How to come out from the Finciancial Losses due to 498A/DV/CRPC 125?
Whenever we face any Husband who are abused and victim of Legal Terrorism by their greedy/money minded wife's family ( more than 98% Husband faced Domestic Violence at least once in 3 years more than once either verbal abuse, mental abuse, economical abuse or sexual abuse form their wife or wife's relative, result after marriage as per Crime Bure report more than 56000 husband end their life , where as married women end their life only 29000), their first concern was they are going face heavy finciancial losses in this battle and prefer to surrender in the hand of Legal terrorist, let the guy earn per month 2000/- rupees or 2, 00,000/-rupees. Some of them fear that their wife will kill them to take away their property/money also.
In this regards 3 years back I discussed the model with a lot of people in the group meeting, but no one taken the same seriously including the most active volunteer of SFF, Delhi. But today he accepts what I told them was 100% true and they paid the price for not following the same.
First think we have to accept as soon as you got a 498A type wife, they are not going to spare you and will definitely try their best possible way to harrese you by more and more cases, putting extra burden on you in terms of finciancialy.
The basic principal to come out such situation is to prepare your self to die as a Debit man rather than a Credit man.
You must well aware how indian Judges and LAW makers, Treat the Indian Husbands worse than a animale in this country , they will not show any humunity towards you , as per them , Indian Husbands are only a Free ATM machine. They will remind you the minimum wages act, but the same minimum wages act will not be applicable for wife at all.
As a caution must read :
A must to do activity : Whenever your so called wife demand and claim that she do not have any place to stay and give interim maintiance or residence etc, immediately , ask the concern auntority to Put her in "Goverment Shelter Home" , get the Booklet form the WCD ministry .
Step No.1: Review your all resources (Job/property/fixed assets/Bonds/NSC) and get as maximum as you can get the bank loan or company loan.
Step No.2: 20% of the Loan amount Put in some pension plan or in PPF account.
Step No.3: 70% of the Loan amount put in good equity mutual Funds (less than 50K in each fund), do not put in shares.
Step No.4. 10% keep in your bank to repay the loan.
As soon as the 10% going to finish, sell 10% mutual fund and be ready to repay the loan. The same should be continuing at least for 4 to 5 years.
Example : 4 years back my self taken 3 lacks personnel loan and with the same principal , after meeting all my legal as well as maintenance to wife , today after repay the all the loan, I am with a balance of 1.6 Lacks . Means, I fighted the battle with the bank loan and not spend a single penny form my own earning and able to afford to leave the job for Six months and able to dismiss her section 24 cases with a one time litigation charge of Rs.5000/- , no monthly maintenance.
My IT return shows my Income in the range of 10 to 12K and loan repayment of 5 to 6K every month.
Step No. 5: Immediately book a rented home in the range of rupees 2000 to 3000 rupees depending on your location, it should be in the range of Low income group capability (which normally in Delhi say LIG/Janta Flat )
Step No.6. Shift all your correspondence address for legal as well as Bank account, IT return, Driving license in the same address.
Step No.7. Maintain a mobile phone and keep the bill in the range of 300 to 400 rupees per month.
Along with a lawyer, do not forget to keep a Finciancial Consultant or CA to make your legal financial documents and IT returns.
Let the Legal Fight continue for rest of the 20 Years; let her go for each and every case up to supreme court. Please remember, initially her lawyer may be ready to fight the case without fees, but not too long. Do not forget that she has to look for some earning or Job and you have to behind that to get the details. She can't maintain herself without money and sit ideal in home for long. The day you she start work, your maintenance case's value reduced drastically.
If your wife earn more than 25000/- and still claim maintenance, just appeal to court that "sir, there are so many wife not getting maintenance of rupees 2000 rupees or 3000 rupees, let deduct 30% of her income and my income and help those women and their husbands, court staff's well fare for a better life."
Step No.8: Look for a Job where you can have a own personnel life instead of a Job where every day you have to get tension for 24 hours office tension.
Step No.9: Never work on Saturday and Sunday, keep those two days exclusive for those are facing the same type of problem like you. If you can't do any thing, just meet them or give some moral support. Learn to take some social responsibility.
Step No.10: Learn to die as a Debit man instead of a Credit man. Today this Legal Terrorism going on in India , as our radical women organizations taken the undue advantages and fooled the whole nation , as Indian Man always prefers to Die as a Credit Man than a debit Man.
For example : Have a look to all the Insurance Company's advertisement , except HDFC Bank, all the banks project the Man have to save the money for their women and child , even after death. They are just a Free ATM machine even after death.
So choice is with you, you want to be a Free ATM machine and promote the legal terrorism or want live a dignified live when you are alive. Let us all remember after your death you are not going to take with you your money/property with you.
