alt text

Domestic Violence in India Statistics

Read More
alt text

Supreme Court says caste-free India is a mirage

alt text

Divorce can be executed only under the law by which marriage was instituted: Bombay HC

Read More
alt text

Advocate who threw ink on Sahara chief sent to Tihar jail

Read More

Grounds of dissolution or annulment of marriage under Hindu law

  • Saturday, May 23, 2015
  • Grounds of obtaining divorce and nullifying the marriage under Hindu marriage laws:

    Mutual consent:

            If the parties to marriage are living separately over a period of one year or more and they mutually agree to obtain divorce on the ground that they are not able to live together, then they may file a petition seeking divorce basing on that agreement.


          If either of the spouse is living in adultery i.e., extramarital affair, then the other party to marriage can seek divorce.It is provided under Section 13(1)(i) of Hindu Marriage Act, 

     No resumption of cohabitation:

            In case a decree is passed for judicial separation and there is no resumption of cohabitation by parties to marriage for a period of one year or more after such decree, then either the husband or the wife can file a petition seeking divorce. The relevant position is clear by Section 13(1A)(i).

    No restitution of conjugal rights:
               In case a decree is passed for restitution of conjugal rights and there is no restitution for a period of one year or more after such decree, then either the husband or wife can file a petition seeking divorce. The provision is contained under Section 13(1A)(ii).

    Failure to maintain :
             If the court has passed a decree or order against the husband awarding maintenance to wife under Section 125 CrPc 1973 or under Section 18 of HAM Act 1956, and there is no resumption of cohabitation for one year or more, then the wife can file a petition seeking divorce. This is provided under Section 13(2)(iii).

    Desertion for 2 years:

                If one party to marriage has deserted the other for a period not less than two years continuously, then the other party may file a petition seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ib).

    Conversion to other religion:
                 If any party to marriage gets converted to other religion and ceased to be a Hindu, the other party can seek divorce on that ground by virtue of section 13(1)(ii).

    Husband guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality:

               Wife may seek divorce if husband is guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality since the solemnization of marriage, under Section 13(2)(ii).

             If a party has treated the other with cruelty after solemnization of marriage, the other party can seek divorce under Section 13(1)(ia).

           Cruelty by wife: 
              Cruelty is not confined to ill treating the wife by husband, but there are also cases reported seeking divorce by husband on the grounds of cruelty by wife. Section 13(1)(ia) applies to either wife or husband. Cruelty may be either physical or mental.
    A few such instances include: Insulting husband deliberately in front of relatives, gross neglect, continuous denial of sex without reasonable cause, suicidal threats, undergoing an abortion against husband's will without reasonable cause, allegations attributing illicit affairs to husband, false allegations of cruelty against husband etc.

             Under Section 13(1)(iv), incurable form of virulent leprosy is a ground of divorce.

     Husband marrying another woman:

               If the husband has already have a living wife or if he marries another woman after the solemnization of marriage, the wife may seek divorce on that ground. The relevant provision is contained under Section 13(2(i).

     In case of child marriage:

              If the wife is under the age of fifteen at the time of solemnization of marriage, she may repudiate her marriage after attaining fifteen years but before she attain eighteen years. She may file a petition seeking divorce under that ground. This position is clear by Section 13(2)(iv).

    Renounced the world:

               If any party to marriage has renounced the world by entering any religious order, the other party may seek divorce under Section 13(1)(vi).

     Suffering from venereal disease:

                 If a party to marriage has been suffering from a venereal disease of communicable form, the other party may seek divorce under Section 13(1)(v).

    Spouse not heard of alive in 7 years:
              If any party to marriage has not been heard of to be alive for 7 years or more, the other party may seek divorce under Section 13(1)(vii).

              Any party to marriage may file a petition seeking the marriage to be annulled under Section12(1)(a), on the ground of non-consummation of marriage owing to impotence of the other party.

     Mental disorder:

               If a party is suffering continuously or intermittently from any mental disorder including schizophrenia to an extent of which the other party cannot be reasonably expected to live with him/her, then such other party can seek divorce by virtue of Section 13(1)(iii).

    No valid consent:
                If any of the party to marriage is insane at the time of marriage and is not capable of giving valid consent, 
    or though he/she is capable of giving valid consent but suffering from mental disorder to such an extent that he/she is not fit for marriage or for procreation of children or he/she is subject to recurrent attacks of insanity, 
                 then the marriage may be annulled by virtue of Section 12(1)(b).

