Source: http://mencell.weebly.com/whats-new
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:44:04+00:00

Document:
MEN CELL - a society for the prevention of cruelty to husbands. - Whats new ?
MEN CELL - a society for the prevention of cruelty to husbands.
What Media says about MEN CELL & Mr.Chugh ?
Considering the nature of relationship of the appellants i.e. being sisters and brother of the husband of the deceased, the court held that the possibility of the appellants’ having been named by way of exaggeration cannot be ruled out and futher said that it is true that till such an unfortunate event takes place, the family members may not disclose the demand of dowry being a private matter and under the hope that the relationship of the couple may improve.
This article would try and explain all you need to know about filing or defending a transfer petition in the Supreme Court.
These days the dockets of the Supreme Court are flooded with transfer petitions filed by women, seeking to get husband’s petition for divorce/RCR or even child custody cases etc transferred to her home town or a state where she has taken up residence or a job. Normally a lot of leniency & consideration(sometimes undue) is shown to women while deciding transfer petitions. I can tell from experience as a Supreme Court Advocate – in 90 % of the cases the Hon’ble judges would start with a tilt in favour of women. Apparently while deciding any woman’s transfer petition – the picture of a helpless rustic uneducated/illiterate lady conjures up in their mind, much water has flown down the bridge somebody tell them !
Be that as it may, there are a couple of things that you can do, which we would be discussing in this article, to try and prevent such a transfer, or even getting a transfer for yourself.
Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 allows the Supreme Court to transfer a matter from one state to another if justice so demands. High Court is entrusted with the power in case of transfer within the state.
Section 25 is based on the ‘doctrine of forum convenience’ which means –‘the best forum’ or a forum where a fair trial can be had’. Normally there is a presumption that if a petitioner has filed a case in a court having jurisdiction – it is the best forum.
The burden is on the person seeking a transfer to prove to the court that if the proceedings are not transferred she would suffer irreparable injustice, on the merits of the case (going unrepresented in the case) and with respect to personal life (loss of job/health/safety issues), she would also have to prove that the latter is irreparable in monetary terms. Once all this is proved – she also would have to prove that you won’t suffer similar losses if the proceedings are transferred. Hence this is a double burden of proof. If she succeeds in proving this – the balance of convenience is said to lie in her favour.
Sadly courts have not been strictly insisting on the above reasonable tests, and transferring matters as a matter of course at the behest of women.
JUDGMENTS THAT CAN HELP YOU COUNTER THESE ?
Normally it is seen that a wife seeks transfer on the grounds of i) Safety & Economic Implications with traveling long distances; ii) Apprehension as to threat to life in husband’s state/unfounded allegations stating that husband or his relatives are people of influence; iii) Lack of economic means; This can be countered placing reliance on the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Priti Sharma v. Manjeet Sharma – (2005) – the court, in the case of a wife seeking transfer on the grounds of being unemployed and unable commute, categorically held “merely because petitioner is a lady does not mean she cannot travel” and the transfer petition was dismissed.
2. If the woman is able bodied/educated/working/having economic means the balance of convenience clearly does not lie in her favour, and proceedings ought not to be transferred. Furthermore what needs to be emphasised more and more is that – for example a divorce case is carried on at Bangalore, the wife takes up a job at Delhi and seeks transfer. Now if the husband and wife have lived in matrimony at Bangalore, that is the place best suited and conducive to a fair and good trial, for the simple reason that better evidence is available there. The convenience of witnesses etc. cannot be completely disregarded. This can be achieved in cases where the matter has proceeded up to the last stages, and even in new matters where a large list of witnesses is filed by the Husband.
3. In Anandita Das v. Sirjit Dey (2006) The Hon’ble Supreme Court held “At one stage the Supreme Court was showing leniency to ladies. But Since then it has been found that a large number of transfer petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency shown by the Supreme Court. On an average 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on board of each court on each admission day. It is therefore, clear that the leniency of the Supreme Court is being misused by the women. The Supreme Court is now required to consider each petition on it’s own merit. In this case no ground for transfer has been made out”. In this case a transfer was refused – even though the woman had a young child of 6 years in her custody. The Court held that grandparents are there to look after the child. The Court also held that the wife need not come all the time, and could apply for exemption and her application would be considered on merits.
This is a remarkable judgments that can help many men out there.
