Allow a man to speak his point of view at least, remove Rule 2006 .14.5 .,infact remove rule 14

* Plug loopholes that make it easy to illegally change the Domestic Incident report in DV Law. 

Delhi High Court Judge R.K Gauba says Domestic Violence Law a recipe for disaster in his detailed article in practical Lawyer. We salute his courage to take on powerful radical feminists.

Should we allow wrong radical feminists laws like IPC Section 498A( Dowry) , DV,  destroy the only source of social security we have in India, which is the family? Should we hope that our Government will invent a better system than family to take care of the countless single mothers, fatherless children and helpless senior citizens it is creating, and if so, at what additional cost to the society? How many more innocent lives should we sacrifice before our Government and law enforcement system take steps to end legal terrorism of radical feminists new Law proposals and promote family-friendly laws. Which protect victims of Legal terrorism ?.

Sandeep Bhartia,

President

Indraprashtha Senior citizens Association (Regd. )NGO, Mothers and Sisters Initiative ( MASI) (regd.) NGO. , Gender Human Rights Society www.ghrs.in ( Regd.) NGO , coordially Invites all to attend press conference.

Senior citizens and women protest against wrong radical feminists new Laws .

Time : 3:30 to 4:30 PM 

Place : 19th April 2008 . Press Club of India(Delhi)  . 1 Raisana Road, adjacent to Metro Station of Central Secretariat.

Phone : 23719844, 23736248

Program :  3:15 to 3:30 ( one to one talks ) . 3:30 PM to 4:30 PM ( speaches + questions). 4:30 to 5:00 PM(Tea)

·         Inaugration speach by Mrs Kapoor,  Treasurer Women members only Regd. NGO, Mothers and sisters Initiative ( MASI) .

·         Dr. Anupama Singh, President( MASI) , will talk about why radical feminists Laws are anti women and the days MASI’s press release .

·         Mr. Ram Divedi www.ramrajenv.org  has filed a PIL about 498a ( Dowry ) Law at Supreme court. The date for hearing is 21st April 2008. He will talk about how PIL can reduce 498a ( Dowry ) Law misuse.

·         Senior citizens forced to leave their own houses due to wrong Laws by daughter-in-laws will tell their stories with documents .

·         Sandeep Bhartia, President Gender Human Rights Society ( Regd.)NGO,www.ghrs.in, will talk about DV Law memorandum being given to Law ministry. Why some Judges call it a recipe for disaster.

·         Mr. Bhishampal, president Inderaprashta Senior citizen association (Regd.) renound east Delhi, NGO  will talk about misery of old people due to feminists Laws, and press release by his NGO .

·         Question answers .

 Participant old persons case details, forced to live outside own houses,  due to evil women Laws, can be found at blogs...

Attachments :

1. Participant victim stories of old persons unable to live in own houses.

2. Press Release by Inderaprashta Senior citizen association (Regd.) NGO

3. Press Release by www.ghrs.in  Regd. NGO.

4. Press release by MASI( Mothers and Sisters Initiative) Regd. NGO .

5.  Detaild Memorandum being given, of the press conference to Law Ministry, about Domestic Violence Law .

6. Helplines for victims of radical feminists new Laws.

Free copies of www.ghrs.in Book “ Wrong Gender Biased Laws “ and written materials will be available .

24-hour All India Helpline Number: +91-09243473794 , Delhi: 9810611534, Mumbai: 9869323538 Kolkata: 9830151555,  Chennai: 9884607376,  Hyd'bad: 09848280354,  B'lore: 9845143724,  Pune: 9923056460
More helplines at: http://mynation.net/contact-us

Supported by :

www.savefamily.org, www.498a.org, www.ghrs.in, www.saveindianfamily.org, www.mynation.net, www.asha-kiran.org, www.sahanaindia.org ,  www.forgottenwomen.org,

Memorandum
Women and senior citizens Against Misuse of Wrong Women Laws.
Or
Press conference:  Radical feminists Laws against old persons and Women.


To Law Minister,
Sir,

A press conference was organized today at Press club of India, and this
memorandum is being given to highlight our points.

We are a group of registered NGO's, working for social service, related to
gender issues etc. We are concerned that more then 1/3 of children in some
countries are harmed by living in fatherless families, and loss due to a
flood of false complaints by women. Some argue it is mainly due to wrong
radical feminists new Laws against men and against women who stay with men.

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Law 2005, (from Oct 2006), DV Law
in short, has several provisions that are wrong, goes against commonsense
and basic human rights. This is to bring to your notice these wrongs, and we
hope for a review for changes, or scraping of this Law to help society.

By DV Law section 17, a women can ask entry in any house she ever lived in
the past, say 10 years back. After that by section 19 she can through any
man out of his own house.  The house could be of old persons, husband's
friends etc. Old persons save full life from jobs to have a house to stay in
old age. It is sad to see them being forced to live outside of own built
houses and forced to live in Gurudwars or with relatives, by daughter in
Laws. (Old persons victims of Laws, forced to live outside their own houses,
were present at press conference, to tell their torture stories due to these
Laws.) .  4 old persons case details forced to live outside own houses, due
to evil women Laws, can be found at blogs.....
......

Clearly one of the aims of making this Law is to give another incentive to
all women to break marriage to get the costliest house of husband's friend
or relative, even if she lived in that house decades back.

Delhi High Court Judge in his very detailed article "DV Law a recipe for
disaster?" in practical Lawyer Journal, has said DV Law is unparalled in the
legal history.

Supreme Court is trying to save the mother-in-law's house, in Batra vs Batra
Judgment 15/12/06
"the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with
the husband's father, husband's paternal grand parents, his maternal
parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces etc.... all these
houses will be shared households.... Such a view would lead to chaos and
would be absurd..

It is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should
not be accepted. "
...
23. No doubt, the definition of 'shared household' in Section 2(s) of the
Act is not very happily worded, and appears to be the result of clumsy
drafting, but we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and
which does not lead to chaos in society.

"
We have sent signature campaign letters also to various departments, to
protect the Batra Vs Batra Judgment of Supreme Court. We seek you support
also to help our old persons by protecting this judgment at least.

* WCD (Ministry of women and child development) review committee's are
usually all women committee consisting or radical feminists. Please put a
few representatives of Regd. men's human rights organizations like
www.ghrs.in  also as part of the committee, and few neutral men, women NGO's
like MASI (Mothers and sisters Initiative) working for women victims of
legal terrorism of these new women Laws should also be involved. Family LAWs
affect men and normal women also.

* Remove maintence from Domestic Violence LAW, already husbands fight
maintenance cases in 2 different LAWs, HMA and 125Cr.PC .

* Service providers in DV (Domestic Violence) LAW should be neutral persons
for correct justice and good for society. Restricting service providers to
women rights activist's organizations is unfair. Judges and officials should
be neutral. There should not be a force on them, to give one sided views, as
part of the job requirement.

* Word aggrieved women in LAW should be replaced by complainant.

* This LAW is totally not required, there are already sufficient provisions
in existing LAWs.

* LAWs should be Gender neutral.

* MASI (Mothers and sisters Initiative) is a Regd. NGO of only women
members. MASI also provides free guidance and support especially to women
victims of dowry (498a) Law, protection of women from Domestic violence Law
2005 (effective from Oct 2006).

We look farward to any interactions with you in this regard .

Please support us in this effort to help society.

Best Regards,



Sandeep Bhartia (9971117829)
President
www.ghrs.in
Gender Human Rights Society (Regd. NGO)



*Some Supporting Organizations: *
Indraprashta Senior citizens Society (Regd.) NGO
Mothers and Sisters Initiative (MASI) (Regd. NGO)
http://www.savefamily.org ( Delhi )
http://www.498a.org ( NRI ) http://www.saveindianfamily.org
http://www.asha-kiran.org http://mynation.net
http://www.protectindianfamily.org ( Bombay )  www.sahanaindia.org (
Hyderabad )
www.forgottenwomen.org  http://www.siftimes.com http://www.savefamily.org/


Copy To:  Prime minister.
                  UPA Chair person.
                  Leader of Opposition.
                  Minister Women and Child development.
                  Law commission.


Domestic Violence LAW or House occupation LAW?     

                                               By Sandeep Bhartia
9899329991

Can Supreme Court save Lakhs of homes of old persons from radical feminists
LAW maker of MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT? Domestic Violence LAW
or House occupation LAW?

The one of the big aims of making Domestic Violence (DV) LAW is to occupy
the house by wife. The name DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is given to fool the public.

The new DOMESTIC VIOLENCE law (from Oct 2006) sections 17 and 19,
practically allows a wife to occupy any of the houses she had ever stayed
in. The LAW says the house can be of a friend or relative or rented. It do
not matter how much time back the wife stayed in the house.

Persons save full life for making a house they can stay in the old age. With
this LAW they can lose own build houses to the daughter-in-law.

How big is the effect?

With more then 10,000 (Ten thousand) complaints of matrimonial discord in
Delhi alone last year, almost all of these now will use the DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE LAW.

The are many problems with this new LAW made by radical feminists at
ministry of Women and Child development, one of the major ounces i.e., the
house of friend or relative of husband in new Domestic LAW, is a major
battle point between the Supreme court on one side and Govt. funded radical
feminists, funded NGO's and their press agents on the other.

The case that triggered this fight, the house was on Husbands mother's name,
they allege that the son's wife sent them to jail along with the son on the
dreaded dowry LAW, arrest without investigation, non bailable, 498a ( mental
torture by asking for dowry). It is alleged that she broke the lock of house
and started living in the house. After coming from Jail, the Husband's
mother was not allowed entry in her own house. The wife's lawyer argued that
since Domestic violence act (from Oct 2006) made by ministry of women and
child development ministry is already passed by parliament, there is no
question of wife leaving the house of husband's mother.

Please read Supreme court Judgment about Domestic Violence Law 15/12/2006
S.R Batra V Tarun Batra. , copy attached, things will automatically become
clear.

http://ipc498a.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/sc-reject-righttoresidenceunderdva-batravsbatra-2007.pdf

Supreme Court said the house can be given to wife only if the house is owned
by husband. In case of rented house husband has to pay the rent, otherwise
this will lead to chaos in society,.. the definition of shared household in
the LAW … appear to be the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it
an interpretation which is sensible and which does not lead to chaos in
society.

The feminist's press and media agents were immediately all over the press
and media. They say this Supreme Court judgment to let the old couple have
their own house is step back for women empowerment. They are saying in TV
that this defeats the purpose of making the Domestic violence act (from Oct.
2006). They want the wife to have the most expensive relatives or friends
house that the wife lived in at any point of time during the marriage.

Anti feminists organizations which are not funded by Ministry of women and
child development like feminists organization, are obviously trying to fight
feminists press agents over this.

Check out
http://presentindia.blogspot.com/2006/11/loopholes-in-domestic-violence-bill.html

http://dvact.awardspace.com/index.php?module=index

http://savemarriages.wordpress.com/2006/11/10/the-domestic-violence-law-of-india-a-shield-or-a-sword/

http://indiatalking.com/blog/swarup/4631/

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=\
India&month=December2006&file=World_News20061205164441.xml

Lets pray that feminists funded by ministry of women and child development
are defeated by the supreme court, for the sake of old persons houses. To
ensure that our old persons and children do not suffer by fatherless
families as wanted by Govt. funded radical feminists and LAW Makers of WCD.

http://www.dvmen.org/dv-15.htm#restraint

http://www.dvstats.com/
http://www.dontmakehermad.com/

Feminist's propaganda.

http://www.centredaily.com/220/story/35314.html

Feminists will not let you know that it is for occupying the house.



JOIN THE BETTLE GOING AT PRESENT TO SAVE THE HOUSE OF OLD PERSONS.



To fight the above Supreme Court Judgment, and allow the wife to get the old
in-laws property, even if she is not living in the said property, WCD has set
up a panel, somehow some men's rights activists came to know about his
panel. So feminists got the news printed that the panel is to prevent
misuse. What kind of results one gets with radical feminists women only
panel is known. To make fool of public they will say in press the panel is
to prevent misuse.



*DV (domestic violence) LAW should be applicable to husband's house only. It
is unfair to occupy the old persons, friends, and relative's houses Legally
by Domestic Violence LAW. ***



Why should a friend or husbands relatives lose the house, if they allowed
the wife of husband or the couple to stay in the house at any point in time
in past or present.



Why should friend or relative suffer by forcing him or her to allow women to
enter the house, just because they allowed her to stay in house at some
point of time in the past?

Domestic violence Law, whose 2 important parts are related to getting the
women inside the house of husband (man) or friend or relative, and removing
any male members from the house in question.



This as expected this has become a tool of legal extortion, by bad wife.
Maintenance up to 2/3 of husband's earnings, without giving divorce, is
possible. Existing Laws gives maintenance extra for renting a house that is
equal to the house of husband's standard.

The feminists LAW makers at WCD have now added in Domestic Violence LAW
provision, that the wife will enter the most costly house among houses of
old in-laws or relative or friends house legally, then do complaints under
DV LAW, and either force the in-laws or relative with the most costly house,
to leave the house or give money to vacate the house. Else she will use the
LAW to harass them till they leave the house.  What kind of wrong LAW is
this?

**

*Some big problems with PWDVA (Protection of women from domestic
violence act) called DV (domestic violence) LAW in short.*

************************************************

*Service providers in DV (Domestic Violence) LAW should be neutral
persons for correct justice and good for society.* Restricting service
providers to women rights activist's organizations is unfair.

Judges and officials should be neutral. There should not be a force on
them, to give one sided views, as part of the job requirement. To put
a force by Law, that if you do not say one sided views, then after 3
years you will be removed from the list of service providers, and so
will not get Govt. money, is wrong, this is to encourage, distorted
picture and reports, by money.

Rule 11 (1), of 2006 Rules of DV Law should be changed. Condition for
service providers i.e., "With the objective of protecting the rights
and interests of women "should be removed. Social service neutral
organizations should be service providers, and protection officers.

50% of service providers and protection officers should be men, and 50%
women, men are equal part of family. Protection officers should not be
appointed by WCD (Ministry of women and child development) but appointed by
judiciary, to encourage impartiality. The DV Law is drafted such that in
almost all matrimonial disputes women will file DV LAW. So more then 10,000
posts of service providers and protection officers will be created, which is
a big number. Also service providers and protection officers will be under
pressure to say one sided things to the press, the more one sided and biased
or false things a protection officer or service provider says the better
chances of more Govt. money. For example a vocal service provider person
saying wrong one sided, biased things to press, will have more chances of
becoming a protection officer. This give untrue picture to society, and so
service providers condition to be an organization (Rule 11 (1), of 2006
Rules of DV Law) "With the objective of protecting the rights and interests
of women "should be removed.



In form VI of rules 2006 of DV LAW, point 4, "number of persons employed for
providing such service "should be changed to "number of persons with details
of how they are involved " . Social service organizations usually do not get
high Govt. funding to employ person, persons work without money for social
service. So the word "employed "should be removed. Usually only WCD
(Ministry of women and child development) funded feminists organizations
have the money to "employ" persons of sufficient expertise. By this clause
to focus on number of *employed* person, feminists want that only WCD
(Ministry of women and child development) funded organizations should
qualify as service providers. This is to increase posts for getting which
you have to say one sided things only, hence distorted and false things.

Also very Important, press has to now come to these posts practically
reserved for persons who are willing to say one sided things (should we call
this lies ) for getting jobs, to get news.  As Law ensures that they only
get paid to get complaints by women in gender difference of opinion cases,
in which DV will almost always be filed. This is a common trick being used
by radical feminists to control press world over.

*******************************

A 3 member committee is made by WCD (Ministry of women and child
development) to look into the domestic violence LAW and other things;
committee may consider Supreme Court judgment (15/12/2006 S.R Batra V
Tarun Batra.) about Domestic Violence LAW. This is all women committee
consisting or radical feminists. Please put a few representatives of
family saving organizations also part of the committee, or few neutral
men. Family Laws affect men and normal women also. At least this
Supreme Court Judgment should not be disturbed. Old persons save full
life to live in own house in old age, the domestic violence Law
section 19 is made to through old men out of house (potentiality of
verbal abuse is enough to activate DV LAW). This is done by radical
feminists' drafters of the LAW, so that the daughter in Law gets extra
incentive of the house of old persons, to encourage her to break
marriage. This is also done deliberately to threaten relatives and
friends of husbands, that if you allow the couple to live in your
house, and say 10 years later, they have some difference of opinion,
you can be thrown out of your own house. Obviously the radical
feminists LAW drafters at WCD want to give the costliest house to the
women breaking marriage, at the cost of those men and women who stay
in marriage.

