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.
|