4. As a last ditch effort to prevent a transfer the husband can make an offer to bear IInd class AC tickets for the woman to travel and her stay expenses. This is normally considered by the court.
6. In addition to this a men should also liberally seek transfer and not concede to a transfer petition filed by wife, this way no strong judgments are able to come in favour of men. Men should, with the aid of the above case law & interpretation, fight and resist transfers and even start instituting transfer petitions especially if they have a modern/educated wife gainfully employed.
7. Men who have kids custody with them can rely on Jaishree Banarjee v. Abhirup Banarjee (1997) 11 SCC 107 to get proceedings transferred in their favour.
Some women have sought transfer of custody/guardianship petitions. These petitions are normally sought to be transferred to places where woman has taken up residence from place where the minor resides with father, Now there is a peculiar way of handing them as well, which I would discuss in my next article.
This are some judgments compiled by a 498a husband - can be relied upon to argue for a discharge in a 498a/406 matter, equally applicable to quashing of FIR/revision against summoning order.
In Krishan Jeet Singh Vs State of Haryana, II (2003) DMC 127 (P&H) it was held that“Where there is no specific allegations in complaint, charge could not be proved” also in Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF DELHI in CRL.M.C.7262/2006 on 23.02.2007 in Smt. Neera Singh Vs STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) and ORS held that “vague allegations as made in the complaint by the petitioner against every member of the family of husband cannot be accepted by any court at their face value and the allegations have to be scrutinized carefully by the Court before framing charge”.
• BECAUSE Section 482 of the Cr.PC categorically saves the inherent power of High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case it is pertinent in the ends of justice and to prevent an abuse of the process of law that the impugned FIR be quashed.
• BECAUSE the High Court is empowered to quash a criminal proceeding where it is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. The Courts are also empowered to quash in case where the allegations in the FIR even if taken at their face value do not satisfy the ingredients of offence complained therein. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 AIR 604).
Court further held “if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognisance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law”.
• Y.Abraham Ajith V. Inspector of Police [(2004) SCC (Cri.) 2134]. In this case, the Madras High Court refused to interfere under Section 482 CrPC when the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned to take cognizance of the offence was raised. This Court did not endorse the approach of the High Court for not recording the finding on the question of jurisdiction. On reading the allegations in the complaint, the Court came to the conclusion that no part of the cause of action arose in Chennai and therefore the Metropolitan Magistrate at Chennai could not have taken cognizance and issued summons. On this ground, the criminal proceedings were quashed and the complaint was directed to be returned to the respondent who was given liberty to file the same in an appropriate court. That was also a case of complaint for an offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC filed by the wife against the appellant therein.
• Delhi High Court in Niraj Trivedi v. State of Bihar [ WP’s - Crl. ] 235 & 415/04 Decided on 4.1.08, The Delhi High Court categorically held “Crime cannot be registered on the basis of residence of the complainant, or the effect of the crime…..but only at the place of crime”. Justice S.N Dhingra directed the Patna Police to transfer the FIR No. 0188/02 PS Digh, Patna, Bihar to their counterpart in Delhi. As no part of the alleged offence was committed in Patna and all allegations of atrocity were restricted to Delhi.
• Delhi High Court in Rajesh Dhingra & Ors./State of Rajasthan WP (Crl.) No.976/03 Quashed on.22.10.07 FIR No.98/2003 U/s.498 AIPC of PS. Mahila Thana, Alwar Gate Ajmer(Rajasthan). The Court held that no part of the offence as alleged in FIR registered at Police Station Ajmer had been committed within the jurisdiction of PS Mahila Thana Alwar Gate, Ajmer, Rajasthan. The wife has misused the process of law. FIR Quashed.
• Delhi High Court in Rajinder Kumar Sharma and Another vs. State and Another HON'BLE JUSTICE S.N. DHINGRA DHC - 26/02/2007 CASE NO: Crl.M.C. 1216-17 of 2006, held that the Courts have been allowing quashing of proceedings under Section 498A /406 Indian Penal Code, 1860 because in such cases the FIRs are result of matrimonial discord and more often the effort of the Court is that either the parties should settle for a compromise for living together or they should part their company peacefully, so that, there is peace and amity in the society. In cases resulting from matrimonial discord, the Court is not dealing with criminal but dealing with broken marriages and broken homes where resort is more often made to Sections 498A/406 Indian Penal Code.
• BECAUSE the present FIR has been lodged to wreak personal vendetta and as a counter blast to the divorce/RCR case filed by the husband.