Present maintenance Laws give extra amount for renting a house to
wife, this is correct Law. To through people out of their own legally
earned houses by Law is wrong. Husbands do not get any share in wife's
ancestral property; this point should also be noted.

**

***********************************

Before there was 1 maintenance LAW, then in 2001 125CrPC was modified.
So maintenance cases are being filed by wife at 2 places, and try to
get the maintenance judgment that is higher. With DV LAW people are
now fighting 3 maintenance cases; the wife can take the maintenance
amount highest in these. This is as expected adding to the multiple
proceedings in which parties may already be spending out their time,
energy and resources. This is against basic common sense, just because
feminists LAW makers at WCD want to give more options to the wife.
This way she will get the highest maintenance from these 3 cases. This
way, she has more options to lie in one court, and if that is caught,
she can always correct the lie caught in other case, while keeping the
lies not caught in 1st case. She now has 3 chances, apart from the
chances to put pressure of arrest to see in advance the man's proofs
at state commission for women, crime against women cells. Also this
increases the probability to get a relative or friends contact by
wife's family, in any of these places, this can harm the husband, due
to barbaric, biased Laws against husbands.

Also DV Law was made to enable the women to get maintenance from other
males also like old father-in-law. We have come across case where a
retired couple was asked to give maintenance to daughter in Law, just
3 days after they received the notice of complaint, 3 days requirement
is as per the DV LAW. Sometimes it can be difficult to even get the
copy of the tick mark complaint in 3 days for respondent.

Section 20(3) should be removed, this says "The magistrate shall have
the power to order an appropriate lump-sum payment or monthly payments
of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may be ".
Forcing a man to pay a lump sum maintenance is wrong, all maintenance
Laws should clarify that lump-sum maintenance can be given only if the
respondent asks for the same, and both parties agree for that.

*************************************

If a woman gives a complaint in writing telling about any instance in
details, catching a lie in this is sometimes possible. Many husbands
thus are able to save themselves in courts from false complaints, due
to this. So feminists in DV Law have ensured that the women do not
have to tell the incident details, just filling a tick mark type form
is sufficient(Form 1, rule 2006) , form contains tick marks for
whether emotional violence took happened, verbal violence happened
etc. , to further safeguard women doing false complaints and to
encourage false complaints, in the *DV Law women do not have to sign
on any complaint( even tick mark forms ! )* , this is done so that she
can later refuse and say I did not sign these tick mark columns also,
the person who signed misunderstood. DV Law then goes far to ensure
that the person signing false can not be legally punished for signing
false complaints under DV LAW (e.g. section 35).  Protection officer
or anyone else can sign, on her behalf. Also protection officer or
someone else just have to tick mark the form, without giving actual
incidence details. Without any sign by complainant women, all DV Law
provisions can be invoked, e.g. it is sufficient to through every man
out of the costliest house, a women ever lived in (section 19), get
monetary compensation apart from maintenance for trouble faced mental,
verbal, emotional etc. types (section 22), or get maintenance from any
man, (judgments for maintenance e.g. from retired father-in-law, apart
from husband or live in partners have already come), (section 20)
etc..  This is done to encourage misuse and false complaints, so the
women can later say I did not sign the tick mark form. Even for ex
party orders she do not have to sign affidavit in tick mark form 3,
her parents can sign saying as per there understanding the form filled
is correct. This is done to ensure that after getting ex party orders
in all barbaric DV Law provisions, the women can later still say, my
father or mother misunderstood, and father or mother can say that this
was based on his or her best understanding. In case this form3
affidavit is signed, the magistrate is asked by LAW to pass orders
under all sections of DV Law, if the application prima facie discloses
(i.e. says) that there is a chance of some verbal violence happening.
So judge is kind of made helpless in DV Law, as per LAW, judge has to
pass orders just on the basis of complaint. Just as dowry LAW (498a)
made police helpless, they have to arrest whether the case is false or
true without investigation, and non bailable, DV Law makes Judges
helpless.

I think to hide this fact from the parliament members that the women
or any of her relatives do not have to sign at any place, elaborate
arrangements have been made in the DV Law, e.g. Rule 6(4) is
deliberately added out of place to confuse the person reading the Law,
to give an impression that affidavit is required. This full rule 6
about the application to the magistrate is deliberately silent about
any sign on the application, and then to avoid the possibility of
anyone getting curious, if any sign by women is required, the Rule
6(4) suddenly mentions an affidavit. Then very next Rule 7 again
repeats this sentence. By this repetition a successful attempt was
deliberately made to hide the facts of LAW of no requirement of sign,
and no specific details required as forms are of tick marks type, from
anyone reading the LAW a few times only , like press or parliament
members.

************************************

Section 23 example:  Asking Magistrate to pass ex party orders, if "an
application prima facie discloses … that there is likelihood that the
respondent may commit an act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex
prate order on the basis of the affidavit "can be heavily misused. For
example, back from office, men of the joint house can find an order,
under section19, that they are not allowed to enter the house. As some
lady in house have complained, that there is a chance that verbal
violence can take place by them towards her. Even if the order is not
ex parte, men can not do anything, to avoid being thrown out of house.
Or under section 17 , ( which can be followed by section 19 ) , a
friend of husband can find a order for allowing the wife of his
friend, along with any of her friends or relatives,  to enter his
house, just because 10 years back he allowed them to live in his
house, for some days. The number of days required to invoke DV Law is
not clarified in Law. Next the friend can get an order section 19, not
allowing him to enter his own house. Clearly these 2 provisions were
made to entice women, by saying you can live in the costliest house of
husband's friend or relative, provided you break your marriage. I
think, to confuse the reader of LAW, related section 17 and 19 were
kept separate and section 18 was inserted between these sections.

*******************************************************

When one reads the rule 14 i.e. , "procedure to be followed by
Counselors ", a person with *commonsense will not call this a
counseling procedure* , it appears that this is deliberately wrongly
called as counseling to confuse people reading the LAW, this is done
to get another report in women favor, and to threaten the man to agree
to whatever the women wishes, and to force the man  to give in writing
by Law, that the allegation said by the women whether true or false ,
were done by him and he will not do such things in future .

Rule 14(4): "The counselor shall conduct the counseling proceedings
bearing in mind that the counseling shall be in the nature of getting
an assurance, that the incidence of domestic violence shall not get
repeated. "

14(5) " The respondent shall not be allowed to plead any counter
justification for the alleged act of domestic violence in counseling
the fact that and any justification for the act of domestic violence
by the respondent is not allowed to be a part of the counseling
proceeding should be made known to the respondent, before the
proceedings begin ".

If one person is barred by LAW procedure rule 14(5) to even say his
side of story, against basic human rights, how we call this counseling
can be understood probably by WCD Law makers only.

Rule 14(6): Asking respondent by LAW to give undertaking that he would
refrain from causing such domestic violence as complained by the
aggrieved person. This can be done before any so called counseling
begins. This puts the cart before the horse. It proceeds on the
assumption that there is no reason to doubt that the respondent has
committed or is likely to commit domestic violence.

Repeating the same stuff in Rule 14(6) in Rule14 (3) within a few
lines is not required, why this was done deliberately, I think is to
hide (from parliament, press etc.,) the important points sandwiched
between these two points etc., why this repetition is done is for WCD
to say.

Rule 14(10) is made to make wishes or views of the women like a word
of God for the counselor, and satisfying them is the only aim of
counselor without giving any chance for the man to say his views, and
for this all existing human rights or Laws should not be considered,
Indian evidence act, or civil or criminal Laws not relevant, as per DV
LAW. The Idea is to threaten the man through counselor, that sign
whatever the women wishes or I will submit a negative report by rule
14(11). Once he signs compromise under this pressure of counselor,
then rule14 (14) a women can very easily go back on the signed
agreement, whereas LAW do not allow a man to go back. In such kind of
biased setting against man, giving women to go back on agreement is
not correct, or else man should also be given option to go back like
women on signed compromise.

*******************************

3 days after receiving notice is too short a period. It is difficult
even to find out what is the wish of the women that the man has to
grant, as per the form parts ticked under DV LAW. So a copy of the
complaint should compulsory be sent with the notice to respondent .(
In DV Law case the complaints copy can be tick mark form of the wishes
of women and some ticked allegations for cosmetic treatment of form) .

*****************************************

Word aggrieved person in LAW should be replaced by Complainant as in
other Laws. Who know the women is doing this to get the costliest
house or to get money extra then maintenance etc, so let's not give a
false impression in LAW by saying aggrieved women.

*****************************************

Laws should be Gender neutral. Domestic violence Law in other
countries is also gender neutral.

********************************************

This LAW is totally not required; there are already sufficient
provisions in existing Laws. Already extra amount for renting a house
equal to a house the husband is living is granted by Courts, so to
through people including husband from his own house is wrong. Also
maintenance Law of 2001 i.e. 125 CrPC. was made for destitutes
(changed in 2001), so is very fast even at the cost of misuse. Within
6 months or 1 year interim maintenance is fixed in majority of cases.
Extra amount for renting a house is also given under this 125CrPC Law.

*************************************************

Section 20: If case of crime appropriate punishment can be there, but
to encourage complaints by saying you will get money and compensation
for alleged mental or emotional trouble is wrong. This only leads to
false cases of entrapments. People are also responsible to keep
themselves reasonably safe, enticement that you mix with me first, and
then I will ask money for alleged mental trouble is wrong. Further as
per rule 2006 14(10) later, "due regard has to be given to the wishes
and sensibilities of the aggrieved person "and prohibits man from
saying his side of story by Law even verbally, only wishes and
sensibilities of women should not be considered, what is excepted
practice in society, whether she entrapped the man to get monitory
gains, revenge etc. is to be seen. Also the biased service providers
and protection officers as per Law and other tick mark forms etc. in
rules 2006, makes money extraction by section 20 a very tempting
business.

Virtually every DV complaint will ask for money for mental cruelty and
money amount will go higher based on the income of the relative of
husband.

*************************************************

Rule 2006, Section 13: To earn money for their agents WCD has looked
like, allowed that any legal practitioner who has appeared for the
complainant in the case or any other suit or proceedings connected can
become the counselor under DV Law for the complaint, of course the
Lawyer of respondent can not become the DV Law counselor. Lawyer of
the complainant should also be not given powers of DV Law counselor of
submitting report to the judge etc.

Rule 13(2) (ii): "Any legal practitioner who has appeared for the
respondent *(or complainant should be added)* in the case or any other
suit or proceedings connected therewith. "



Rule 13 (3): should be changed to 50% counselors should be man and 50%
women. Men are also a part of family.

**************************************************************

Section 27: The trick of radical feminists is to club all types of wishes of
a woman, all types of allegations under single Law procedure.  This prevents
different procedures as would be appropriate for different types of
allegations. So they can use worst case procedures, to encourage misuse and
false cases and entrapments. Small example E.g. in this jurisdiction,
jurisdiction should normally be the place where the incident happened (for
which extra money is being asked), but to trouble witnesses, women can go
and temporarily reside at a distant place (Say her parents place), come
back.  This wrong is being encouraged by this Law.



******************************************************

Some points as told by Supreme Court Lawyer Mr. Tiwari and others: This law
is encouraging mushrooming tendency of allegation without any proofs.  Separate
section for penalty should be added in case of complaint found false.
Minimum 2 years punishment and 10,000 fines should be there.



The Law should be implemented from the date of notification and on fresh
cause of action, not previous actions. For example previously it was OK for
a husband to ask wife, if she is interested in taking a break from her job
for small kids and that in his opinion it is the better thing to do, but
such a statement can be made a crime as per the DV Law. So asking husband to
pay extra apart from maintenance for this statement of the past due to the
potential mental trouble due to the past statement is wrong. At the time the
statement was made it was not usually considered a crime as per Law.



Presently what is happening is that women staying abroad are filing DV, and
then they never come to court. To prevent these types of cases, women should
be present in court on every date, to prove allegations.

Without clinching evidence or evidence cross-examinations, relief should not
be granted.

Status of the respondent at the date of filing and judgment, should be
considered, sometimes due to litigations husbands have already lost jobs
etc. , sending them to jail in DV as they can not pay amounts as per past
status is wrong .

Related reading material:

Supreme court Judgment about Domestic Violence Law 15/12/2006 S.R Batra V
Tarun Batra.



Article "Domestic Violence Law a recipe for disaster?"  By R.K Gauba (Delhi
High Court Judge). Source: The practical Lawyer.

*Memorandum*

*Women and senior citizens Against Misuse of Wrong Women Laws.*

*Or *

*Press conference:  Radical feminists Laws against old persons and Women.***

* *

To Law Minister,

Sir,

A press conference was organized today at Press club of India, and this
memorandum is being given to highlight our points.

We are a group of registered NGO's, working for social service, related to
gender issues etc. We are concerned that more then 1/3 of children in some
countries are harmed by living in fatherless families, and loss due to a
flood of false complaints by women. Some argue it is mainly due to wrong
radical feminists new Laws against men and against women who stay with men.


Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Law 2005, (from Oct 2006), DV Law
in short, has several provisions that are wrong, goes against commonsense
and basic human rights. This is to bring to your notice these wrongs, and we
hope for a review for changes, or scraping of this Law to help society.



By DV Law section 17, a women can ask entry in any house she ever lived in
the past, say 10 years back. After that by section 19 she can through any
man out of his own house.  The house could be of old persons, husband's
friends etc. Old persons save full life from jobs to have a house to stay in
old age. It is sad to see them being forced to live outside of own built
houses and forced to live in Gurudwars or with relatives, by daughter in
Laws. (Old persons victims of Laws, forced to live outside their own houses,
were present at press conference, to tell their torture stories due to these
Laws.) .  4 old persons case details forced to live outside own houses, due
to evil women Laws, can be found at blogs.....

......





Clearly one of the aims of making this Law is to give another incentive to
all women to break marriage to get the costliest house of husband's friend
or relative, even if she lived in that house decades back.



Delhi High Court Judge in his very detailed article "DV Law a recipe for
disaster?" in practical Lawyer Journal, has said DV Law is unparalled in the
legal history.



Supreme Court is trying to save the mother-in-law's house, in Batra vs Batra
Judgment 15/12/06

"the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with
the husband's father, husband's paternal grand parents, his maternal
parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces etc.... all these
houses will be shared households.... Such a view would lead to chaos and
would be absurd..

It is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should
not be accepted. "

...

23. No doubt, the definition of 'shared household' in Section 2(s) of the
Act is not very happily worded, and appears to be the result of clumsy
drafting, but we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and
which does not lead to chaos in society.



"

We have sent signature campaign letters also to various departments, to
protect the Batra Vs Batra Judgment of Supreme Court. We seek you support
also to help our old persons by protecting this judgment at least.



* WCD (Ministry of women and child development) review committee's are
usually all women committee consisting or radical feminists. Please put a
few representatives of Regd. men's human rights organizations like
www.ghrs.in  also as part of the committee, and few neutral men, women NGO's
like MASI (Mothers and sisters Initiative) working for women victims of
legal terrorism of these new women Laws should also be involved. Family LAWs
affect men and normal women also.



* Remove maintence from Domestic Violence LAW, already husbands fight
maintenance cases in 2 different LAWs, HMA and 125Cr.PC .



* Service providers in DV (Domestic Violence) LAW should be neutral persons
for correct justice and good for society. Restricting service providers to
women rights activist's organizations is unfair. Judges and officials should
be neutral. There should not be a force on them, to give one sided views, as
part of the job requirement.



* Word aggrieved women in LAW should be replaced by complainant.



* This LAW is totally not required, there are already sufficient provisions
in existing LAWs.