    Consent obtained by force or fraud:

              If the consent of bride or groom or their guardians have been obtained by force or fraud, it is at the option of such consenting party to file a petition under Section 12(1)(c) for the annulment of marriage.

    Bride pregnant by other man:
                If the wife is found to be pregnant by other man at the time of marriage, the husband may seek the annulment of the marriage as soon as he discovered the fact.


    MACT Grants Compensation of Rs 8.25 Lakh to Woman

  • Wednesday, September 17, 2014
  • THANE: The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) Thane has granted a compensation of Rs 8.25 lakh to a woman in a 2010 case of accidental death of her son.        

    Judge of Session court S Y Kulkarni and MACT member in their judgement delivered recently directed the owner of the bus Javed Khan I Siddiqui and the insurance company Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd to jointly pay compensation amount to the claimant Sunita G Sonawane (40) of Aktoli village in Bhiwandi taluka of Thane.    

    In her claim, Sunita told the court that her son was working as a mason with a Bhiwandi-based contractor and lost his life in a road accident.

    She further said in her submission to the court that her son was travelling to Mumbai in a luxury bus which met with an accident and he died.        

    The woman claimed that the accident occurred due to rash driving and was a negligence on the part of the driver and made a claim of Rs 5 lakh.        

    A case was registered by the Kankavli Police Station against the driver of the bus.      

    The judge in his order stated that, based on the deceased's monthly income, the total loss of dependency to the applicant was worked out to the extent of Rs 8.10 lakh, while an additional of Rs 15,000 was granted towards other expenses.

    Source: Indian Express

    App helping men accused with false rape cases receives huge response

  • Five months ago, Save India Family Foundation NGO launched a mobile app called SIF for the protection of men’s rights. The app is aimed at helping men slapped with false rape cases and domestic violence accuses with the dedicated helpline number ’08882498498′

    The app has received a huge response over a very short period of time. The app received 25,000 calls in the last four-five months, with an average 165 calls every day. Out of those 165 calls, 87 calls are unique callers, reported the NGO.

    The NGO, whose Kolkata chapter is known as Hridaya-Nest, developed the mobile application keeping in mind a growing tribe of males who are becoming victims of the alleged misuse of Section 498a of the IPC and anti-rape laws. ‘The response is huge. The app has received near about 5,000 downloads over the last four months,’ Amit Gupta of Hridaya-Nest said.

    The APP offer details of 50 NGOs in 50 cities in 25 states where people could personally seek legal counselling and support. The helpline which was initially launched in 10 states including MP, Delhi NCR, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Haryana and other states, has been extended to five more states.

    ‘Each state has five counsellors at an average. The highest number of calls have been received from Madhya Pradesh with 31 per cent calls,’ Gupta said and claimed that they had received calls and responses from even foreign countries such as Singapore, UK, Japan and USA.

    Among the cities, the maximum number of calls, 23 per cent of all, have been received from Delhi, while the lowest, one per cent, have been received from Vizag. Gupta said that the NGO has a plan to take it to all cities and towns in India after an increasing number of males became victims of ‘gender biased laws’.

    ‘According to a survey done by us last year, every nine minutes a married man commits suicide in India due to alleged misuse of section 498a of IPC against them, taking the toll to around a whopping 64,000 every year,’ said Gupta.

    Source: PTI

    UIDAI: Aadhaar card to Lord Hanuman a rare mistake

  • Tuesday, September 16, 2014
  • Claims 99.9% accuracy rate, says this incident makes up less than 0.1% of cases which slip through system

    Following reports that an Aadhaar card was issued in the name of Hindu deity Hanuman in Sikar, Rajasthan, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has termed the incident an “exceptional case”.

    Vijay Madan, director general, UIDAI, said the agency’s enrollment process was robust. “We have an accuracy rate of 99.9 per cent, and this incident accounts for less than .1 per cent of the cases which slip through the system.” Since the population is so huge, when the absolute number of such cases adds up, it seems huge, Madan said. It was reported this week that an Aadhaar card has been issued in the name of Lord Hanuman. The card, with number 2094705195411, bears a picture of the Hindu god, and mentions him as the son of ‘Pawan’, besides giving a mobile number and a thumbprint. Since the postman was unable to deliver the card, which was dispatched from Bangalore on September 6, it will be returned.

    “This is an exceptional case and it can happen again since UIDAI follows a technological process, and sometime such rare and exceptional cases slip through it,” said Madan. He said even if such cases take place, the processes built by the agency soon catch up and clean the system of the data. “This is not a security issue, since the operator was involved in a malpractice, which slipped through the technology.”