Reliance is placed on the landmark decision on Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and others, JT 2005(6) 26 observed as : “The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contented by the petitioner that many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial.
• BECAUSE recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta & Anr. V. State of Jharkhand - AIR 2010 SC 3363 - their lordships Hon’ble J. DALVEER BHANDARI & K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ while directing the Law Commission to have a relook at the provisions, went on to hold : “30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.
32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.
33.…The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.
How to fight a false 498A ? A common husband’s guide.
they share the common intention with you.
mischief that may occur to you.
that would help you here.
and showing your bona fides.
liable to be prosecuted. Think on these lines !
realize that frivolous litigation doesn’t pay !
Irretrievable Breakdown as Ground for Divorce - Is it a good deal for Men ?
Act. The bill was cleared by cabinet on March 23 and, if passed by Parliament, could change divorce litigation. ‘Irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ could become a new ground for divorce, women could get matrimonial property rights and the six-month cooling period before a divorce would no longer be mandatory in cases of mutual consent.
The response to these proposed amendments has been as celebratory as condemning. In India, where the nuances of divorce depend on the social context, lawyers, counsellors and couples are fiercely divided about each clause.
To seek divorce by mutual consent, couples can file a case only after a year ofseparation, followed by a six-month cooling off time. The proposed waiver of this cooling period in the bill has evoked mixed reactions. “Some marriages are doomed from the beginning, so why should the couple wait for six months?” says Aishwarya Bhati, a lawyer from Delhi. Others believe speeding up divorces could hurt some couples. “I have seen couples reconciling during the cooling period,” says Mumbai-based lawyer Anshumol Kumar.
continue a relationship that’s dead,” says Abbas Mookhtiar, a Mumbai lawyer.
The proposition, however, faced opposition from women’s rights groups, who believed the move would allow Indian men to end marriages easily, leaving non-working women with just a meagre maintenance or alimony. To empower women in such situations, a Parliamentary standing committee recommended equal rights to matrimonial property as a counter-clause, recognising housewives as performing an important, but we have a long way to go.
NEW DELHI: Women may be able to stake claim to marital property if an amendment to matrimonial laws is accepted by the Cabinet. Among the amendments proposed by the government are allowing courts to decide on how property acquired during marriage is shared and powers to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. Also, adopted kids are likely to get the same rights as natural-born kids. The Marriage Laws (amendment) Bill, which is likely to come up before the Cabinet on Thursday, seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
The amendments are based on the recommendations of the standing committee on personnel, public grievances, law and justice. The panel had recommended that the government make provisions to ensure that courts, at the time of divorce, can decide on the share of women in the matrimonial property, to which they have contributed during the marriage.
The committee had rejected the government's proposal to remove the six-month waiting period before moving a joint motion in case of divorce by mutual consent. But giving in to concerns expressed by women's rights activists, the government has suggested that the judge will have the power to waive off the waiting period. The amendments are likely to stir a debate, with activists opposed to such powers being left to the court's discretion. Women's rights advocate and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh said, "This is less than a half measure and requires widespread discussion with women's groups."
Studies have shown that in 80% cases, women have no place to go to after divorce and live with their parents. "Women should get half or more of the share of matrimonial property because they have contributed to it. They have no resources to take care of children and the aged, and that must be kept in consideration," Singh said.
Women's activist Kalyani Menon Sen, too, expressed concern over the amendments, "There have been a large number of brilliant judgments, but there is a huge section of judiciary that can be extremely anti-women and patriarchal. We have seen some examples of appalling moral policing and we can't depend in the judiciary to be even-handed always."
WORLD-WIDE PROTEST - Against use of henious Criminal Laws in Marital Discords On 3rd Barsi of the draconian Domestic Violence Act.
On 3rd Barsi of the draconian Domestic Violence Act.
On 26/10/2009 - worldwide PROTEST/3rd Barsi of D.V. Act is being organized by the tortured husbands and their relatives, tortured, black-mailed, looted and falsely implicated in false Domestic Violence Act & anti-dowry cases all over India & abroad 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 of legal blackmailing & violative of basic human rights.
Domestic Violence Act & so called woman law's rampant misuse is admitted by responsible Judicial & Police Officials dealing with such matters & Women, recently when they found the law grossly misused & consuming the innocents.