Caution to radical Women organizations and LAW Makers:
Stop the Legal Terrorism by promoting Gender Biased LAW and Stop treating the Indian husbands as Free ATM Machine. First give your daughter/sister equal rights in your own home and make her established to take care herself, instead of treating the Husbands family as a Free ATM Machine.
P.S. This is a small step to reduce the Husbands suicide rate , as our own Goverment still not brother for the same, as they fell killing the Husband is called Socail service in this country and no men well fare ministry made till date. So we have to take care ourself and give our supporting hand to our fellow brothers , so that they should not end thier life after marrige, like Pushkar Singh.
No maintenance for wife who can't prove cruelty: HC-India-The ...
Publication:Times Of India Pune; Date:Apr 12, 2008;
Section:Mumbai; Page Number:13
No maintenance if wife can't prove cruelty: HC
Woman Said Husband Was Drunkard, Would Beat Her
Kartikeya | TNN
Mumbai: In a significant order, the Bombay high court has ruled that a husband need not have to pay maintenance to a wife who left her matrimonial house alleging cruelty and harassment but could not prove the same before a magistrate.
The order was passed while the high court was hearing the plea of Sanjay Bhosale (35), a ward boy at Pune's Yerawada Mental Hospital, who got married in May 1998 but his wife, Khristina, left
him within five months of marriage alleging that Bhosale was a drunkard who often beat her up and demanded gifts.
Khristina had even said that she "apprehended danger to her life" in Bhosale's house and therefore, could not live with him any longer.
Khristina had filed for separate monthly maintenance allowance of Rs 1,500 under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Her plea was first turned down by a magistrate but a sessions court
awarded her a monthly allowance of Rs 700. Bhosale took the matter to the high court and pleaded that he had not treated Khristina with cruelty and she had left him of her own will and therefore, he should not be asked to pay any maintenance to her.
Justice V.R. Kingaonkar, who heard Bhosale's plea, observed that Khristina had not produced any documents or examined any witnesses in court to support her claims that she had lodged a police
complaint against Bhosale and written to her father about the cruel treatment she was suffering at his hands.
On the other hand, Bhosale presented two neighbours in court—Shubhangi and Bashid, as defence witnesses who testified that he was "not addicted to any vice" and that they had never him quarrel with Khristina.
Bhosale also told the high court that in 2003 he was granted restitution of conjugal rights by a family court which noted that Khristina had "withdrawn from the society without any reasonable
Justice Kingaonkar after going through all the evidence considered that Khristina could have left Bhosale "under the burden of domestic chores" and the family court had also said she was "guilty of deserting Bhosale without any reasonable excuse". He observed that it was only Khristina's word that she had been treated badly by Bhosale and it could not be taken as the "gospel truth" in absence of any other evidence.
Cheating wife found guilty of abusing law to frame man
|Published: Saturday, 9 February, 2008, 08:38 AM Doha Time|
By Ashraf Padanna
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: A Kerala court has cleared a man accused of domestic violence by his estranged wife after it found that the allegations were a cover-up for the latterâ's extramarital affairs.
The court ruled that insurance company executive Honey had levelled the allegations of domestic violence against her husband Shelly after he chanced upon her illicit relationship with her boss.
Kochi additional chief judicial magistrate Cherian K Kuriakose refused to admit the case under the strict Domestic Violence Act that came into force a year ago.
The landmark domestic abuse law allows courts to punish husbands who beat, threaten or even shout at their wives or live-in partners with jail of up to a year and a fine of Rs20,000.
Honey wanted to book her partially-disabled husband under the law for physically abusing her and refusing to send her to her parental home.
Honey alleged she was insulted in public and her relatives not invited to a family function.
Honey also claimed that the villa and the car in her husband's possession were bought from her own income and that Shelly spent nothing.
Honey claimed her husband forced her to leave the house, continued to make abusive calls and spread derogatory stories.
She accused Shelly of withdrawing from a joint decision for divorce and alleged he wanted her to give up claims to the villa besides custody of their child.
However, the court concluded that Honey had made the allegations after Shelly came across messages from her boss.
A few of the messages extracted show that there was clear illicit relationship between Harikrishnan and the petitioner.The evidence discloses that this is not a case of violence against a woman but a clear case of violence against a man in the domestic relationship, for which there is no penalty, the court observed.
Quoting from the messages sent and received by Honey, the court observed that she filed the petition only to counter any criminal proceedings against her and her male friend.
The court observed that it was unfortunate that the Domestic Violence Act has not provided â€œany punishments to such intruders who mar the peaceful family life of the innocent.
The rules prevent husbands from harassing their wives for dowry payments and allow women to complain directly to judges instead of the police.