* LAWs should be Gender neutral.



* MASI (Mothers and sisters Initiative) is a Regd. NGO of only women
members. MASI also provides free guidance and support especially to women
victims of dowry (498a) Law, protection of women from Domestic violence Law
2005 (effective from Oct 2006).

We look farward to any interactions with you in this regard .

Please support us in this effort to help society.



Best Regards,





Sandeep Bhartia (9971117829)

President

www.ghrs.in

Gender Human Rights Society (Regd. NGO)



*Some Supporting Organizations: *

Indraprashta Senior citizens Society (Regd.) NGO

Mothers and Sisters Initiative (MASI) (Regd. NGO)

http://www.savefamily.org <http://www.saveindianfamily.org/> ( Delhi )
http://www.498a.org ( NRI ) http://www.saveindianfamily.org
http://www.asha-kiran.org http://mynation.net
http://www.protectindianfamily.org ( Bombay )  www.sahanaindia.org (
Hyderabad )

www.forgottenwomen.org  http://www.siftimes.com <http://www.savefamily.org/>



Copy To:  Prime minister.

                  UPA Chair person.

                  Leader of Opposition.

                  Minister Women and Child development.

                  Law commission.



*Domestic Violence LAW or House occupation LAW?     *

*                                                   By Sandeep Bhartia
9899329991 *

*Can Supreme Court save Lakhs of homes of old persons from radical feminists
LAW maker of MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT? Domestic Violence LAW
or House occupation LAW?***

The one of the big aims of making Domestic Violence (DV) LAW is to occupy
the house by wife. The name DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is given to fool the public.

The new DOMESTIC VIOLENCE law (from Oct 2006) sections 17 and 19,
practically allows a wife to occupy any of the houses she had ever stayed
in. The LAW says the house can be of a friend or relative or rented. It do
not matter how much time back the wife stayed in the house.

Persons save full life for making a house they can stay in the old age. With
this LAW they can lose own build houses to the daughter-in-law.

How big is the effect?

With more then 10,000 (Ten thousand) complaints of matrimonial discord in
Delhi alone last year, almost all of these now will use the DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE LAW.

The are many problems with this new LAW made by radical feminists at
ministry of Women and Child development, one of the major ounces i.e., the
house of friend or relative of husband in new Domestic LAW, is a major
battle point between the Supreme court on one side and Govt. funded radical
feminists, funded NGO's and their press agents on the other.

The case that triggered this fight, the house was on Husbands mother's name,
they allege that the son's wife sent them to jail along with the son on the
dreaded dowry LAW, arrest without investigation, non bailable, 498a ( mental
torture by asking for dowry). It is alleged that she broke the lock of house
and started living in the house. After coming from Jail, the Husband's
mother was not allowed entry in her own house. The wife's lawyer argued that
since Domestic violence act (from Oct 2006) made by ministry of women and
child development ministry is already passed by parliament, there is no
question of wife leaving the house of husband's mother.

Please read Supreme court Judgment about Domestic Violence Law 15/12/2006
S.R Batra V Tarun Batra. , copy attached, things will automatically become
clear.

http://ipc498a.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/sc-reject-righttoresidenceunderdva-batravsbatra-2007.pdf

Supreme Court said the house can be given to wife only if the house is owned
by husband. In case of rented house husband has to pay the rent, otherwise
this will lead to chaos in society,.. the definition of shared household in
the LAW … appear to be the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it
an interpretation which is sensible and which does not lead to chaos in
society.

The feminist's press and media agents were immediately all over the press
and media. They say this Supreme Court judgment to let the old couple have
their own house is step back for women empowerment. They are saying in TV
that this defeats the purpose of making the Domestic violence act (from Oct.
2006). They want the wife to have the most expensive relatives or friends
house that the wife lived in at any point of time during the marriage.

Anti feminists organizations which are not funded by Ministry of women and
child development like feminists organization, are obviously trying to fight
feminists press agents over this.

Check out
http://presentindia.blogspot.com/2006/11/loopholes-in-domestic-violence-bill.html

http://dvact.awardspace.com/index.php?module=index

http://savemarriages.wordpress.com/2006/11/10/the-domestic-violence-law-of-india-a-shield-or-a-sword/

http://indiatalking.com/blog/swarup/4631/

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=\
India&month=December2006&file=World_News20061205164441.xml<http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=India&month=December2006&file=World_News20061205164441.xml>

Lets pray that feminists funded by ministry of women and child development
are defeated by the supreme court, for the sake of old persons houses. To
ensure that our old persons and children do not suffer by fatherless
families as wanted by Govt. funded radical feminists and LAW Makers of WCD.

http://www.dvmen.org/dv-15.htm#restraint

http://www.dvstats.com/
http://www.dontmakehermad.com/

Feminist's propaganda.

http://www.centredaily.com/220/story/35314.html

Feminists will not let you know that it is for occupying the house.



JOIN THE BETTLE GOING AT PRESENT TO SAVE THE HOUSE OF OLD PERSONS.



To fight the above Supreme Court Judgment, and allow the wife to get the old
in-laws property, even if she is not living in the said property, WCD has set
up a panel, somehow some men's rights activists came to know about his
panel. So feminists got the news printed that the panel is to prevent
misuse. What kind of results one gets with radical feminists women only
panel is known. To make fool of public they will say in press the panel is
to prevent misuse.



*DV (domestic violence) LAW should be applicable to husband's house only. It
is unfair to occupy the old persons, friends, and relative's houses Legally
by Domestic Violence LAW. ***



Why should a friend or husbands relatives lose the house, if they allowed
the wife of husband or the couple to stay in the house at any point in time
in past or present.



Why should friend or relative suffer by forcing him or her to allow women to
enter the house, just because they allowed her to stay in house at some
point of time in the past?

Domestic violence Law, whose 2 important parts are related to getting the
women inside the house of husband (man) or friend or relative, and removing
any male members from the house in question.



This as expected this has become a tool of legal extortion, by bad wife.
Maintenance up to 2/3 of husband's earnings, without giving divorce, is
possible. Existing Laws gives maintenance extra for renting a house that is
equal to the house of husband's standard.

The feminists LAW makers at WCD have now added in Domestic Violence LAW
provision, that the wife will enter the most costly house among houses of
old in-laws or relative or friends house legally, then do complaints under
DV LAW, and either force the in-laws or relative with the most costly house,
to leave the house or give money to vacate the house. Else she will use the
LAW to harass them till they leave the house.  What kind of wrong LAW is
this?

**

*Some big problems with PWDVA (Protection of women from domestic
violence act) called DV (domestic violence) LAW in short.*

************************************************

*Service providers in DV (Domestic Violence) LAW should be neutral
persons for correct justice and good for society.* Restricting service
providers to women rights activist's organizations is unfair.

Judges and officials should be neutral. There should not be a force on
them, to give one sided views, as part of the job requirement. To put
a force by Law, that if you do not say one sided views, then after 3
years you will be removed from the list of service providers, and so
will not get Govt. money, is wrong, this is to encourage, distorted
picture and reports, by money.

Rule 11 (1), of 2006 Rules of DV Law should be changed. Condition for
service providers i.e., "With the objective of protecting the rights
and interests of women "should be removed. Social service neutral
organizations should be service providers, and protection officers.

50% of service providers and protection officers should be men, and 50%
women, men are equal part of family. Protection officers should not be
appointed by WCD (Ministry of women and child development) but appointed by
judiciary, to encourage impartiality. The DV Law is drafted such that in
almost all matrimonial disputes women will file DV LAW. So more then 10,000
posts of service providers and protection officers will be created, which is
a big number. Also service providers and protection officers will be under
pressure to say one sided things to the press, the more one sided and biased
or false things a protection officer or service provider says the better
chances of more Govt. money. For example a vocal service provider person
saying wrong one sided, biased things to press, will have more chances of
becoming a protection officer. This give untrue picture to society, and so
service providers condition to be an organization (Rule 11 (1), of 2006
Rules of DV Law) "With the objective of protecting the rights and interests
of women "should be removed.



In form VI of rules 2006 of DV LAW, point 4, "number of persons employed for
providing such service "should be changed to "number of persons with details
of how they are involved " . Social service organizations usually do not get
high Govt. funding to employ person, persons work without money for social
service. So the word "employed "should be removed. Usually only WCD
(Ministry of women and child development) funded feminists organizations
have the money to "employ" persons of sufficient expertise. By this clause
to focus on number of *employed* person, feminists want that only WCD
(Ministry of women and child development) funded organizations should
qualify as service providers. This is to increase posts for getting which
you have to say one sided things only, hence distorted and false things.

Also very Important, press has to now come to these posts practically
reserved for persons who are willing to say one sided things (should we call
this lies ) for getting jobs, to get news.  As Law ensures that they only
get paid to get complaints by women in gender difference of opinion cases,
in which DV will almost always be filed. This is a common trick being used
by radical feminists to control press world over.

*******************************

A 3 member committee is made by WCD (Ministry of women and child
development) to look into the domestic violence LAW and other things;
committee may consider Supreme Court judgment (15/12/2006 S.R Batra V
Tarun Batra.) about Domestic Violence LAW. This is all women committee
consisting or radical feminists. Please put a few representatives of
family saving organizations also part of the committee, or few neutral
men. Family Laws affect men and normal women also. At least this
Supreme Court Judgment should not be disturbed. Old persons save full
life to live in own house in old age, the domestic violence Law
section 19 is made to through old men out of house (potentiality of
verbal abuse is enough to activate DV LAW). This is done by radical
feminists' drafters of the LAW, so that the daughter in Law gets extra
incentive of the house of old persons, to encourage her to break
marriage. This is also done deliberately to threaten relatives and
friends of husbands, that if you allow the couple to live in your
house, and say 10 years later, they have some difference of opinion,
you can be thrown out of your own house. Obviously the radical
feminists LAW drafters at WCD want to give the costliest house to the
women breaking marriage, at the cost of those men and women who stay
in marriage.

Present maintenance Laws give extra amount for renting a house to
wife, this is correct Law. To through people out of their own legally
earned houses by Law is wrong. Husbands do not get any share in wife's
ancestral property; this point should also be noted.

**

***********************************

Before there was 1 maintenance LAW, then in 2001 125CrPC was modified.
So maintenance cases are being filed by wife at 2 places, and try to
get the maintenance judgment that is higher. With DV LAW people are
now fighting 3 maintenance cases; the wife can take the maintenance
amount highest in these. This is as expected adding to the multiple
proceedings in which parties may already be spending out their time,
energy and resources. This is against basic common sense, just because
feminists LAW makers at WCD want to give more options to the wife.
This way she will get the highest maintenance from these 3 cases. This
way, she has more options to lie in one court, and if that is caught,
she can always correct the lie caught in other case, while keeping the
lies not caught in 1st case. She now has 3 chances, apart from the
chances to put pressure of arrest to see in advance the man's proofs
at state commission for women, crime against women cells. Also this
increases the probability to get a relative or friends contact by
wife's family, in any of these places, this can harm the husband, due
to barbaric, biased Laws against husbands.

Also DV Law was made to enable the women to get maintenance from other
males also like old father-in-law. We have come across case where a
retired couple was asked to give maintenance to daughter in Law, just
3 days after they received the notice of complaint, 3 days requirement
is as per the DV LAW. Sometimes it can be difficult to even get the
copy of the tick mark complaint in 3 days for respondent.

Section 20(3) should be removed, this says "The magistrate shall have
the power to order an appropriate lump-sum payment or monthly payments
of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may be ".
Forcing a man to pay a lump sum maintenance is wrong, all maintenance
Laws should clarify that lump-sum maintenance can be given only if the
respondent asks for the same, and both parties agree for that.

*************************************

If a woman gives a complaint in writing telling about any instance in
details, catching a lie in this is sometimes possible. Many husbands
thus are able to save themselves in courts from false complaints, due
to this. So feminists in DV Law have ensured that the women do not
have to tell the incident details, just filling a tick mark type form
is sufficient(Form 1, rule 2006) , form contains tick marks for
whether emotional violence took happened, verbal violence happened
etc. , to further safeguard women doing false complaints and to
encourage false complaints, in the *DV Law women do not have to sign
on any complaint( even tick mark forms ! )* , this is done so that she
can later refuse and say I did not sign these tick mark columns also,
the person who signed misunderstood. DV Law then goes far to ensure
that the person signing false can not be legally punished for signing
false complaints under DV LAW (e.g. section 35).  Protection officer
or anyone else can sign, on her behalf. Also protection officer or
someone else just have to tick mark the form, without giving actual
incidence details. Without any sign by complainant women, all DV Law
provisions can be invoked, e.g. it is sufficient to through every man
out of the costliest house, a women ever lived in (section 19), get
monetary compensation apart from maintenance for trouble faced mental,
verbal, emotional etc. types (section 22), or get maintenance from any
man, (judgments for maintenance e.g. from retired father-in-law, apart
from husband or live in partners have already come), (section 20)
etc..  This is done to encourage misuse and false complaints, so the
women can later say I did not sign the tick mark form. Even for ex
party orders she do not have to sign affidavit in tick mark form 3,
her parents can sign saying as per there understanding the form filled
is correct. This is done to ensure that after getting ex party orders
in all barbaric DV Law provisions, the women can later still say, my
father or mother misunderstood, and father or mother can say that this
was based on his or her best understanding. In case this form3
affidavit is signed, the magistrate is asked by LAW to pass orders
under all sections of DV Law, if the application prima facie discloses
(i.e. says) that there is a chance of some verbal violence happening.
So judge is kind of made helpless in DV Law, as per LAW, judge has to
pass orders just on the basis of complaint. Just as dowry LAW (498a)
made police helpless, they have to arrest whether the case is false or
true without investigation, and non bailable, DV Law makes Judges
helpless.

I think to hide this fact from the parliament members that the women
or any of her relatives do not have to sign at any place, elaborate
arrangements have been made in the DV Law, e.g. Rule 6(4) is
deliberately added out of place to confuse the person reading the Law,
to give an impression that affidavit is required. This full rule 6
about the application to the magistrate is deliberately silent about
any sign on the application, and then to avoid the possibility of
anyone getting curious, if any sign by women is required, the Rule
6(4) suddenly mentions an affidavit. Then very next Rule 7 again
repeats this sentence. By this repetition a successful attempt was
deliberately made to hide the facts of LAW of no requirement of sign,
and no specific details required as forms are of tick marks type, from
anyone reading the LAW a few times only , like press or parliament
members.

************************************

Section 23 example:  Asking Magistrate to pass ex party orders, if "an
application prima facie discloses … that there is likelihood that the
respondent may commit an act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex
prate order on the basis of the affidavit "can be heavily misused. For
example, back from office, men of the joint house can find an order,
under section19, that they are not allowed to enter the house. As some
lady in house have complained, that there is a chance that verbal
violence can take place by them towards her. Even if the order is not
ex parte, men can not do anything, to avoid being thrown out of house.
Or under section 17 , ( which can be followed by section 19 ) , a
friend of husband can find a order for allowing the wife of his
friend, along with any of her friends or relatives,  to enter his
house, just because 10 years back he allowed them to live in his
house, for some days. The number of days required to invoke DV Law is
not clarified in Law. Next the friend can get an order section 19, not
allowing him to enter his own house. Clearly these 2 provisions were
made to entice women, by saying you can live in the costliest house of
husband's friend or relative, provided you break your marriage. I
think, to confuse the reader of LAW, related section 17 and 19 were
kept separate and section 18 was inserted between these sections.

*******************************************************

When one reads the rule 14 i.e. , "procedure to be followed by Sub : Dharna at Jantar Mantar Delhi, by Men cell , supported by Save Family Family .   26^th Oct 2007

Dear Sir :

May we request you to please consider a few of our demands as detailed in the 9 page attached press release . Some press coverage of the Dharna is also attached for reference.

Some demands to highlight are :

* A 3 member committee is  made by WCD ( Ministry of women and child development ) to look into the domestic violence LAW and other things, committee may consider supreme court judgement ( 15/12/2006 S.R Batra V Tarun Batra.) about Domestic Violence LAW  . This is all women committee consisting or radical feminists. Please put  a few representatives of mens rights organizations also part of the committee, or few neutral men . Family LAWs effect men and normal women also.