Victims rotting/lying in jails, facing trials in courts and being tortured in their homes, in the country & throughout the world will protest against the use of heinous criminal laws in never-ending marital discords by wearing BLACK-BANDS/TURBANS/RIBBONS.
NRI Victims from USA, Canada, UK, Australia, Japan, Norway, Germany, UAE, Russia, New Zealand China, Dubai will also join the protest by observing fast on 26.10.09 and wear black band or tie on arms while going to courts and offices.
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 fear and be put behind the bars with their innocent, ailing aged parents, married, unmarried daughters and their hard earned money be looted in the name of STRIDHAN and nobody should listen to them like us till the law is amended.
Most wanted a law for the protection of rights & dignity of Married Men !!
Has your better half become the bitter half of your life? Are you a tortured husband, falsely booked into a dowry case or under domestic violence act and there is no one to pay heed to your side of the story?
In the recent years, such incidents have taken a steep rise in numbers, in every social society all over India, where Himachal Pradesh is not an exception. Many cases have been reported in different parts of Himachal also, where women have misused the dowry law, which is actually meant for their protection. But it’s an irony that the law takes into cognizance, prima facie, violence against women only, as they have got the tag of being the weaker section of the society. But what about men?
Man Cell or Patni Atyaachar Virodhi Morcha (PAVM) is an organisation working for the cause of harassed husbands. Man Cell, which was established in 1982 by R P Chugh, a Supreme Court advocate and president of Man Cell, has branches at many places all over the country. He himself has been a victim of women since his childhood and campaigns against the anti dowry legislations, specially section 498-A of IPC and the Domestic Violence Act, as he feels that these laws are biased and violate basic human right of equality before law. Man Cell believes that there is no use of making new laws as existing laws are sufficient. He feels, there is a need to amend such existing laws as they only speak of the harassment of women and not of men.
According to Chugh, Man Cell receives an average of ten calls on daily basis from across the country, where the harassed husbands can be heard literally crying and struggling with mental agony. Man Cell’s main motive is to bring to the notice of the government that how women are misusing Section 498-A of the IPC and Domestic Violence Act and how the husbands and their relatives are being implicated and blackmailed in false cases, in India, by their mischievous wives and daughter-in-laws.
Our society is conditioned to believe that a husband can never be harassed by his wife. People still find it uncomfortable to accept that a woman can harass a man. Chugh explains that the list of his clients includes officers from IAS, IPS, judiciary, businessmen and people from corporate sectors, who feel embarrassed because of their social status, as to what the people would say if they come to know that they are being harassed by their wives. Chugh says that there are several organisations working for women but there is hardly any working for men.
Chugh further adds that there are many cases where the wives are sufferers, so the Man Cell only fights genuine cases and first of all it tries to bring both parties together and sort out the problems amicably. There are women, who most of the times file cases under somebody’s influence or are misled by their parents. So every step is taken to convince them to get back on the track and compromise, as going to overburdened courts could be futile. It is not only the couple who suffer, but parents and children too have to suffer along, he adds.
"90 % women in Bihar's jails are locked up in Dowry Cases"
"99 % dowry complaints are false "
"Similar situation is throughout the country"
on 2nd barsi of the draconian DV Act.
On 26/10/2008 worldwide PROTEST/2nd Barsi of D.V. Act is being organized by the tortured husbands and their relatives, tortured, black-mailed, looted and falsely implicated in false Domestic Violence Act & anti-dowry cases all over India & abroad by their unscrupulous wives, daughters-in-laws and their greedy relatives for ulterior motives.
Domestic Violence Act & so called woman law’s rampant misuse is admitted by responsible Judicial & Police Officials dealing with such matters & Women, recently when they found the law grossly misused & consuming the innocents.
Victims rotting/lying in jails, facing trials in courts and being tortured in their homes, in the country & throughout the world will protest against the use of heinous criminal laws in never-ending marital discords by wearing BLACK-BANDS.
NRI victims from USA, Canada, UK, Australia, Japan, Norway, Germany, UAE, Russia, New Zealand will also join the protest by observing fast on 26.10.08 and wear black band or tie on arms while going to courts and offices.
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 fear and be put behind the bars with their innocent, ailing aged parents, married, unmarried daughters and their hard earned money be looted in the name of STRIDHAN and nobody should listen to them like us till the law is amended.
Most wanted a law for tortured husbands like animals. !!!
How To Quash False 498a.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 V.