When a woman files a complaint the onus is on the man to prove his innocence.
It also ensures the woman's right to stay in the family home, regardless of whether or not she has any title in the household.
There has been criticism against the Act, which came into effect on October 26, 2006, saying it was open to manipulation as it allows for a broad definition of what constitutes abuse.
Besides physical and sexual violence, verbal and emotional abuse, such as insults or name-calling, and preventing wives from taking up a job or forcing them to leave are also covered by the law.
The Act also covers sisters, mothers, mothers-in-law or any other female relation living with the man.
O R D E R
Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all these Revisions submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the first respondent herein and he has come forward with these revisions challenging the order passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Comibatore in C.M.P.Nos.269, 270 and 271 of 2001 in M.C.No.193 of 1995 dated 28.10.2003 passing the order of arrest of the petitioner herein for the non-payment of the award of maintenance passed by the learned Special Judge, Family Court.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of maintenance was passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Coimbatore, on 22.10.1998 directing the petitioner herein to pay a maintenance of Rs.500/- each of the respondents 1 to 3 totalling to Rs.1,500/- p.m. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the order of the learned Family court Judge, the petitioner has to pay the arrears of maintenance amount from the date of petition i.e. From 25.04.1991 to till the date of order i.e. 22.10.1998. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the arrears of the maintenance amount were not paid by the petitioner herein and as a result the respondent filed the above C.M.Ps for directing the petitioner to pay the arrears and for praying for issuance of warrant of arrest as the petitioner has not paid the arrears towards the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Judge. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the learned Judge has passed a common order in all the three C.M.Ps on 28.10.2003 sentencing the petitioner to undergo 46 months simple imprisonment in C.M.P.No.269 of 2001, 12 months simple imprisonment in C.M.P.No.270 of 2001 and 9 months in C.M.P.No.271 of 2001.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that being aggrieved by the above said order of the learned Special Judge, Family Court, the petitioner has come forward with these Revisions on the ground that the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Family Court, is against law and against the specific provision under Section 125 (3) of Cr.P.C.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as far as the provision under Section 125 (3) of Cr.P.C. is concerned, the family court Judge is entitled to pass an order of sentence only one month and as such the impugned order passed by the learned Family court Judge awarding 46 months, 12 months and 9 months totalling to 67 months is liable to set aside.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.V.Parthiban, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as a matter of fact there were arrears in respect of payment of maintenance award passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Coimbatore.
6. I have carefully considered the submission of both sides and also perused the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court Judge.
7. A perusal of the impugned order disclosed that the learned Family Court Judge has passed the order of arrest and sentence in all the three C.M.Ps filed by the respondent herein sentencing the petitioner to undergo 46 months, 12 months and 9 months totalling to 67 months. It is pertinent to note Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. which reads hereunder :
125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents -
(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month's (allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be) remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made :
provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due:
provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, any may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing."
Therefore, the provision under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. contemplates that under execution of warrant of imprisonment may extend for a period of only one month. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the provision under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court SHAHADA KHATOON AND OTHERS V. AMJAD ALI AND OTHERS reported in 1999 (5) SCC 672.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in that that decision held as follows :
"The short question that arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court correctly interpreted sub-section (3) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C by directing that the Magistrate can only sentence for a period of one month or until payment, if sooner made. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the liability of the husband arising out of an order passed under Section 125 to make payment of maintenance is a continuing one and on account of non-payment there has been a breach of the order and therefore the Magistrate would be entitled to impose sentence on such a person continuing him in custody until payment is made. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. The language of sub-section (3) of Section 125 is quite clear and it circumscribes the power of the Magistrate to impose imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until the payment, if sooner made. This power of the Magistrate cannot be enlarged and therefore the only remedy would be after expiry of one month. For breach or non-compliance with the order of the Magistrate the wife can approach the Magistrate again for similar relief. By no stretch of imagination can the Magistrate be permitted to impose sentence for more than one month. In that view of the matter the High Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order and we see no infirmity in the said order to be interfered with by this Court. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed."
9. It is also seen that this Court also taken a similar view by following the above said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MAHBOOB BASHA V. NANNIMA @ HAJARA BIBI AND ANOTHER reported in 2005 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 384.
10. Therefore, in view of the above said well settled principle of law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is constrained to set aside the impugned order dated 28.10.2003 made in C.M.P.Nos.270, 271 and 269 of 2001 in M.C.No.193 of 1995 on the file of the learned Family Judge, Coimbatore, as the same is contrary to provision under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C.
11. These petitions are ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
In the worst case Just prepared for Jail Terms of One month, instead of surrender in fornt of Legal Terrorism.