* Remove maintence from Domestic Violence LAW, already husbands fight maintenance cases in 2 different LAWs, HMA and 125Cr.PC .

* Service providers in DV( Domestic Violence )  LAW should be neutral persons for correct justice and good for society. Restricting service providers to women rights activists organizations is unfair. Judges and officials should be neutral. There should not be a force on them, to give one sided views, as part of the job requirement.

* Word aggrieved women in LAW should be replaced by complainant .

* This LAW is totally not required, there are already sufficient provisions in existing LAWs .

* LAWs should be Gender neutral .

Please support us in this effort to help society.

Best Regards,

Sandeep Bhartia

26^th Oct. Jantar Mantar Dharna Coordinator.

9899329991, sandeep.bhartia@gmail.com

R.P.Chugh [Advocate Supreme Court]
Hony.President- Spokesperson.
Crime Against Man / man cell –Purush Cell/ PAVN- an - SPCH
BH-712-A, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 (INDIA)
e-mail – mancell@rediffmail.com for more info. Log on to: mancell.i8.com,
patnipeeditmanch.gq.nu
Tele Helpline: 9868142608, 9810170681

Supported BY:

www.savefamily.org

www.mynation.net

Help-Line:  9911119113, 9810611534, 9810371802.

Press Release – Men Cell

Supported by Save Family Foundation and My Nation

On first barsi of the draconian DV Act....

Press release & to all concerned In light of the shocking news:

26th October, 2007 THE BLACK DAY
(The day Domestic Violence Act came into force i.e. 26/10/06 )
in India at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi from 12am to 4 pm

“Men are harassed, State Women Commission: Orissa. TNN
"86.6 % women of Tihar Jail are jailed in Dowry cases" …Sahara Samachar
"90 % women in Bihar's jails are locked up in Dowry Cases" …..NBT
"99 % dowry complaints are false "…….A women head of women PS (Haryana)
"Similar situation is throughout the country" ………… R.P.Chugh
WORLD-WIDE PROTEST
against use of henious Criminal Laws in Marital Discords on first barsi of the draconian DV Act.
 
On 26/10/2007 worldwide PROTEST/ Pehli Barsi of D.V. Act is being CELEBRATED by the harassed husbands and their relatives, tortured, black-mailed, looted and falsely implicated in false Domestic Violence Act & false anti-dowry cases all over India & the world by their unscrupulous wives, daughters-in- laws and their greedy relatives for ulterior motives. So Called WOMEN LAWS are entirely biased, discriminatory, stringent, unconstitutional and unprecedented in the legal history of our country. As observed the WOMEN LAWS are verdict before trial, laws of legal extortion, tools legal of blackmailing & violation of basic human rights. In fact the men are the victim of Domestic Violence as admitted by SCW, Orissa recently.

Protest victims rotting/lying in jails, facing trials in courts and torture in their homes in the country and as well as throughout the world will protest against the use of heinous criminal laws in marital discords.
Protest world wide by Nora’s victims from USA, Canada, UK, Australia, Japan, Norway, Germany, UAE, Russia, New Zealand will protest at their respective High commissions across the globe.
Worldwide Prayer -Innocent tortured husbands and their relatives will pray to almighty god that the daughters in law of so called leaders of the country, senior police, administrative and judicial officers may file false dowry complaints against them, and they should live in constant terror and fear of
arrest and be put behind the bars with their innocent, ailing aged parents, married, unmarried daughters and their hard earned money is looted in the name of STRIDHAN and nobody should listen to them like us.

R.P.Chugh [Advocate Supreme Court]
Hony.President- Spokesperson.
Crime Against Man / man cell –Purush Cell/ PAVN- an - SPCH
BH-712-A, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 ( INDIA )
e-mail – mancell@rediffmail. com for more info. Log on to: mancell.i8.com,
patnipeeditmanch.gq.nu
Tele Helpline: 9868142608, 9810170681

For press release details one can also contact :

Sandeep Bhartia 9899329991, sandeep.bhartia@gmail.com

Protesting discrimination under law

Misuse of anti-dowry laws and other woman-protection laws like Domestic Violence LAW has now become a well recognized problem in India. Increasing number of aged parents, sisters and children in the husband’s family are falsely accused and arrested under these inhumane laws, and find themselves defenseless against the harassment unleashed thereafter.

To protest against this outrageous and horrific legal regime and it’s so called pro-women façade, men and women of the Men Cell and Save Family Foundation are gathering at Jantar Mantar along with their families on 26^th of Oct 2007, to mark the completion of 1 year of draconian Domestic Violence LAW. We are enraged by the misuse of women-protection laws and the nuisance created by Govt. funded women’s organizations that are incessantly pushing for more anti-male, anti-family legal provisions. We would like to highlight how the concerns of a large section of men and women have been completely sidelined in order to accommodate discrimination-based political agendas.

Over the years, various responsible agencies including Indian Judiciary have stressed on the need for amending these atrocious laws. The World Health Organization identified misuse of IPC Section 498A as the prominent reason for elder abuse in India. The Supreme Court of India has described the misuse of IPC Section 498A as ‘Legal Terrorism’, and stressed that the law must be amended in order to protect the innocent, and to ensure justice to the genuinely aggrieved. Rational and responsible citizens from all over the country and abroad have repeatedly warned that these laws in their present form are detrimental to family harmony, and left unchecked, these laws have enormous potential to shatter marital and family stability in years to come.

While ordinary law-abiding men, along with women, senior citizens and children, are being summarily arrested and ruthlessly incarcerated on false charges of dowry harassment every day, the Government has not raised a finger yet. It was not until the Minister for Human Resources Development was accused of dowry harassment that Smt. Renuka Chaudhary finally acknowledged the misuse of anti-dowry laws in public. What is deeply agonizing to us is that contrary to the way common men and women are treated, the Government is according special concessions to the Minister, thereby demonstrating that the otherwise brutal anti-dowry laws do not apply equally to all citizens of India.

Why is the Government not directing the law enforcement system to make proper inquiries before acting on complaints of dowry harassment filed on common citizens? Why are the repeated pleas for amending laws not being heard? Why are the young men and women of India forced to dissipate their energies and waste their most productive years in needless litigation? Why are so many senior citizens being traumatized during the last leg of their lives? Why is the Government sponsoring the destruction of families?

People at Delhi protest to show how the drive against anti-male, anti-family laws is slowly but steadily gaining momentum. They are coming with the hope that the Government will stop pretending to be asleep, and that it will hear and respond to all our yet unanswered questions. 

Social impact of draconian legal provisions and their misuse

Discriminatory laws like IPC 498A and DV Act are harming men, women and children of India.

Due to lack of social support and legal protection many male victims of domestic abuse are taking their lives everyday. Recently, the increasing threat of false cases is also driving many married men to commit suicide.

False cases are severely hampering the personal and professional lives of the most productive section of the Indian population. Aspirations of young men and women are being crushed, and their most fruitful years are being wasted in litigation. Many men have lost their jobs or have had to quit their professions as a result of the never-ending legalized harassment.

Parents are heart-broken to see their sons lose their youth, health, careers, all their earnings, and sometimes even their lives, as they are mercilessly tortured by their estranged wives, aided by the law enforcement system. Retired elders are, thus, being denied mental peace in their old age, resulting in deterioration of their health, and in many cases their premature demise. Falsely accused senior citizens have also ended their lives unable to endure the humiliation of being arrested and the trauma of fighting false cases.

The so-called women-protection laws are also causing more harm than good to women. In every false complaint at least two women, a mother-in-law and a sister-in-law, are accused. Minor girls, pregnant women, married and unmarried sisters, ailing mothers and even aged grandmothers have been sent behind bars based on mere allegations, and subjected to long-drawn trials before being declared innocent. Many falsely charged, poor and illiterate women are languishing in prison every year. Due to an excess of false cases and the systemic corruption, genuine victims of domestic abuse are denied timely justice.

Children are not being spared from the suffering either. In case of marital disputes children are being denied access to their fathers, causing great pain to the fathers and children. Children are also being arrested under false charges of dowry harassment, and imprisoned along with older family members. In other cases, children are being torn apart from their parents who are hauled away by the police in front of their eyes, causing indelible scars and fears in their young minds.

Indians residing abroad are equally vulnerable to legalized harassment. Passports of falsely accused NRI's are being impounded. Several individuals who visited India are unable to return to their respective countries of residence, and several others continue to live abroad in fear, separated indefinitely from their loved ones in India. Interpol Red Corner Notices are being misused to force many overseas Indians to return to India.

Unreasonable and easily misused laws like IPC 498A and DV Act are creating a situation of fear and mutual distrust, and adversely affecting interpersonal relationships between men and women in the society. There is a fear psychosis among men who find it difficult to repose faith in women or marriage. Increasing number of women are being misled by false notions of liberation and empowerment, and being encouraged to shun family life.

Due to misuse of laws like IPC 498A and DV Act numerous families have been broken beyond repair, and are suffering immeasurable economic hardship and emotional trauma. The country has already incurred a huge social cost in addition to the enormous financial burden imposed on the public exchequer. How does the Government propose to compensate individuals for their personal losses, and more importantly, how will it explain the squandering of tax payer money to sponsor its discriminatory politics?

Victims of legal discrimination – the grim statistics

The statistics on suicides in India tell the tale of harsh ground realities faced by men in Indian society.

In the recent years, the number of suicides by males in every age group studied outnumbered the number of suicides by females in those respective age groups.  Nearly twice as many married men committed suicide compared to married women in the years 2004 and 2005. Also, nearly twice as many men separated from their wives committed suicide compared to separated women in both years.

Men outnumbered women in every method of committing suicide, except by fire and self-immolation. Nearly nine times more men committed suicide by consuming excessive amounts of alcohol, or by machines. Nearly four times more men committed suicide by firearms, by jumping of trains and fast moving vehicles, or by self-electrocution. In almost every other category of suicide such as hanging, poisoning, or overdose of pills etc., suicides of men were nearly twice the rate of suicides of women.

Overall, the total number of suicides by men nearly tripled between 1983 and 2005 (whereas during the same period female suicides only nearly doubled).  Incidentally, the draconian provisions of IPC 498A were introduced in the year 1983, and overwhelming evidence points to the increasing misuse of these provisions ever since.

Every year, there is a rising number of cases fabricated by wives only to threaten, extort money from, and wreak revenge on husbands and their relatives, in case of marital discord. Between 1995 and 2005, the number of cases filed annually nearly doubled. According to data obtained from the Ministry of Home Affairs, in the year 2005 alone, 58,319 cases were registered under charges of cruelty by husband and relatives (IPC 498A), and resulted in the arrest of 1,27,560 individuals including 339 children, 28,579 women and 4,512 adults over the age of 60.

 However, the statistics reveal only a small part of the grim reality. Under Section 498A, an individual is charged with a non-bailable, cognizable criminal offense, and is presumed guilty until proven innocent. The accused have to fight the highly corrupt state machinery at their own personal expense, all the while carrying the presumption of guilt on their heads. Sometimes, they lose their employment. Often, they are forced to travel to a different city or state to fight their cases.

Where would these falsely accused men and women gather the strength and the resources needed to fight the corruption and public prosecution effectively? If the accused are already indigent and cannot afford the best defense money can buy, their fate is sealed. They become mere statistics in the arsenal of the proponents of this draconian legislation.

Against this backdrop, one has to examine the statistics of conviction. In 80% of the older cases that concluded in year 2005, the accused were found not guilty. The same is true for the years 2003 and 2004 as well. Multiple sources indicate that, nearly 98% of all 498A cases result in acquittal of the accused.  Despite the presumption of guilt and the overwhelming odds the accused is forced to face, the convictions are only a small percentage of the total cases filed.

Isn’t this is a clear indication of how frivolous the charges usually are and how widespread the abuse of the system is?

The Government needs to act NOW

Men Cell and Save Indian Family Foundation urges the Government of India to make the following amendments to the law and ensure that ordinary citizens of India are spared from needless harassment:

1. Section 498A of IPC should be made bailable.

Section 498A, being non-bailable, allows punishing the accused by imprisonment even before guilt is established. This goes against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Abused women need protection, but placing unconditional faith in the statements of a woman and confining the accused husband and his family in police or judicial custody, until bail is granted by a court, is not the way to accord protection to women.

2. Section 498A of IPC should be made non-cognizable.

Innocent citizens are being arrested everyday based on mere complaints without requiring evidence or investigation. Even children and senior citizens are not being spared. IPC 498A, being a cognizable offence, violates a citizen’s right to due process.

3. IPC 498A and Domestic Violence Law should be made gender neutral.

Domestic abuse is not gender specific. The assumption that victims of physical, verbal, emotional, sexual, and financial abuse are always women is wrong. According the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "all are equal before the law, and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law". Hence, men should also be accorded protection from physical, verbal, emotional, sexual, and financial abuse by women.

4. Persons who misuse IPC 498A and Domestic Violence Law should be penalized.

Misuse of the process of law not only costs the public exchequer dearly, but also destroys the personal lives of many innocent citizens. Misuse of law should be treated as a serious crime, and persons who use women-protection laws as weapons for settling personal scores in marital disputes should be severely punished.

Domestic Violence LAW or House occupation LAW?    

                                                   By Sandeep Bhartia 9899329991

Can Supreme Court save Lakhs of homes of old persons from radical feminists LAWmaker of MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT? Domestic Violence LAW or House occupation LAW?

The one of the big aims of making Domestic Violence (DV) LAW is to occupy the house by wife. The name DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is given to fool the public.

The new DOMESTIC VIOLENCE law (from Oct 2006) sections 17 and 19, practically allows a wife to occupy any of the houses she had ever stayed in. The LAW says the house can be of a friend or relative or rented. It do not matter how much time back the wife stayed in the house.

Persons save full life for making a house they can stay in the old age. With this LAW they can lose own build houses to the daughter-in-law.

How big is the effect?  

With more then 10,000 (Ten thousand) complaints of matrimonial discord in Delhi alone last year, almost all of these now will use the DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAW. 

The are many problems with this new LAW made by radical feminists at ministry of Women and Child development, one of the major ounces i.e., the house of friend or relative of husband in new Domestic LAW, is a major battle point between the Supreme court on one side and Govt. funded radical feminists, funded NGO's and their press agents on the other.

The case that triggered this fight, the house was on Husbands mother's name, they allege that the son's wife sent them to jail along with the son on the dreaded dowry LAW, arrest without investigation, non bailable, 498a ( mental torture by asking for dowry). It is alleged that she broke the lock of house and started living in the house. After coming from Jail, the Husband's mother was not allowed entry in her own house. The wife's lawyer argued that since Domestic violence act (from Oct 2006) made by ministry of women and child development ministry is already passed by parliament, there is no question of wife leaving the house of husband's mother.

Please read the Judgment copy attached, things will automatically become clear.

http://ipc498a.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/sc-reject-righttoresidenceunderdva-batravsbatra-2007.pdf

Supreme Court said the house can be given to wife only if the house is owned by husband. In case of rented house husband has to pay the rent, otherwise this will lead to choes in society,.. the definition of shared household in the LAW … appear to be the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and which does not lead to chaos in society.

The feminist’s press and media agents were immediately all over the press and media. They say this Supreme Court judgment to let the old couple have their own house is step back for women empowerment. They are saying in TV that this defeats the purpose of making the Domestic violence act (from Oct. 2006). They want the wife to have the most expensive relatives or friends house that the wife lived in at any point of time during the marriage.

Anti feminists organizations which are not funded by Ministry of women and child development like feminists organization, are obviously trying to fight feminists press agents over this.

Check out http://presentindia.blogspot.com/2006/11/loopholes-in-domestic-violence-bill.html

http://dvact.awardspace.com/index.php?module=index

http://savemarriages.wordpress.com/2006/11/10/the-domestic-violence-law-of-india-a-shield-or-a-sword/

http://indiatalking.com/blog/swarup/4631/

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=
India&month=December2006&file=World_News20061205164441.xml

Lets pray that feminists funded by ministry of women and child development are defeated by the supreme court, for the sake of old persons houses. To ensure that our old persons and children do not suffer by fatherless families as wanted by Govt. funded radical feminists and LAW Makers of WCD.

http://www.dvmen.org/dv-15.htm#restraint

http://www.dvstats.com/

http://www.dontmakehermad.com/ 

Feminist’s propaganda.

http://www.centredaily.com/220/story/35314.html

Feminists will not let you know that it is for occupying the house.