    Madan said the agency had a set some rules to deal with such cases, which includes blacklisting the agency or registration of a criminal case if the mistake was found to be intentional.

    The agency involved in the incident has been removed, said another UIDAI official. The enrolment process of the agency has come under fire several times for being lax, especially from the home ministry. Three years ago, around 30,000 fake identities were created in Hyderabad. However, UIDAI has maintained that such instances are rare and it has deployed measures that continuously clean its databases of fakes and duplicates.


    Corporate affairs ministry indicts Saradha for serious legal violations

  • KOLKATA: Trinamool Congress's plan to hit the roads from September 19-22 to protest the Supreme Court-mandated CBI probe in the Saradha scam got a jolt on Monday when the Centre made public a fraud investigation report, pointing out that the MamataBanerjee government could have done a lot more to plug the Ponzi mess.

    These Ponzi companies violated the Companies Act, Sebi Act, and several provisions of Indian Penal Code, the corporate affairs ministry said in a statement on Monday.

    "Several instances of violation of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, have also been found. As prosecution under this law has to initiated by state governments, the report along with evidence is being shared with CBI," it said.

    While the state-controlled SIT submitted chargesheets only under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant), 420 (cheating) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) IPC, the probe by Serious Fraud Investigation Office found violations under IPC 107 (abetment of crime), 403 (dishonest misappropriation of property), 415 (cheating), 418 (cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss will be caused), 419 (impersonation) and 477A (falsification of accounts), apart from those mentioned by SIT, the ministry's statement said.

    The ministry said the companies that have violated Sebi regulations for "collective investment schemes" will be prosecuted under Sebi Act instead of Companies Act, because it carries longer terms of imprisonment. State governments will have to initiate prosecution under Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act. "The companies, their promoters, directors and managerial personnel have been found guilty on many counts of various provisions of the Companies Act... dealing with illegal collection of deposits and false statements, etc," it said.

    The state SIT had let its probe slip in a maze of FIRs and chargesheets, unable to track down the labyrinthine transactions of the Saradha Group. In fact, this was one of the factors why Supreme Court handed over the Saradha probe to CBI on May 9. It had asked the state for a sample chargesheet.

    "We directed the state to file a sample copy of the chargesheets said to have been submitted before the jurisdictional courts. A perusal of the copies shows that they relate only to individual deposits, leaving untouched the larger conspiracy angle that needs to be addressed," Justice T S Thakur and Justice C Nagappan had mentioned in their judgment.

    Worse still, it was also a Trinamool led, which had told the SC that a larger conspiracy angle is being investigated in case No.102 registered in Bidhannagar Police Station (North) on May 6, 2013 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B IPC submitting it a list of people the SIT wanted to question.

    The SC observed, "A perusal of the synopsis furnished and the names included in the list makes it abundantly clear to us that several important individuals wielding considerable influence within the system at the state and the national level have been identified by the investigating agency for interrogation."

    Trinamool national secretary Mukul Roy questioned, "Is Saradha Mamata Banerjee's crime? No. If Mamata Banerjee had not tried to curb Sudipta Sen then would he have been arrested?" Roy alleged that since Independence, CBI has always been used for political gains by the Centre. He said that since CBI is investigating the matter it will have to ensure return of money to the depositors. "You (CBI) will have to tell us as to how you will return the money," Roy said. The SC ruling hasn't left the state-appointed Shyamal Sen Commission in any fretters. The Commission has been paying back depositors from a Rs 500-crore fund provided by the state. "Transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in terms of this order shall not, however, affect the proceedings pending before the Commissions of Enquiry established by the State Government or stall any action that is legally permissible for recovery of the amount for payment to the depositors," the order clearly said.

    Source: TOI

    Germany Just Asked Google To Do The Impossible: Reveal Its Secret Search Algorithm

  • German justice minister Heiko Maas is calling on Google to become more transparent by disclosing exactly how it ranks search results.
    This, of course, will simply never happen. The algorithm is the heart of Google, the source of all its wealth and power as the planet's best index of knowledge. Google is just never going to give that up. CEO Larry Page will fight to the death

    Nonetheless, in an interview with the Financial Times, Maas explains that Germany is unhappy with the search engine giant's actions in Europe, and wants it to reveal the details of its search algorithm in the interests of consumer protection.

    Google Search remains the most important part of Google's business, with advertising on the platform forming the majority of its $60 billion in annual revenue. But now, Germany's government has escalated its antitrust case against the company by requesting that Google publishes how websites are ranked on Google Search.

