File cases for giving dowry

In most of the 498A complaints lodged against husbands it is found that the girl's family says, " We gave X amount of dowry" added with the allegation that it was demanded. However, dowry giving is also an equal crime as per Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as much as abetting it is. Even witnesses give their statements that they saw the dowry being given.

Please remember if there is a case against you and your family for demanding and taking dowry on the basis of the statements given by complainant wife and her well-wishers, then a similar case for giving and abetting also needs to be registered against the complainant wife and her well-wishers for being parties to giving dowry and abetting its exchange.

Some key points to be noted however,

1. Filing a case for "Giving Dowry" against complainant wife and her well-wishers does not mean tacit admission of "Taking Dowry" because there is a difference between giving and taking. For taking to happen, giving is a mandatory condition but the reverse is not true. For all practical purposes the dowry could be offered by dowry givers and the people offered can reject to take it. However, in this case the crime of Dowry Giving and Abetment of Dowry giving has happened and the people involved therein need to be prosecuted for this. 

2. For the 498A cases mentioned, there is prima facie evidence available in the form of "Voluntary Confessional Admission" by the complainant wife and her well-wishers that they gave dowry.

3. Although Section 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 does provide immunity to the complainant against prosecution but remember, that the immunity is available only in that instance of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 under which case of "Dowry demand and taking" is running. This means that we cannot arraign the accused in the same case under section 319 of the CrPC. However, nothing stops the husband from filing a new case based on their confessional admission. And in that case the husband (complainant herein) shall be provided the immunity.

Keeping in mind all these points, all the husbands who are facing false allegations of dowry demand and dowry taking against them have a moral bound duty to get the Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition implemented in its entirety in letter and spirit.

So all dear husbands, rain on the system with complaints that you came to know that you have taken dowry only via the FIR on you and file cases for giving dowry to you as per their own admission. The society shall get back from husbands what it has given them.

CRISP Press Conference: Child Custody & Grand Parents

Invitation for the Press conference:

To,

Respected Sir / Madam,

Children’s Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP) would like to invite you to a press conference we are holding on 11th Dec 2008 at 12: 30 PM at the Press Club of Bangalore.

This press conference is about voicing the grievances of senior citizens as regards to their rights to spend time with their grandchildren. CRISP cordially invites you to the event and looks forward to your esteemed presence to grace the occasion.

With Best Wishes

Kumar Jahgirdar
President, Children’s Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP)

Contact Details,

Kumar - 9845264488

CRISP Site

*********
Press Release to voice the concerns of senior citizens in a child custody matter
http://legalfighter.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/press-release-to-voice-the-concerns-of-senior-citizens-in-a-child-custody-matter/

Retrospective Clause in DV - Strategy

Well guys the retrospectiveness of DV has been a controversial topic of late. And the law being silent about it, the judiciary uses it to its own whims and fancies most of the times which are biased against men. Alleged acts of violence committed prior to 26th Oct 2006, the day the devilish DV law came in effect, are made part of petition and cases are getting registered.
But retrospectiveness in law is a serious issue and allowing retrospective matters in admittance of cases can have serious implications. As technological advances follows Murphy’s rule, newer dangers are also getting exposed and newer legal provisions can also come into effect. What was legal now can be illegal later, so do we book all those persons who committed a hitherto legal, but hence illegal action deemed as offense? Rationally and logically, No.
Coming back to DV, prior to it being enacted, calling names to wives was not an offense and some husband might have called his wife with some name, either out of love and affection or in a fit of anger, which even the wife must have done. But since DV outlines it as an offense only for the husband, allowing retrospective clause in DV law, all wives can book their husbands under DV and 100 % marriages will break. So retrospective clause is not healthy from a social and a futuristic standpoint of legal consideration.
Again arguing that DV does not attract penal consequences and the same arise only when protection order is violated and that offense will not be retrospective, then it must be remembered that in first place, case should not have registered, so no protection order should have been passed. So no possibility of commission of offense if retrospective clause is not defined for DV. But since the court has allowed it, it is also an equal party to the offense and should share the penalty!!! What an absurdity?
http://judis.nic.in/chennai/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=13665
Hence taking a cue from the above judgment and using the aforesaid logic, we can develop a strong petition to challenge retrospectiveness of DV and challenge any such summons under 397 CrPC and bring the case to a halt.

Also specifically,

DV Cannot be used retrospectively

1)SLP(C) No.25219 of 2004 delivered by the Honorble Supreme Court of India where in it was held Penal Statutes (Acts) which create
new offences are always Prospective

2)1993 Crl.J 2636 delivered by Honorble Allahabad High Court where in it was held the accused was acquitted for the offences
punishable u/s 304B as the dowry death took place prior to the commencement of the act 304B.

Domestic Violence Lanmark Judgements

1) Crl.P 3714 of 2007 delivered by the Hon´ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh where in it was held "It is a fundamental principle of law that any penal provision has no retrospective operation but only prospective. There is no allegation either in the report or in the statement or in the complaint on the 1st Respondent with regards to the acts of domestic violence that took place on or after 26-10-2006.Therefor e continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of court".

2) I (2008) DMC 1 delivered by the Hon´ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that "" Complaint for this offence can only be filed against adult male person and further held in 3( C ) that as provided by sec 2(q)of the act, such application u/s 12 of the act can´t be filed against petitioner´s who are ladies ".

3) 2007(2) ALT (Crl.) 504(A.P) delivered by the Hon´ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh where in it was held "as there is no claim made against the other respondents, continuing process against them is a clear abuse of law".

4) I (2007) DMC 1 (SC) = 2007(3) ALT (Crl.) 1(SC) delivered by the Hon´ble Supreme Court of India where in it was held"claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband but not to the In-laws".

Nagpur Dharna - Memorandum cum Press Release, Covering Letter & Appeal to Govt.

Nagpur Dharna - Memorandum, Appeal, Executive Summary

Dharna news reported on Tv, interspersed with Statistics, bitter realities, Opinions and some Music for inspiring the next revolution- Gender-Mafia.... Quit India!



Dharna Coverage: Speakers, Venue, Statistics of misuse of law.


Reports, etc. regarding the very Successful and inspiring Nagpur Dharna, at: http://at498a.blogspot.com/2008/07/nagpur-dharna-for-mens-welfare-ministry.html