"A woman subject to domestic violence [was] afraid to seek remedies to end the
violence - in law or otherwise - for fear of being evicted from her household or
being denied access to funds necessary to maintain herself and her children,"
says Mandeep Tiwana, from the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative in New Delhi.

JOIN THE BETTLE GOING AT PRESENT AT SAVE THE HOUSE OF OLD PERSONS.

To fight the above Supreme Court Judgment, and allow the wife to get the old in-laws property, even if she is not living in the said property, WCD has set up a panel, somehow some men’s rights activists came to know about his panel. So feminists got the news printed that the panel is to prevent misuse. What kind of results one gets with radical feminists women only panel is known. To make fool of public they will say in press the panel is to prevent misuse.

DV LAW should be applicable to husband’s house only. It is unfair to occupy the old persons, friends, and relative’s houses Legally by Domestic Violence LAW.

Why should a friend or husbands relatives lose the house, if they allowed the wife of husband or the couple to stay in the house at any point in time in past or present.

Why should friend or relative suffer by forcing him or her to allow women to enter the house, just because they allowed her to stay in house at some point of time in the past?

 Domestic violence Law, whose 2 important parts are related to getting the women inside the house of husband (man) or friend or relative, and removing any male members from the house in question.

This as expected this has become a tool of legal extortion, by bad wife. After taking maintenance up to 2/3 of husbands earnings, without giving divorce. Existing Laws gives maintenance extra for renting a house that is equal to the house of husbands standard.

The feminists LAW makers at WCD have now added in Domestic Violence LAW provision, that the wife will enter the most costly house among houses of old in-laws or relative or friends house legally, then do complaints under DV LAW, and either force the in-laws or relative with the most costly house, to leave the house or give money to vacate the house. Else she will use the LAW to harass them till they leave the house.  What kind of wrong LAW is this?

Divorce after 7 years of separation should be made easier. This is basic human right.

With more then 10,000 complaints of matrimonial discord received every year in Delhi alone. Also the complaints are increasing fast every year. (This men’s rights activists say is due to wrong new Laws made by radical feminists, and due to Govt. funding of feminists organizations.)

Significant % of these husbands live-separated full life, as getting Divorce for Hindu husbands is practically almost impossible. Due to LAW preventing them from starting a family, they go through immense pain in life, are devoid of aim or interests, and angry with the LAW and society.  Their productivity is reduced; life’s are spent in courts fighting dozens of cases, against anti men barbaric LAWs, instead of doing productive work for society. Some lose interest in Life.

Their relative's life is also affected greatly. They are blackmailed by the new barbaric DV LAW, and 498a.

Reducing so-called Dowry deaths to insignificant % is child’s play.

Just change the LAW so that after 7 years of separation, divorce becomes easier, (no fault divorce as in some countries abroad)

Feminist’s women organizations are not asking for this, nor radical feminists LAWmakers at Minstry of Women and child development, are doing this. Instead they actually want the dowry deaths to increase, by putting new LAWs against husbands. This increases funding for feminists; they are interested in the jobs funded by Govt. 

It is a pain to hear husbands saying that his life will be anyways destroyed by wrong, unequal, barbaric, LAWs for wife and women. So he wants to kill

Domestic Violence Law – A Recipe For Disaster?
By R.K. Gauba*


"………….. Men have to start treating women as equals, I would be very
happy if a man has to think twice before opening his mouth. No woman
is public property,"
Renuka Chowdhary**

Prologue
Every civil society strives to create peace & harmony within it. But
then, this is dependent on a number of factors that involve
inter-relationship between individual members and the units that
collectively constitute the society. One of the basic units of a
society of human beings is called `family' by sociologists and works
in the matters of internal discipline & interplay between different
members on certain unwritten rules, which are accepted and followed,
in the larger interest and welfare of the group which has decided to
live together under one roof. What generally binds these individual
members together is consanguinity or marital relationship.

A thinker once beautifully defined "Home" as the place where "one goes
to and everything is forgiven, everything is accepted". George Moore
underlined the importance of home by referring to the predicament of
the man who "travels the world to search for what he needs – and
returns home to find it".

The institution of marriage (that holds together the roots of the
family system) and the home (on which the civilized human society so
much depends) are now coming increasingly under undue strain and
stress. The (by and large) prevalent tradition of patriarchal systems
is giving way to more egalitarian societal trends where men and women
are equal partners. Washington Irving to an extent betrayed male
chauvinism by saying that "men are always doomed to be duped — they
are always wooing Goddesses and marrying mere mortals". But perhaps
Michael de Montaigue showed the mirror to both genders by referring to
a "happy marriage" as the one that exists "betwixt a blind wife and a
deaf husband".

It is the morality or the ethics behind the concept of family &
marriage which sets the human race apart from animal kingdom. Hindus
view matrimony as a sacrament while Muslim or even Christian personal
laws treat marriage vows as contractual relationship. Be that as it
may, there exist certain universal principles that transcend the
barriers of different religions or faiths. When two persons decide to
marry each other and live together to lead life as, and raise, a
family, each of them takes upon oneself the sacred obligation to be
faithful to the other in good times or bad times and work together in
love, peace & harmony for their mutual welfare and progress ("till
death do us part"). It is a sacred endeavour, the success of which
depends totally on the sincerity & commitment with which they conduct
themselves together towards the world at large or towards each other.
Some may believe that marriages are made in heaven. But the reality is
that the possibility of a particular alliance bringing diametrically
opposite personalities together is as strong as the probability that
the partners in a particular marital relationship may be fully & truly
compatible to each other.

Keeping this in mind and the general interest of the community in
view, every personal law, or for that matter municipal laws of every
modern State, treat marriage as an institution connected not merely by
an entry point but also an exit door. In present day world, divorce is
no longer a matter of stigma. The status of being a divorcee only
reflects that the experiment of marriage indulged in by the individual
had failed, not necessarily on account of reasons or faults
attributable to him or her.

Indian society is not untouched by the developments in the rest of the
humanity. The modern State creates and enforces laws to discipline the
conduct of its members. India using this tool, after independence,
chose to introduce a number of reforms essentially as measures to
protect the life, limb & property of women vis-à-vis men. The original
most effort on this front came in the form of Hindu Code in 1956 when
a set of laws including Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, and
Hindu Guardianship & Wards Act were enacted and enforced, albeit in
the face of stiff opposition from quarters that had vested interest in
perpetuating a society controlled by men. The marriage laws have
undergone tremendous transformation over the years keeping in view, to
a large extent, the vulnerable status of women as the weaker sex.
Notwithstanding legal reforms introduced from time to time, the peace
& harmony in domestic life in our society continue even in the present
to be plagued and disturbed by certain social evils like child
marriage, dowry demand, physical or emotional abuse of women and
economic exploitation. Rather than being curbed with spread of
literacy & general improvement of economic conditions, there has been
a disturbing trend of spiraling increase in the rate of such incidents.

During the span of five decades between these two stages in the legal
history of India, introduction of statutes like Child Marriage
Restraint Act, Dowry Prohibition Act, and new offences including
"Dowry death" (Section 304 B Indian Penal Code or "IPC") or "Cruelty"
(Section 498-A IPC) can be counted as some efforts at social reform in
the realm of criminal jurisprudence. The latest legislative effort,
seemingly in the same direction, has come in the form of the
"Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005" (hereinafter
referred to as "the Domestic Violence Act"), brought in force with
effect from 26-10-2006. Unlike the Hindu Code, the domestic violence
law, though also described as reform concerning civil rights &
obligations, is part of the criminal justice regime that enjoys
secular credentials in the sense it applies to every Indian alike,
irrespective of the religion or faith to which he or she may belong.
This law, as declared by the Preamble, is an Act meant to provide
"more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the
Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occuring within
the family".

The very nomenclature indicates that the Domestic Violence Act is not
restricted to violence perpetrated against a woman by her husband or
in-laws. It includes under its protective umbrella every woman living
in a domestic relationship as member of a family with the person
indulging in violence who in this case must invariably be of the male
gender. For the sake of convenience, the last-mentioned person would
be referred to hereinafter as the "respondent". The law protects women
who are victims of violence occuring within the family and who are
classified & defined as the "aggrieved person" in Section 2(a),
hereinafter referred to for sake of clarity as the "aggrieved woman".
The expression "domestic relationship", sine qua-non for a woman to
qualify as the aggrieved person, has been defined by Section 2(f) in
very wide terms so as to include not only those living together under
the same roof on account of the marital relation (e.g. a wife living
with husband and his relatives) but also persons related by
consanguinity (that is to say a sister living with her brothers, a
woman living in a family with other male relations of her husband
including his father, brother etc.), as indeed, and what has been
perceived as radical in certain quarters, a relationship between two
persons who are living together as a family in a shared household even
though they are not connected to each other by blood or marital
relation. To put it simply and adopting the modern day lingo, women
involved in "live-in relationship" or bigamy or adulterous connection
are also covered as beneficiaries.

It must be made clear here that one is not focusing on the criticism
of the Domestic Violence Act on the ground that it provides statutory
recognition and thereby encouragement to extra-marital relationships
or relations between persons of opposite sex outside of, or without,
marriage. The purpose of this paper, on the other hand, is to examine
if this law has strengthened the cause of women's right to be treated
as equals to men, in particular, in the matters of right to protection
against violence. The appraisal of the new law has been found
necessary particularly in the face of oft-heard criticism of the
Indian State that it has been "too willing to pass new criminal laws
to address these multiple forms of violence against women" questioning
the wisdom behind such tendency . A view finds abhorrent the
concentration of criminal law power in the State in the name of
protecting women since some of the skepticism on this account is
heightened by the fact that some of the laws "which purport to protect
women from violence actually penalize the woman" .

In the views of the author of this paper, the Domestic Violence Act
promulgated by the State in India with much fanfare and the avowed
purpose of protecting the women is largely ill-advised as it is
structured to add to their miseries rather than providing succour.

It must be immediately added here that one be not misunderstood to
mean that "domestic violence" of the kind envisaged does not exist or
that there is no need for protection of women against barbarism. What
needs to be remembered is that mere creation of rights can never be
the anathema for all social evils. Legal reforms are meaningless
unless they are preceded by social reforms. The gross abuse of Section
498-A IPC (turning every next case of marital feud into one of cruelty
for dowry) by unscrupulous lot has been too well known to be ignored.
Perhaps due to the consequent skepticism, the cry of real victims gets
ignored. No wonder, the conviction rate in such cases is too abysmal
to be quoted in support of claims about impact of said legislation.
Lessons learnt from that experiment needed to be borne in mind by
lawmakers before they introduced yet another legislation without
built-in checks against misuse.

If our society has women like Indra Nooyi & Kiran Majumdar Shaw who
have scaled peaks in their career, we also have women in our
hinterlands that are treated as chattel. The difference lies in
upbringing, in education, in awareness, in mindset, in social
conditions. Battle against the malaise of domestic violence has to be
waged first by the social scientists than by lawyers since it requires
use more of classrooms than courtrooms. Plato was being too simplistic
when he said, "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act
responsibly, while bad people will find a way around laws". Relevance
of laws will always exist till we achieve utopia (which might never
come!). The objective of emancipation of women requires, more than
laws, breaking free from shackles of social taboos, education and
above all economic independence.

The idea of "Domestic Violence Act" (as enacted) seems to have stemmed
from the feminist legal theory that regards men as the source of
women's problems. Without sounding to be dismissive or trivializing
many problems that women face, what one is introducing here for debate
by the civil society is the plea for scrutiny of this new legislation
from the perspective of advantages and limitations of law as an
instrument of social change.

As Steven Vago (of Saint Louis University, US) would put it, it is
always "tempting and convenient" to single out "one prime mover" to
trigger social change and use it for a number of situations. Blind
application of this tendency to legal changes can be
counter-productive if not outright dangerous since undue weight "in
isolation" cannot be assigned to any one of the multitude of causes
underlying the problem and which might be inter-related and so
deserving a cure in a different order.

Law is determined by the sense of justice and the moral sentiments of
the populace governed by it and, therefore, (as Vilhelm Aubert would
put it) "legislation can only achieve results by staying relatively
close to prevailing social norms". Since it needs the support of
society, such law cannot force upon the society a radical change of
morality and values unless the social institutions first change
behavior patterns. But then, it is equally true and now beyond debate
that legislation "is a vehicle through which a programmed social
evolution can be brought about". The conflict persists, however, on
the issue as to when and under what conditions the law cannot "only
codify existing customs, morals, or mores, but also ….. modify the
behaviour and values presently existing in a particular society" .
What must be borne in mind is that the efficacy of law as an
instrument of social change depends on a variety of factors that
include not only the pre-requisite that it be free from vagueness or
ambiguity ("Vague rules permit multiple perceptions and
interpretations" and consequently "loopholes" ) but also, and most
important, the assurance (to win respect, acceptability and
compliance) that it is "reasonable, not only in sanctions used but
also in the protection of the rights of those who stand to lose by
violation of the law" .

Domestic Violence Act fails, on various fronts, the muster of an
effective piece of legislation aiming social engineering. For the
starter one may say, it is founded on the premise (not supported by
any reliable evidence or data) that domestic violence at the hand of
menfolk is the general rule in every next household; it creates new
legal concepts that are dangerously imprecise; it promotes social
norms that are in stark conflict with existing traditions, values,
beliefs and sense of morality; and it provides a process that is
lopsided as it lacks in attributes of fairness or reasonableness.

One would rather deal with the subject against the backdrop of, and
with reference to, the concepts newly introduced, in light of the
meaning assigned to each of them in the overall scheme of the
substantive provisions and the procedure thereby created.

The expression "Domestic Violence"
Domestic Violence Act has been designed to create certain civil
rights, some declaratory (for example, the right to protection against
domestic violence) and some substantive (for example, the right to
maintenance, right to compensation on account of the domestic
violence, right to reside in a shared household, right to custody of
children, right to medical expenses etc.). But the law essentially
falls under the criminal jurisprudence not merely because it is
enforced by magistracy under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)
but also and mainly because the consequences of breach of certain
orders passed by the criminal court for affording to the aggrieved
woman the due protection of law has been made a new penal offence
(Section 31).

It is imperative for a study of this kind to find out as to what was
the legal position in domestic violence cases prior to introduction of
this new law, so that it can be examined as to what is new about this
additional measure. The main penal law in India is provided in Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), initially introduced by the British rulers but
adopted for continuation upon independence.

Chapter XVI of IPC relates to offences affecting the human body which
include not merely culpable homicide (including one amounting to
murder) but also hurt (simple or grievous) and involves within its
sweep cases of wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, use of
criminal force, assault simpliciter, kidnapping or abduction or
trafficking in human beings and sexual offences including rape and
unnatural offence. The offence of dowry death (Section 304 B) was
added in 1986, along with the offence of cruelty by husband or
relatives of husband (Section 498-A) in the wake of outrage felt by
the civil society due to increased incidents of cases where women had
been subjected to harassment soon after marriage mainly with a view to
coerce them or their relatives to meet unlawful demands for dowry or
on account of the failure to do so.