    Google has apparently pushed back against the request, claiming that publishing the search engine algorithm would mean revealing its business secrets and opening up the service to exploitation by spammers.

    The European Union has been working for four years to try and break up Google's dominance over web search in Europe. As the Wall Street Journal reports, Google handles over 90% of web searches in Europe, a larger percentage than its 68% share of the American search market. The EU has continually pushed Google to make concessions in the way it displays search results, the most notable of which is the "right to be forgotten" law that means private individuals in the EU can force Google to de-list web pages about them. Last week the EU rejected a proposed compromise from Google, meaning that the company could still face a $6 billion fine.

    Source: Business Insider

    Competition panel fines 14 car makers Rs2,554 crore

  • Car makers denied access to branded spare parts and diagnostic tools to independent repairers, says the panel

    New Delhi: Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, the nation’s biggest car maker, and 13 other car makers were fined Rs.2,554 crore by the antitrust regulator for failing to sell spare parts in the open market, violating competition law. The other companies on which penalties have been imposed include Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd, Tata Motors Ltd, Toyota Motor Co., Honda Motor Co., Volkswagen, Fiat, Ford Motor India Pvt. Ltd, General Motors, Nissan, Hindustan Motors, Mercedes and Skoda. Car companies denied access to branded spare parts and diagnostic tools to independent repairers, hampering their ability to repair and maintain certain car models, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) said in a statement on Monday.

    The monopolistic control over the spare parts and diagnostic tools markets allowed these companies to charge arbitrary and high prices, it said. “The commission found that the conduct of the car companies was in violation of the provisions of section 3(4) of the Act with respect to its agreements with local original equipment suppliers (OESs) and agreements with authorized dealers whereby it imposed absolute restrictive covenants and completely foreclosed the after-market for supply of spare parts and other diagnostic tools,” CCI said in the statement. The competition regulator has directed the car companies to “cease and desist from indulging in conduct which has been found to be in contravention of the provisions of the Act”.

    The Competition Commission of India found that the said companies, who were found to be dominance in the aftermarkets for their respective brands, abused their dominant position under section 4 of the Act and affected around 2 crore car

    The car companies were also directed by the commission to put in place an effective system to make the spare parts and diagnostic tools easily available in the open market for customers and independent repairers. It also asked the car companies not to put any other restrictions on the operation of independent repairers.

     Tata Motors was fined Rs.1,346.46 crore, the highest, followed by Maruti Suzuki at Rs.471.14 crore and Mahindra and Mahindra at Rs.292.25 crore. Toyota Kirloskar Motors will have to pay Rs.93.38 crore, General Motors Rs.84.58 crore; Honda Rs.78.47 crore, Skoda Auto India Rs.46.39 crore, Ford India Rs.39.78 crore, Fiat India Automobiles Ltd Rs.29.98 crore, Mercedes-Benz- Rs.23.08 crore, BMW India Ltd Rs.20.41 crore, Hindustan Motors Rs.13.85 crore, Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd Rs.3.25 crore and Nissan Motors Rs.1.63 crore.

    A Tata Motors spokeswoman said she did not have any official information until late Monday evening. Hyundai, Honda and Ford, too, declined to comment immediately. The regulator’s investigation into the practices of the car makers followed a complaint by Shamsher Kataria, who had complained that car makers were following anti-competitive practices by restricting the sale of spare parts. Kataria had filed the complaint in January 2011 against Honda Cars India Ltd, Volkswagen India and Fiat India Automobiles Ltd In April 2011, CCI extended its probe to other manufacturers when it found others following similar practices. Hyundai had obtained a stay order from the Madras high court against CCI’s proceedings in February 2013. The company argued CCI had, on its own, expanded the scope of its investigation to cover the entire car industry even though it had originally received a complaint only against the three car makers.

    The commission had investigated 17 companies in the case. The three that were not immediately fined are: Premier Ltd, Mahindra Reva Electric Car Co. and Hyundai Motor India Ltd. The commission however said that a separate order shall be passed with respect to them “after affording them reasonable opportunity to make their submissions in respect of the findings.” On 8 July, Business Standard newspaper reported that the Madras high court dismissed petitions of Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd and Hyundai Motor India against the decision of CCI to initiate investigation against all car manufacturers. On 13 August, Mint had reported that some of the companies being probed had begun selling spare parts over the counter, even as the CCI probe was on. These included Ford Motor India, Hyundai Motor India and Tata Motors.