Before proceeding to appreciate the impact of the new legislation, it
is necessary to bear in mind certain facets of existing law governing
human body. They include the following:

It is plain that the expression `hurt', as defined in Section 319 IPC
includes causing of `bodily pain, disease or infirmity' to any person.
The meaning of the expression `cruelty' used in Section 498-A IPC has
been defined to include willful conduct as is likely to endanger the
life, limb or `mental or physical' health of the woman. In this
context, it must be mentioned that a cruelty of such nature would
constitute the offence under Section 498-A IPC even if it is not
connected with an intent to coerce the woman or her relatives to meet
any unlawful demand for dowry etc. in as much as the two clauses of
the explanation appended to Section 498-A IPC are exclusive and
independent of each other.
The general penal law prohibits non-consensual sexual intercourse
between persons not related to each other by marriage. Undoubtedly the
law has generally disfavoured the married women in matters connected
with forced sex or sex without their consent or not involving their
will vis-à-vis the husband in that the exception to Section 375 IPC
makes it clear that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the
wife not being under 15 years of age is not rape, notwithstanding the
fact that such intercourse may be against her will or without her consent.
Section 377 IPC renders taboo even a consensual non-vaginal coitus and
carves out no defence for husbands vis-à-vis the wives.
The offence commonly known as outraging modesty of a woman (Section
354 IPC) is one of the aggravated forms of assault or use of criminal
force particularly made to protect women against such indecent
advances as violate their dignity. It is well settled that this law
protects not merely an adult woman but even a female infant.
Unlike the offence of rape where, as seen above, under our law the
married woman has been at some disadvantageous position, Section 354
creates no defence in favour of a husband in relation to the wife,
though it must be added, that this penal clause has been rarely used
by women against the husbands in matters of sexual abuse.
Chapter XX of IPC provides for offences relating to marriage that
include not merely bigamy or adultery but also cohabitation caused by
a man deceitfully inducing a belief in the woman of lawful marriage.
The offence of criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 IPC
or intentional insult under Section 504 IPC covered by chapter XXII of
IPC are penal clauses that can also be invoked, should the need arise,
by a wife against the husband or vice versa. Offering insult to the
modesty, or intrusion upon the privacy, of a woman by words, gestures
etc. are an offence under Section 509 IPC, which provision makes no
exception in favour of a husband.

Chapter XVII of IPC provides for offences against property that
include not only theft, extortion and their aggravated forms in the
nature of robbery and dacoity but also criminal misappropriation or
criminal breach of trust. All these offences generally do not provide
for an exception in favour of a husband or male relative, so long as
the victim woman is able to pin down the offender with dishonest or
fraudulent intention. Ever since the concept of entrustment of dowry
in favour of husband or his near relatives at the time of marriage
came to be accepted by the courts in India, the offence under Section
406 IPC has been regularly and flagrantly used by woman victims for
demanding penal consequences for conduct leading to marital discord.

Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act defines "domestic violence" to
include "any act, omission or commission or conduct" of the man in
question in relation to the aggrieved woman in case it attracts any of
the following four clauses:

(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or
well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or
tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse,
verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a
view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person
related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or
(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to
the aggrieved person.

Clause (b), as extracted above, is clearly meant to extend the offence
under Section 498 A IPC, for the benefit of women related to the male
offender otherwise than on account of matrimonial connection. Clause
(a), inter alia, renders various forms of abuse to be included in the
concept of "domestic violence", the abuses being mainly of four
categories namely physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional
abuse and economic abuse.

The expression "physical abuse" is defined in Explanation-I (i) of
Section 3. The inclusive definition, even if read in conjunction with
the words that precede in clause (a) ("harms or injures or endangers
the health, safety, life, limb or well-being whether mental or
physical of the aggrieved person"), each facet of the physical abuse
defined in the above provision has been made punishable under the
cover of some or other penal clause even under the existing law.

The expression "sexual abuse", employed as one of the facets of
domestic violence in this law, is an area that is likely to be most
prone to abuse in the course of its enforcement. This needs elaboration.

The phenomenon called "sexual abuse" is defined very widely by
Explanation-I (ii) of Section 3. The limited nature of protection
under Section 375 IPC in the matters involving forced sexual
intercourse with wife notwithstanding, in the teeth of the fact that
wife has all along been entitled under the general law to protection
against sexual abuse under the cover of Section 354, 377 and 509 IPC,
there can be no denial of, or doubt about, the fact that every woman
is entitled to the protection of the said criminal law provisions.
Need one refer here, for driving the point home with full force and
vigour, that judicial view in this country has been that even a
prostitute is entitled to protection against forced sexual
intercourse. In this view, one finds that the new law breaks no fresh
ground in matters of sexual abuse of women except by explicitly
stating what has always been implicitly the legal position.

The expression "verbal and emotional abuse" as used in Section 3(a) is
defined in Explanation-I (iii) . Offering insult or ridicule to, or
humiliation of, a woman including with intent to hold her responsible
for, or accusing her of, not being able to bear a child or a male
child, are nothing but acts of commission or omission designed to
adversely affect the mental health of the woman within the meaning of
expression "cruelty", already punishable under Section 498-A IPC.
Similarly, threats to cause physical pain are covered by the offence
of criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 IPC. Thus, the
so-called "verbal and emotional abuse" referred to in Section 3 of
Domestic Violence Act is only re-stating, for the purposes of this new
law, certain category of criminal conduct, the only difference being
that it now stands collectively described as "verbal and emotional abuse".

More or less similar situation ordains in relation to "economic abuse"
described by Explanation-I (iv) . Depriving a woman of any of her
economic or financial resources to which she is entitled has been a
penal conduct even under the existing law. If the woman has been
deprived of her property dishonestly, it amounts to theft, if this
deprivation occurs by putting her in fear of any injury etc. so as to
induce to deliver the property it amounts to extortion. If under some
deception, she is fraudulently or dishonestly induced to part with her
property it amounts to cheating. If it results in destruction or
damage to her property it would be mischief. If the deprivation is in
respect of the immovable property (even if temporary, though) without
her consent, which she possesses, it would be criminal trespass.

Most importantly, if the deprivation amounts to conversion to own use
of a property of the woman held in trust by the man, it constitutes
criminal breach of trust. As indicated earlier, the last-mentioned
penal provision has been oft-used in matrimonial disputes with regard
to articles of dowry or stridhan and, in our jurisprudence, there is
no defence available to a husband that he could freely lay hand on the
property of his wife only on account of the marital relationship.

In above view, the deprivation of economic or financial resources,
stridhan or property etc. to which the aggrieved woman is entitled
under the law, as is mentioned in sub-clause (a) of clause (iv) of
Explanation-I is nothing but reiteration of the existing law on the
subject. Same would apply to disposal of any property of the aggrieved
woman in sub-clause (b) of the same provision.

The expression "economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved
person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an
order of court or otherwise" is clearly indicative of inclusion of the
amount of maintenance to which a married woman or dependant female
relative is entitled under the existing civil or criminal law of the
land. The amount of maintenance granted by the civil courts is
recoverable ordinarily in the same manner as any money decree would be
executed. The criminal law, for which reference may be made to the
procedure for Section 125 CrPC, does permit immediate use of duress in
the form of imprisonment for each month's default and thus had been
sufficiently taken care of even before the new law caused to brand it
as "economic abuse".

But then, the concept of "economic abuse" used in Section 3 of
Domestic Violence Act does go beyond what has been the law thus far.
The additional arena created includes:

Deprivation of such economic or financial resources as the aggrieved
person `requires out of necessity', rendered of widest amplitude by
further clarification that this shall be `not limited to household
necessities' for the aggrieved person and her children.
The alienation of such movable or immovable asset as to which the
aggrieved person `is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic
relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved
person or her children' is also now treated as `economic abuse'.
A restriction against access to `resources or facilities' which the
aggrieved woman is entitled to `use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic
relationship' including access to the shared household amounts to
economic abuse, especially enlarged to the extent of including within
its effect even such household where the aggrieved person at any stage
has lived `in a domestic relationship' even singly, even if the
premises in question is owned or tenanted by respondent male in
question and even including a property that is the joint property of
the family of which the respondent male is a member, even though the
aggrieved woman may not have `any right, title or interest' in such
property, this courtesy the meaning `shared household' is assigned in
Section 2 (s) of the Domestic Violence Act.
Clause (d) of Section 3 throws the field wide open for all kinds of
injuries or harm (physical or mental) caused to the aggrieved woman
under the umbrella of "Domestic Violence" by failing to qualify the
expression "injuries or causes harm" with a particular mental state
and by using the expression "otherwise" apparently to take the
misdemeanour beyond what is perceived in the preceding three clauses.

The scope & width of the new offence relating to domestic violence
Contrary to popular public perception generated after coming in force
of the Domestic Violence Act, it does not create "domestic violence"
per se to be an offence. What has been made penal by Section 31 is the
conduct on the part of the male offender qua the female victim in the
domestic environment amounting to breach of a "protection order"
(which includes an interim or even an ex parte protection order)
obtained by the latter from a Magistrate under Section 18 (or Section
23). The offence under Section 31(i) is declared by Section 32 to be
"cognizable and non-bailable".

In order to understand as to how the aforesaid penal provision would
work, it is necessary to comprehend as to how and what kinds of
protection order can be obtained from the Magistrate by the aggrieved
woman. Section 18 , dealing with the subject at length, provides that
a Magistrate is expected to issue protection order upon prima facie
satisfaction that "domestic violence has taken place or is likely to
take place". In other words, a woman can approach the Magistrate for
such an order not only upon being subjected to domestic violence but
even at a stage when she expects to be subjected to domestic violence.
The protection order, a bare reading of the provision clearly shows,
is essentially an order of injunction. It is a prohibitory relief
calling upon the respondent to refrain from doing certain acts qua the
complainant woman.

The jurisdiction vested in the Magistrate to pass such prohibitory
orders interdicting the respondent from committing any act of domestic
violence (or aiding or abetting in such conduct) is a concept that
goes against the legal principles that have generally been applied in
matters relating to the law of injunction. I may illustrate this by
referring to Section 41(h) Specific Relief Act which lays down the
general rule that an injunction cannot be granted when equally
efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode
of proceeding.

Penal law of a State generally works on two assumptions. Firstly, that
every one is supposed to know the law, and secondly, that every one
shall obey the law without being specifically directed to do so. To
put it slightly differently, a citizen accused of the offence of
murder cannot turn around and complain that no one told him that he
was not supposed to commit the offence of murder. Except for the areas
where the concept of domestic violence breaks new ground, all the acts
which have been treated as foul under the new legislation have been
part of the criminal law of the country and, therefore, every person
is expected, even without a prohibitory dictum in the nature of
protection order, to refrain from causing any harm or injury to the
mental or physical health of the woman relative. The frivolity of the
concept of protection order introduced by this law comes to the fore
when an anxiety is raised as to whether a husband against whom no
protection order has been passed is free to cause any harm to his
wife. Since the answer obviously would be in negative, it is beyond
comprehension as to how the issuance of a protection order would add
to her protection against repetition of violence in future.

It is noticeable that the order that a Magistrate may pass to protect
the aggrieved woman from possible domestic violence includes an
injunction against the possible perpetration of domestic violence
asking him to refrain from being in vicinity of any place that may be
"frequented by the aggrieved person" or from operating a bank account
"enjoyed by both the parties", even if it were held "singly by the
respondent". The law makers in their anxiety to provide legal
protection to the woman seem to have gone overboard. The place
"frequented by the aggrieved person" would undoubtedly include the
house where both parties may have been living together before their
relations turned sour. The house in question may in fact be owned or
taken on rent by the male respondent. The aggrieved woman may have no
right, title or interest in respect of such premises. This is clear
also from the provisions relating to the "right to reside" to which
one shall revert later for elaborating certain other grey areas. By
asking the male respondent (through the protection order under Section
18) to refrain from entering into such a place only because it is
"frequented by the aggrieved person", the Magistrate would in fact be
throwing out the male respondent from his own house on to the road.
Similarly, by asking the male respondent to refrain from operating
bank account held singly by him only because he had shared its credit
assets with the aggrieved woman at some stage, the Magistrate would in
fact be depriving the former from his daily subsistence, in the name
of affording protection to the woman.

In the above context, it is essential to take note of four other
provisions of Domestic Violence Act. Section 23 empowers the
Magistrate to pass an interim order in the course of any proceedings
before him that would include under Section 18. Under the same
provision, upon prima facie satisfaction "on the basis of affidavit",
inter alia, that the application discloses that "there is a
likelihood" of domestic violence being committed, he may grant an ex
parte protection order under Section 18. There is nothing in the
entire statute to indicate as to how long such an ex parte order would
obtain. In this view, the dicta of Section 25 that a protection order
under Section 18 shall be in force "till the aggrieved person applies
for discharge" would operate with equal force even qua an interim
order. The general rule of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), in Order
39 Rule 3 A, that in case ex parte injunction has been granted, the
application for injunction has to be finally decided within thirty
days cannot apply to these proceedings under Domestic Violence Act
since Section 28 renders it subservient to CrPC. In the face of the
provision contained in Section 28, this shall be the position even if
relief under Section 18 is claimed, by virtue of Section 26, before a
civil court.

Bearing in mind the above referred provision of this law, possibility
cannot be ruled out that a woman should introduce some doubts about
the conduct of the male respondent (say the husband) with whom she has
lived for some time in a shared household and, in her anxiety to bind
him, approach a Magistrate with an application under Section 18 read
with Section 23 asserting, on affidavit, that the latter is likely to
subject her to some emotional abuse and seek an ex parte interim
protection order prohibiting him from entering his own house or
operating his own bank account, thereby rendering him totally at her
mercy. The incongruity of the impact hits in the face when one reads
these provisions in conjunction with the penal clause under Section 31
that renders breach even of interim order a cognizable offence
attracting substantive sentence. In this scenario, the concerned male
respondent is likely to be deprived of all possibility of presenting
his side of the story since there is nothing stopping an unscrupulous
woman from following the grant of an ex parte interim order
immediately with an application that the order has been breached.

Right to Reside
Undoubtedly, given the tradition-bound social norms that patriarchal
Indian families generally follow, the girl child is supposed to have
her connection with the parental home severed upon marriage, when she
becomes a member of the family of her husband for all intents and
purposes. There have been positive changes in the law of succession,
in recent times, to give certain rights even to married daughters
vis-à-vis the property of their parental family. But, the fact remains
that under our system the married woman adopts the household of her
husband as her own. It is for this reason that whenever the necessity
to fix a maintenance allowance in her favour arises, she has always
been held entitled to award of maintenance allowance in such quantum
as would ensure that she continues to enjoy the same status and
quality of life as she would have enjoyed if she had continued to live
in her matrimonial home with her husband. In fact, these standards are
reiterated and prescribed even by Domestic Violence Act through
Section 20(2) .

Unfortunately, there have been cases galore where upon marital discord
married women have been thrown out of the matrimonial homes. In such
situations the victims, in particular, from orthodox background find
it totally unacceptable to go back to their parental family for
shelter or support. The provision of maintenance allowance under
Section 125 CrPC was essentially created as a measure of protection to
such vulnerable group in as much as their proneness to abuse, when in
lurch, is a cause of concern of orderly society. The courts, in recent
times, have shown innovation by binding the husband (or the male
relative) with responsibility to provide some residential
accommodation even in the matrimonial home to save the hapless woman
from vagrancy. The statutory right to reside in a shared household in
favour of an aggrieved wife (or dependent woman relative) under the
Domestic Violence Act is undoubtedly a positive development. But, the
framers of the law, in their anxiety to cast the net wide, seem to
have again lost touch with reality and gone over-board. The relevant
provisions that need to be examined in this context are contained in
Section 17 and Section 19(1).

Section 17 talks of "right to reside in a shared household" . It
creates a statutory right in favour of "every woman in a domestic
relationship", an expression, given the wide meaning assigned to
"domestic relationship" by Section 2(f), includes not only the wife or
a woman related by blood but also a female friend who has lived, even
for a small period under the same roof with the male respondent
without entering into a marriage. The right declared by Section 17 is
that every such woman shall be entitled to reside in the shared
household whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial
interest of her own in the premises in question. The right is absolute
and subject to denial only in the event of eviction or being excluded
"in accordance with the procedure established by law".

Section 17 is merely declaratory of the right of the aggrieved woman
to reside in a shared household. The procedure for securing the said
right is given in Section 19 that also sets out the various elements
which can be introduced in "residence orders" . But then, Domestic
Violence Act nowhere makes it clear as to by what procedure an
affected respondent would be able to secure an order of eviction or
exclusion against such woman. There is no time limit prescribed during
which the said right to reside would obtain in favour of the woman.
Since this right to reside has been created by this special law in
favour of a special class of women, it will not be controlled by the
existing legal framework including the Transfer of Property Act,
inasmuch as and particularly because the right to reside thus brought
in existence is de hors the "right, title or beneficial interest". In
absence of any provisions or mechanism to such effect within the
special law, the male respondent is without a legal remedy against a
woman for whose benefit this right to reside was never intended. This,
because neither Section 17 nor Section 19 set out sufficiently the
parameters on which the claim to this right is to be tested by the
Magistrate. In this view, the availability of the forum of appeal
under Section 29 is also of no solace.

Interestingly, Section 17 and Section 19 are structured so as to
operate in different fields. Section 17 is a general right declared in
favour of every woman in a domestic relationship vesting in her not
merely the right to reside in a shared household but also the right
not to be evicted or excluded there from by the male respondent. This
right is not dependent upon allegations, or history, of domestic
violence. Section 19, on the other hand, permits an order to be
passed, in the event of domestic violence, to facilitate the enjoyment
of the right to reside in the shared household against the backdrop of
feud between the parties. The jurisdiction to restrain the respondent
from disturbing this right to reside even after the souring of
relations between the parties can be understood, at least to the
extent of married wives declining to go back to the parental home.
But, some of the possible restraint orders indicated in Section 19
seem wholly unjustified and unfair. Amongst the last mentioned
categories one may include the following:

direction to the male respondent to remove himself from the shared
household [Section 19(1)(b)];
restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing off the shared
household [Section 19(1)(d)];
restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared
household except with the leave of the Magistrate [Section 19(1)(e)].
It is plain and obvious that recourse to the Domestic Violence Act
would be made mostly in cases of marital discord by the wives against
the husbands. These disputes invariably would come up for
adjudication, also before the matrimonial courts, which are expected
to deal with them with requisite sensitivity. Order XXXII-A CPC
contains elaborate dicta to be followed by the courts dealing with
matters concerning the family. Rule 3 of Order XXXII-A CPC enjoins
upon the court to make endeavour in the first instance to assist the
parties in arriving at a settlement. In fact, amicable settlement of
disputes is the mantra that is now followed by courts across the
board, ever since Section 89 CPC was (re)inserted in 1999,
particularly encouraging the utilization of the tools of conciliation
and mediation. Experience shows that, given proper encouragement,
parties to a marriage that has run into rough weather are generally
inclined to make fresh attempt to bury the hatchet, forget the past,
forgive each other and try to live together so that the marriage can
be saved; this, particularly when the issues embrace not merely the
two of them but the innocent children they have together brought into
the world. Seen in this light, the direction to the male respondent to
remove himself from the shared household is not only unjust and unfair
to him, a person in whom the right, title or interest in the property
vests but also to the prospect of reconciliation between the parties.
In this view, with no guidelines provided, such an order, if permitted
to be passed by the Magistrate would work, in the long run, against
the interest of the woman herself. The husband having been thrown out
by the law, it is not conceivable as to how the system expects the
parties to even broach the subject of coming together.

As mentioned earlier in this paper, the expression "shared household",
as defined by Section 2(s), may include a property of the joint family
of which the male respondent is merely one of the several members. By
putting a restraint against alienation, disposal or renunciation of
rights in such shared household, the law seeks to virtually shackle
the rights of even such persons who may not have any role to play in
the dispute from which the controversy has arisen.

Monetary reliefs
Section 20(1) empowers the magistrate to grant "monetary reliefs" in
favour of the aggrieved woman. As indicated in the opening clause, the
purpose and intent of this provision is ameliorative; viz. to help out
the woman to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered "as a
result of the domestic violence". In this context, one can understand
the quantum taking into account the loss of earnings, the medical
expenses or the loss caused due to damage to the property etc.
Inclusion of clause (d) of Section 20(1), however, is misplaced.

The jurisdiction of the magistrate to grant maintenance allowance is
governed by Section 125 CrPC. There was absolutely no reason why it
should be mentioned amongst the monetary reliefs meant to help the
woman meeting the expenses consequent to the domestic violence. This
is bound to create not only utter confusion but also multiplicity of
proceedings and consequences which would be grossly unfair to both
parties.

Experience shows that in spite of the secular law of maintenance
available under Section 125 CrPC to all sections of the society, now
rendered not even subject to any ceiling on the quantum of allowance
that can be fixed (after amendment brought about to Act 50 of 2001),
resort is made to the said statutory remedy in addition to, and not as
alternative to, the right to secure maintenance allowance under the
personal laws. Thus, even under the existing arrangement almost every
set of parties is locked in litigation over the issue of maintenance
simultaneously in the civil as well as in the criminal courts. A need
to simplify the procedure and avoid multiplicity of proceedings,
particularly, in family disputes has been long felt. Some hope was
generated in this regard when the Family Courts Act was enacted. But
then, the said law has not been brought in force in all parts of the
country. The creation of another statutory provision permitting
maintenance allowance to be claimed would undoubtedly be construed by
ill-advised parties as yet another forum where opposite party could be
dragged for similar relief to be agitated. This is bound to add to the
multiple proceedings in which the parties may already be spending out
their time, energy and resources.

It appears that the reference to the grant of maintenance allowance in
Section 20(1)(d) has been included with intent to extend the
provisions of Section 125 CrPC, in favour of such woman who cannot
claim to be lawfully wedded wife or daughter of the male respondent.
If that were the objective, it should have been clearly spelt out and
subjected to some guidelines as to the period for which they would be
entitled to maintenance allowance from the male respondent and under
what circumstances an order granting such allowances can be rescinded,
altered or withdrawn. After all, mere reference to provision would not
graft the remedies to such effect as contained in Section 125 CrPC,
which is meant essentially for wives, parents and children only.

The possibility of abuse of Section 20(1)(d) is writ large when seen
against the prospect of a female friend having lived with the male
respondent under the same roof in what is now popularly called as
live-in relationship (i.e. without marriage) even for a month or so
claiming maintenance allowance under the said provision, with no
restrictions attached and so possibly for the rest of her life.

Counselling
Section 14 of the Domestic Violence Act takes its cue from the present
approach of the law to seek amicable settlement of disputes and,
therefore, permits the Magistrate to direct the parties to undergo
"counselling" in the hands of experts in the field. Undoubtedly, the
idea behind this provision is salutary; that is to say, to help the
parties come to terms with the past history so that, if possible, they
could forgive & forget and get on with their lives, may be in
continued relationship, such that peace & harmony would prevail and,
at the same time, the woman could feel insulated from further violence.

An expert counsellor would not broach the issue with the parties in a
manner that could smack of pre-conceived notions of guilt. The issues
of this nature involve human beings and their emotions. A good
counsellor would first win the confidence of parties by showing
understanding and then suggest measures such that the parties are able
to overcome their respective weaknesses or faults and adjust with each
other. Any effort of such nature approached by a counsellor who is
judgmental (as to the guilt of one or the other side), even at the
outset, is destined to fail and thus would be a waste of time & energy.

Fortunately, the Parliament while enacting Domestic Violence Act did
not put any pre-conditions to the process of counselling in Section
14. But, the Central Government in exercise of its powers under
Section 31(1) read with Section 37(2)(k) while framing rules, called
the "Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006"
(hereinafter called the "Rules"), seems to have not only exceeded its
jurisdiction in the matter of subordinate legislation but totally
misconstrued the object of the mechanism of counseling.

Section 14(1) had left out only the clarifications and experience of
the counsellor to be prescribed by the rules. This is what was desired
by Section 37(2)(k). One has serious reservations about certain
clauses of Rule 14 which pertain to the process of counselling.

Rule 14(3) and Rule 14(6) render the process of counselling subject to
compliance by the male respondent with the requirement to "furnish an
undertaking that he would refrain from causing such domestic violence
as complained by the complainant" and further, in appropriate cases an
undertakings that he "will not try to meet or communicate in any
manner" except in the counselling proceedings. Rule 14(4), prescribing
the procedure to be followed by the counselor, though enjoining upon
the latter to assist the parties to reconciliation makes it incumbent
upon the counsellor to, inter alia, get "anassurance that the incident
of domestic violence shall not be repeated".

The onus of furnishing an undertaking (that the respondent would
refrain from causing domestic violence) or a written statement (that
he shall not repeat the domestic violence) puts the cart before the
horse. It proceeds on the assumption that there is no reason to doubt
the veracity of the allegation that the respondent has committed or is
likely to commit domestic violence. Since the proceedings before the
counsellor can take place even at the outset (Section 14 prescribes
"at any stage of the proceedings"), the male respondent (when he is
required by the law to undertake that he shall not repeat the incident
of domestic violence) stands condemned without being heard since in
the undertaking the admission of guilt (that he had in fact indulged
in such domestic violence) is implicit. If there be any doubts left,
Rule 14 (5) makes it unmistakably clear that the respondent shall have
no occasion to plead the defence of "justification".

With these kinds of fetters put, the expectation of Rule 14 (7) (8) &
(9) from the Counsellor to make efforts of "arriving at a settlement"
or "understanding" is misconceived. This inasmuch as a person
virtually told at the outset that he is presumed to be guilty of
domestic violence and will not be allowed to plead any justification,
what with the whole purpose of counselling being to secure from him an
implied admission along with an undertaking to behave in future, is
hardly expected to repose any faith in the process so as to be ready
to hear, least of all even remotely consider, suggestion for amicable
settlement. Given such handling of the process of conciliation, the
assurance in Rule 14 (17) that a request for alteration (that could
stem from settlement arrived before counsellor) shall not be acted
upon if found to be "vitiated by force, fraud or coercion or any other
factor" holds no meaning for the male respondent for whom the law
itself worked as a coercion.

Domestic Incident Report
Amongst the functionaries specially conceived and provided for by the
Domestic Violence Act, the Protection Officer seems to be the most
important; in that, he not only assists the Magistrate in the
discharge of his functions under the law but also works as a liaison
between the aggrieved woman and the various authorities. It may be
mentioned at the outset that the qualifications & experience which a
Protection Officer must possess have been left by Section 8(2) to "be
prescribed".

The Central Government while framing the rules in exercise of power
conferred by Section 37(2)(a) has virtually delegated the power in
above regard to the State Governments by giving the liberty, by Rule
3, to appoints an officer of the State Government as the Protection
Officer. In addition to this, the State Governments have also been
given the liberty to appoint "members of non-governmental organization".

The nomenclature "Service Provider" has been used as an additional
machinery to aid and assist the protection officer and, as indicated
in Section 10, would be voluntary association or a company working
"with the objective of protecting the rights and interests of women by
any lawful means".

The Domestic Violence Act lays great emphasis on Domestic Incident
Report, for convenience hereinafter referred to as "DIR".

Even a cursory perusal of the provisions and scheme of the statute
would indicate that the aggrieved woman is expected to lodge a DIR so
as to secure her rights under the law. Section 9 prescribes the duties
and functions of the Protection Officer whereas Section 10(2)
prescribes the powers of the Service Provider. In terms of Section
10(2), it is the Service Provider who is expected to "record" the DIR
and then make it over to the Magistrate and the Protection Officer.
Under Section 9(1)(b) the Protection Officer is required to make a DIR
to the Magistrate upon receipt of a complaint of domestic violence.
Making of a DIR to the Magistrate under Section 9(1)(b) is distinct
from recording the DIR under Section 10(2)(a).

Rule 5 framed by the Central Government goes beyond this scheme by
permitting lodging of DIR either with the Protection Officer or with
the Service Provider. This, strictly speaking, may not be a desirable
state of affairs, in as much as lodging of DIR with the Protection
Officer would render the service provider purposeless.

Be that as it may, the Rules prescribe the Form (No. I) in which DIR
is to be recorded. Since DIR would turn out in such matters to be
virtually the first authenticated report (of the incident) by the
aggrieved woman to the statutory authorities, it would have great
evidentiary value and thus significant impact on the proceedings that
would follow. It would be akin to the First Information Report (FIR)
registered by police under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section
154/155).

Since breach of a protection order passed by the Magistrate under
Section 18, presumably invariably on the basis, amongst others, of DIR
is classified as a cognizable and non-bailable offence, it is
absolutely essential that all possibility of abuse of the process of
DIR are plugged and precluded. The cases of ante-dating or ante-timing
of FIRs are not hard to find. They have been too many and too frequent
for comfort. Same could happen to the process of DIRs. One of the
methods by which the law obviates the possibility of such fabrication
in the context of FIRs is through the requirement that such reports be
entered in a bound book with pre-printed consecutively numbered pages.
The further requirement that copy of the FIR be transmitted forthwith
to the Magistrate works as sufficient safeguard. The prescription as
to the form of DIR in the Rules does not contain any such safeguards
and thus could be a fertile ground for misuse of the law in
unscrupulous hands.

Domestic Violence Act aims to protect the woman from domestic
violence. It has already been noticed that almost each facet of the
expression "Domestic Violence" covered by its statutory definition in
Section 3 is cognate to some existing cognizable or non-bailable
offence. Under the prevalent criminal jurisprudence, it is the
statutory duty & responsibility of the police to register an FIR upon
the complaint being made or information being given about commission
of a cognizable offence (Section 154 CrPC) or non-cognizable offence
(Section 155 CrPC). Given the area assigned to various functionaries
and the method of process prescribed for purposes of this law, police
department is bound to have a role to play in every case covered by
Domestic Violence Act. In this view, the requirement of registering
DIR only adds to the form rather than substance and, therefore, seems
wholly unnecessary.

Interestingly, the proviso to Section 5 makes it clear that the role
assigned to other functionaries under this law is not to be construed
as relieving the police officer from his duty to proceed in accordance
with the law in the matter of a cognizable offence. If it were so, the
law has added the formality of DIR for no conceivable purpose. In
fact, such additional formality would be against the interest of the
victim woman who invariably needs immediate assistance of police which
is trained & equipped to not only secure the necessary legal or
medical assistance but also collect evidence to pin down the wrong-doer.

Duties & Powers of Protection Officer
Protection Officer is appointed under this law mainly to assist the
Magistrate in the discharge of his functions and to help out the
aggrieved woman in securing various reliefs including in the matter of
report to the police, recourse to special remedies with requisite
legal aid, as indeed access to counseling, shelter homes, medicare and
in securing enforcement of the orders. Section 9(1) of the Domestic
Violence Act indicates the charter of his duties, clause (i) leaving
scope for additional duties through prescription under the Rules. The
Central Government, in exercise of its powers in this behalf as also
indicated in Section 37(2)(f), has included in Rule 10 the additional
duties of the Protection Officer.

Some of the duties mentioned in Rule 10 to be performed by the
Protection officer when directed to do so in writing by the Magistrate
need special notice. They include the following:

Restore the possession of the personal effects including gifts and
jewellery of the aggrieved person and the shared household to the
aggrieved person;
Assist the aggrieved person to regain custody of children and secure
rights to visit them under his supervision as directed by the court;
Assist the court in enforcement of orders in the proceedings under the
Act in the manner directed by the magistrate, including orders under
Section 12, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 21 or Section
23 in such manner as directed by the court; and
Take the assistance of the police, if required, in confiscating any
weapon involved in the alleged domestic violence.
Undoubtedly, the Protection Officer is an agent of the Magistrate.
When directed to carry out certain tasks by the court of Magistrate,
he does enjoy a certain status and authority. But then, it has to be
remembered that the Protection Officer is not a police officer. He
does not have the authority or wherewithal to forcibly seize or take
over any article or take over possession of a premises. He also does
not have the requisite capacity to control the custody, even for a
short while, of human beings (children). These are all tasks in which
the officers of police department have the requisite training,
competence and powers under the law. A Protection Officer does not
carry out a probe in the sense of investigation by the police into
cognizable offences. In this view, it is neither desirable nor of any
purpose to expect him to confiscate weapon(s) involved in domestic
violence. That is an area better left to the police. The police do not
require any assistance of the Protection Officer for seizure or
confiscation of weapons of offences. In absence of any statutory
authority to seize any article or take control of any premises, the
Protection Officer would never have the competence to "restore" such
property to the aggrieved woman.