    Source: Live Mint


    Human trafficking: Delhi High Court refuses to quash trial against former IFS officer

  • Sunday, September 14, 2014
  • New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has refused to drop criminal proceedings in a trial court against a former IFS officer in a case of alleged corruption and trafficking of 8 people to Germany in 2005, saying it would be inappropriate to quash the trial in the midway for want of valid sanction.
    The high court said that the issue of validity of the sanction to prosecute accused Rakesh Kumar, former Director General (DG) of Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR), would be decided by the trial court.

    Justice VP Vaish passed the order while referring to a Supreme Court decision in a similar matter in which it was held that "interdicting" a criminal proceeding mid-course on ground of invalidity of the sanction order will not be appropriate unless the court can also reach the conclusion that failure of justice had been occasioned.

    Human trafficking: Delhi High Court refuses to quash trial against former IFS officer
    Image Courtesy:
    The high court said that the issue of validity of the sanction to prosecute accused Rakesh Kumar, former Director General (DG) of Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR), would be decided by the trial court.

    The apex court has also held that failure of justice can be established not at the stage of framing of charge but only after the trial has commenced and evidence has been led, the high noted in its 9-page order.
    The high court directed the lower court to expedite the trial which has been pending since 2006.
    "It is a settled law that any error, omission or irregularity in the grant of sanction will not affect any finding, sentence or order passed by a competent court unless in the opinion of the court a failure of justice has been occasioned.
    "In view of the dictum of the Supreme Court of India in Rajmangal Ram's case, this Court is of the view that it is not appropriate to quash proceedings on the ground of invalidity of the sanction during mid-course of the trial proceedings.
    The same will be considered by the trial court after the evidence is adduced by both the parties," the court said.
    Kumar had challenged the trial court's January 2013 order dismissing his plea against the sanction order to prosecute him.

    Source: IBN Live

    Be Cautious While Translating Statutes, Lower Courts Told

  • BANGALORE: The High Court has asked the lower judiciary to be cautious while interpreting and translating statutes from English to Kannada as there is no official translation available.

    Justice Anand Byrareddy was hearing an appeal filed by M/S Alhind Tours and Travels against the order of the magistrate on dismissing a complaint and acquitting the accused company Taha International.

    The magistrate court had passed the order in Kannada. Provisions of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881, the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) were translated to Kannada. The court found that the translation also reflected the personal views of the judge at some point.

    Hence, Justice Byrareddy observed that caution would have to be exercised while  interpreting the provisions of law or in addressing the nuances of the involved principles of law and pronouncing the same in Kannada, which may not be accurately reflected.

    He observed that the court was fully conscious of the need to employ Kannada at all levels. The trial court may keep in view that there is no official translation in Kannada of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, CrPC, 1973 or any other Central Act, let alone the oceanic body of case law. “The higher courts may not be able to appreciate the correctness or otherwise of the views and opinions so expressed, which incidentally would be a seminal and personal view of the trial court judge, in Kannada, especially if the judges of the higher court are not as well versed as the trial court judge in the nascent and laboured legalese, in Kannada,” he added.

    Courtesy : Indian Express

    Delhi court acquits man charged with raping five-yr-old girl

  • New Delhi: A Delhi court has acquitted a man of the charge of raping a five-year-old girl after the child retracted from her statement.

    Additional sessions judge Rajneesh Kumar Gupta freed the man, a resident of Ranjeet Nagar here, saying there was no evidence against him and the victim child deposed in the court that he did not do anything wrong with her.

    "From the evidence on record, no substantive evidence has been come on record to prove that the accused has inserted a stick in the private part of the prosecutrix (child).

    "Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused and the accused is acquitted of the charge," the court said while absolving the man of the charge of rape and aggravated sexual assault.

    According to the prosecution, an FIR was lodged against the man in May last year regarding rape of the minor.

    The complaint was made by the girl's mother alleging that when she had gone for work, the accused, who was known to them, took her daughter to his house on the pretext of giving her food and raped her by inserting a stick in her private part.

    The woman came to know about this when she returned home and the child complaint of pain, the police said, adding that the man was arrested.

    The child changed her statement in the court and deposed that the man had called her to his house to have some rice and at that time he was sweeping the floor with a broom. She said accidentally a broom stick struck her private part.

    During the trial, the man claimed innocence and denied the allegation levelled against him.

    The court acquitted the man, saying no such material has come on record which would support the case of prosecution.

    It said the girl's statement recorded before a magistrate was a corroborative piece of evidence and the conviction cannot be based on the statement alone, unless there was a substantive evidence on record to prove the case.