Interestingly, the statutory provisions of the Domestic Violence Act
are totally silent, except in the context of protection orders, as to
how the orders in the nature of Residence Orders (Section 19), Custody
Orders (Section 21) and Compensation Orders (Section 22) are to be
executed or enforced. All that Section 28 says is that the provisions
of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 shall govern these proceedings. For
purposes of vesting the requisite authority, a clear provision
regarding the execution or enforcement would be necessary. The Rules
are also generally silent in that reference to Section 125 CrPC, in
the context of application under Section 12, in Rule 6 (5) leads one
nowhere on the subject of execution which is controlled not by Section
125 CrPC but by Section 128 CrPC.

Standard of proof
Every action under Domestic Violence Act hinges upon the construction
of the expression "domestic violence" against the backdrop of each
individual case. Explanation-II to Section 3 renders the issue too
subjective by stating that for purpose of determining whether any act
or conduct constitutes domestic violence, the "overall facts and
circumstances of the case" shall be taken into consideration. The
expression "overall facts and circumstances" is not only vague but
also relative. It is bound to lead to inconsistency which is never a
healthy trend in the context of a penal law. Section 32 (2) making
provision regarding "proof" is also of no assistance when it says that
the court may draw conclusion upon "the sole testimony of the
aggrieved person". This has all along been the law of evidence in our
country where courts would insist not on quantity but quality of
evidence.

Consequences of breach of orders (other than protection order)
Chapter IV of the Domestic Violence Act deals elaborately with the
procedure for obtaining various substantive reliefs that mainly
include Protection Orders, Residence Orders, Monetary Reliefs, Custody
Orders and Compensation Orders. While the breach of Protection Orders
passed under Section 18 entails invocation of a penal procedure under
Section 31, there is virtually no effective mechanism provided for
enforcement of the other promised reliefs.

Section 19(1) deals with the various facets of a possible residence
order. What is striking in this statutory provision is that the law
does not envisage the period for which such an order of residence

Death after in-law threats

Posted by: "Dadi Srinivasa Rao" dsrao143@hotmail.com

Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:57 pm (PST)

WHAT'S WRONG IN

"SEXUAL HARRESSMENT AT WORKPLACE LAW PROPOSAL 2007 "

By one of the biggest blogs on Sexual harassment LAW proposal 2007

http://indiatalking.com/blog/genderjustise/4946/      

Gender_justise@yahoo.co.in

Supreme Court guidelines about sexual harassment at workplace, have been thrown to dustbin, by feminists at ministry of women and child development (WCD) , in making this LAW. Proposal. Still WCD is saying in press that the LAW proposal is made due to Supreme court guidelines .

COMMENTS

Commonsense says that details of cases both false and true should be made known to public, press and media. The LAW proposal says false complaints cannot be told, and only true complaints can be told to public, press and media. This gives one sided, biased picture to public, which is not the true picture, so not correct.

The LAW proposal is made by feminists deliberately to bind press by LAW, so that press can get one sided news only.

Supreme court guidelines do not bar telling about false or true complaints , os long as the identity is not disclosed to press etc.

EXACT LAW WORDINGS FOR REFERENCE ARE:

·        "14. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Right to Information Act, 2005, the contents of the complaint made under sub-section (1) of section 7, the identity and addresses of the aggrieved woman, respondent and witnesses, any information relating to conciliation and enquiry proceedings, recommendations of the Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, and the action taken by the employer under the provisions of this Act shall not be published, communicated or made known to the public, press and media in any manner:

·         Provided that information may be disseminated regarding the justice secured to any victim of sexual harassment under this Act without disclosing the identity and address of the aggrieved woman, respondent and witnesses.

"

COMMENTS

Impartial judges are not allowed as per new law proposal by radical feminists. Unbelievable but true.

The Law proposal practically says Judge Committee chairperson should be a woman, committed to the cause of women. Minimum 2 of judge committee members should be women who are committed to the cause of women. One member should be from an external organization committed to the cause of women.

The problem with this LAW proposal is, if you dare to tell the truth about a conflict telling both a man's and women's points, you will no longer be considered someone "committed to the cause of women" and so no longer satisfy the condition to become a judge. .

Feminists know that practically with already 4 members in the committee committed to the case of women, a company can at max put 3 men by law. Even if these 3 men disagree, the biased judges as required by LAW proposal will pass wrong judgments to keep post, power and money.

The committee constitution should be as per the SC guidelines, in which committed to the cause of women is not a precondition, only 50% or more members should be women is mentioned.

Also defination of external member should be as per supreme court guidelines i.e., a person who is from a NGO or other body , who is familiar with the issue of sexual harressment.

EXACT LAW WORDINGS FOR REFERENCE ARE:

(2) The Committee shall consist of the following members namely:-

(a) a Chairperson, from amongst employees, who shall be a senior level woman, committed to the cause of women. In case a senior level woman employee is not available, the Chairperson shall be appointed from a sister organization or a non-governmental organization;

(b) not less than two members from amongst employees committed to the cause of women or who have had experience in social work; and

(c) one member from amongst such non-governmental organizations or associations or other interests committed to the cause of women, as may be specified:

Provided that at least fifty per cent of the members so nominated shall be women.

"

COMMENTS

LAW proposal mainly says give money to the women complaining of sexual harassments at workplace, based on the income of man, and depending upon mental and emotional trouble caused to women. Giving money itself will encourage false complaints of sexual harassments. This is to increase number of false complaints of sexual harassment and hence more money for feminists. Presently a complaint of sexual harassment is taken seriously, with so many false complaints for money; even true complaints will also be seen with suspicion.

EXACT LAW WORDINGS FOR REFERENCE ARE:

13. (1) For the purpose of determining the compensation to be paid to the aggrieved woman under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 11, the Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall have regard to-

(a) the mental trauma, pain, suffering and emotional distress caused to the aggrieved woman;

(b) the loss in the career opportunity due to the incident of sexual harassment;

(c) medical expenses incurred by the victim for physical or psychiatric treatment;

(d) the income and financial status of the respondent;

(e) feasibility of such payment in lump sum or in installments.

*********************** For lots of more details refer to

http://indiatalking.com/blog/genderjustise/4946/       http://indiatalking.com/blog/genderjustise/4969/ http://www.498a.org/contents/Publicity/comments_on_sexual_harassment_bill_rakshak_v4.pdf

COMMENTS

How many found false and how many could not be proved, should also be mentioned. Specially as other parts of this LAW proposal says information on only cases found true can be disseminated.

EXACT WORDINGS OF LAW PROPOSAL SAYS:”

·         18. The Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall in each calendar year prepare, in such form and at such time as may be prescribed, an annual report and submit the same to the employer.

·         19. The employer shall include a section on the cases filed and judgments conferred under this Act in each annual report of his organization. "

COMMENTS

This looks OK in readings, the point is all this efforts is being made to hide the objectionable points i.e. the word “or otherwise “. Once this word " or otherwise " is written everything else that is said in this point is overwritten, i.e., physical or mental incapacity or death is not required to be put, complainant in case of a perfectly normal women can also be made by others.   "As other person as may be prescribed" is also added so that objectionable part that was present in 2006 version can be put, i.e., any abroad funded women NGO can file a case on behalf of women, for NGO's monetary gains etc.

EXACT WORDINGS OF LAW PROPOSAL SAYS:”

·         section 7: (2) Where the aggrieved woman is not able to make a complaint on account of her physical or mental incapacity or death or otherwise, her legal heir or such other person as may be prescribed may make a complaint under this section. "

The 2007 version has deliberately tried to leave following points unclear and what is written is mostly closer to 2006 version, so we have to understand these points from the 2006 version, as this is the intention still, with some efforts to hide the intentions.

COMMENTS

It is sick, why not put notice to encourage to file false sexual harassment cases on every door manufactured in India. This is blowing things out of proportion, trying to make people think see the problem is so much that hospitals have put notice on every Doctors door, without realizing that it is due to feminist’s law makers.  This law will also give opportunity to hares hospitals for taking bribes, as it is difficult to follow all these type of stupid laws by companies and hospitals.

Recommendations: Delete these two lines.

EXACT WORDINGS OF LAW PROPOSAL SAYS:"

·        64.  ...

·        Make sure that written notices are put up at every doctor’s room, the reception and the dormitories explaining the mechanism of the complaints committee and encouraging people to file their grievances in relation to Sexual Harassment.

·        b) Inform all patients and family members about their rights to be free from sexual harassment.

COMMENTS

It is a known practice to delay things by the complainants, if they have a false case, thus putting pressure on the defendant, especially in one sided women laws. The complainant should not be allowed to delay things and then when the defendant’s witnesses leave the company etc. she can torture the defendant by false cases in front of already women sympathetic laws and committees.  So this Para should be deleted. The delay in filing is a relevant factor, and so saying by law that it is not a relevant factor is totally unacceptable.

Recommendations:  Delete this Line; let the committees decide if delay in filing the complaint is relevant in appreciating evidence presented.

EXACT WORDINGS OF LAW PROPOSAL SAYS:"

·        59. Delay in Filing the Complaint: - Any perceived delay in filing a complaint under this Act, by itself, shall not be a relevant factor in deciding the veracity of the complaint or in appreciating evidence presented. "

COMMENTS

The word aggrieved women is cleverly used in points where the law proposed wordings want to give special unequal powers to the complainant, and used the word complainant at other places. This deliberate use of two different words at many places in the law looks as if it is evil intentions and distortions by feminist’s drafters of law, who want wrong laws, which many think will harm everyone.  The word aggrieved women at all places in this proposal should be replaced by complainant.

The opportunity of informal intervention should be given only if both complainant and defendant want to participate in this process.  Also the person chosen should be acceptable to both parties and not just to the women as suggested; this is a basic requirement for any person doing dispute resolution in any kind of dispute. It is seen that crime against women cells and NCW are places the wife's use to polish the false allegations, this is not good for justice. We want the false complainant to do mistake, as false things can be revealed by mistakes, in front of full complaints committee, not one member chosen by the complainant.

Recommendations : Wordings should be "The Internal Complaints Committee or the Local Complaints Committee may if, and only if so requested by the aggrieved woman as well as the defendant, try to resolve the matter informally by intervening and thereby permitting the parties to resolve the matter mutually before the commencement of the formal enquiry proceedings referred to in section 49. The person to carry out the Dispute Resolution Process shall be chosen from the Internal Complaints Committee, the choice of this person should be acceptable to both the complainant and the defendant. "

EXACT WORDINGS OF LAW PROPOSAL SAYS:"

·        The Internal Complaints Committee or the Local Complaints Committee may if, and only if so requested by the aggrieved woman, try to resolve the matter informally by intervening and thereby permitting the parties to resolve the matter mutually before the commencement of the formal enquiry proceedings referred to in section 49. The person to carry out the Dispute Resolution Process shall be chosen from the Internal Complaints Committee by the aggrieved woman.

COMMENTS

It is surprising and wrong that this right to challenge any mutually agreed settlement reached is given to only the complainant and not to the defendant.   It is common experience that feminist members of national commission for women and crime against women cells give too much threats to men of torture, jail today itself, by false cases. So this right to challenge the agreement reached should not be given to women as she do not need this in these types of committees this right should be given only to the defendant men to save them from some of the feminists brainwashed committee members. 

Or better do not give this right to challenge the mutual compromise reached under this law. The person should appeal in courts after this.

Recommendations: Change to “Once a compromise has been reached, the complainant or defendant can only challenge this in higher courts and not in the complaint's committee.  "

EXACT WORDINGS OF LAW PROPOSAL SAYS:"

·        4). Notwithstanding what is stated in sub-section (2) and (3) above, the aggrieved woman shall have the right to withdraw from any Dispute Resolution process undertaken under this section, or to challenge any settlement on the ground that her consent for the settlement was obtained by force, fraud, coercion or undue influence or on the ground that the terms of settlement have been breached.

COMMENTS

The heading should be more sensitive to men rights.  It should be called

Recommendations: 50. Participation of petitioner and respondent (or Complainant and Defendant): -

EXACT WORDINGS OF LAW PROPOSAL SAYS:"

·        50. Participation of Complainant: - "

COMMENTS

The same rights should be given to the defendant

The complainant gets ample opportunity in starting, to explain the point of view in private to the committee members. The respondent should also be given this opportunity to explain his point of view in initial stages to the committee in private to give respondent a level playing field. Many times the respondent is not allowed to communicate the other point of view, in these types of committee’s as the complainant becomes hysterical on hearing the truth being told to the committee. Complainant sometimes also uses other deviation tactics by interrupting the respondent. Sometimes are proofs that the respondent may prefer to reveal to the complainant only after the complainant has made those false allegations.

Recommendations:

So line to be added is “The respondent should also be given the opportunity to explain his point of view in initial stages to the committee in private to give respondent a level playing field.”

EXACT WORDINGS OF LAW PROPOSAL SAYS:"

·        (1). Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the complainant and her representative shall have the right to remain present throughout the enquiry proceedings, to lead evidence and produce witnesses and to cross examine the defendant and any witnesses produced by him. "

COMMENTS

The law is asking the Complaints committee without detailed inquiry and without listening to the respondent’s point of view asks the employer to reframe the charge sheet made by the employer's complaints committee according to the complainant’s views. What kind of absurd law is this, which clearly looks to be made by feminazi organizations, is clearly made for injustice and harassment of innocents by encouraging false complaints? The complainant's written complaint should be attached to the charge sheet made by the employer, so that both details are available to powerful committee. It is not clear, if in case of normal complaints committee for inquiry and charge sheet, we now have sexual harassment committee, why not sexual harassment committee makes the charge sheet also.

Recommendations:

The line should be deleted. Replaced with.

51 If the complainant or respondent is not satisfied with the charge sheet made by the departmental enquire, they can give in writing or verbal their point of view about the charge sheet to the complaints committee. Better still, sexual harassment complaints committee makes the charge sheet directly, after investigations.

EXACT WORDINGS OF LAW PROPOSAL SAYS:"

·        51. Framing of Charge sheet: If a complainant feels that a charge sheet issued to a defendant pursuant to the complainant’s complaint of sexual harassment does not fully or properly deal with the allegations leveled in her complaint, she can bring the same to the notice of the Complaints Committee, which shall inform the employer of the same and request the employer to reframe the charge sheet accordingly. "

COMMENTS

 Aggrieved woman is a wrong word, even before noting the facts of the case this assumption is wrong. May be the women is trying to torture the man by false case for revenge, or for blackmailing him, for money.  The word should be complainant. 

Recommendations: Replace with: "The name of the complainant or respondent shall not be referred to in any records of proceedings, or any orders or judgments given under this act.”

OR BETER STIL, Why not think on lines, if a person is involved in a sexual harassment complaint as complainant or respondent, the name should be allowed to be put on proceedings or orders or judgments. Just as a person accused of bribe, murder etc. the names are written on court records. Why start this new LAW practice for alleged crime which is like other crimes. This will lead to increase in false cases, so more money for radical feminists.  

EXACT WORDINGS OF LAW PROPOSAL SAYS:"

·        Exact wordings of LAW proposal are : "(2). The name of the aggrieved woman shall not be referred to in any records of proceedings, or any orders or Judgments given under this Act; "

COMMENTS

We are thinking of forming a NGO , feedbak on names is welcome.

Demands more radical like, Divorce after 7 years seperation, child adoption etc. http://indiatalking.com/blog/genderjustise/5778/  Some first thoughts abut names is :Reasoning for names selection could be :

1. Too strong a name turns off masses of people , may be press also in long run. For example radical feminists use the name ( centre for social research ) .

2. Word "connect" can be used for providing a platform for sharing ideas for various social organizations , fighting for equal and reasonable rights for man and women. We can use the NGO to bring together various organization and individuals. ( e.g., 'Women power connect ' name is used by feminists organizations ) .

3. Human rights word, is directly relevant for our cause, but do masses have sympathy and interest for this word, or the name of human rights trigger feelings of a organizations that is too soft, and do not talk about practically .

Some sample names :  Social rights for man and women .                   Man women human rights.

Man women power connect .                                                Gender just LAWs .

Gender power connect . ( we good men and women are reply to feminists who talk abot one sided things, so we talk about good for society ) .

Social Servise organization.   Feedbak is appreciated.